نویسنده: post bot

  • UC has $32 billion in assets targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters, but no plans to divest

    UC has $32 billion in assets targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters, but no plans to divest


    Hundreds of San Diego State students protest in support of Palestinians on April 30, 2024.

    Credit: Jazlyn Dieguez / EdSource

    The University of California disclosed Tuesday that it has $32 billion invested in assets that pro-Palestinian protesters demand the university divest, including weapons manufacturers that sell to Israel.

    The university, however, has no plans to sell off those assets, despite the recent protests and encampments across the UC system, a spokesperson reiterated Tuesday.

    The system’s chief investment officer, Jagdeep Singh Bachher, outlined the investments during a meeting Tuesday of the investments committee for UC’s board of regents. Bachher’s list responded to specific demands from the protesters and included broader investments in U.S. Treasuries, which he added in response to the request that UC divest from assets that support Israel. “The answer to that question is the U.S. government,” he said, referring to the aid and weapons that the government sends to Israel. 

    The full list of investments include:

    • $3.3 billion in weapons manufacturers
    • $12 billion in U.S. Treasuries 
    • $163 million in BlackRock, an asset manager that owns shares of companies that support Israel
    • $2.1 billion in investments managed for UC by BlackRock
    • $8.6 billion in the investment firm Blackstone, also targeted by protesters
    • $3.2 billion in 24 other companies targeted by protesters, including Coca-Cola and Disney

    “So if I interpret the questions and the responses mathematically with numbers, the letter sent to us would suggest that we should sell $32 billion of assets out of the $175 billion,” Bachher said, referring to the system’s entire investment portfolio.

    The investments committee took no action toward divestment Tuesday, nor did it suggest they were considering doing so. 

    When reached Tuesday, a spokesperson for the system also said UC stands behind its April 26 statement opposing the idea of divestment.

    “The University of California has consistently opposed calls for boycott against and divestment from Israel,” UC said at the time. “While the University affirms the right of our community members to express diverse viewpoints, a boycott of this sort impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses.”

    Demands for UC and other universities to divest from Israel have heightened in recent weeks as pro-Palestinian encampments and protests have swept the country since last month, including at UCLA and other UC campuses. 

    Driving the encampments are calls for divestment from companies doing significant business with Israel. The protesters see universities as complicit in Israel’s war in Gaza. More than 35,000 people have been killed in Gaza, including many women and children, according to health authorities. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza followed the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed about 1,200 people.

    Tuesday’s financial disclosures followed a lengthy public comment period in which many commenters called on UC to divest.

    “I wanted to emphasize my support for the Palestinian encampment students and faculty and to strongly support their call for divestment from all investments in the military industrial complex,” said Darlene Lee, a faculty member in UCLA’s teacher education program and a UCLA alum. “Educational funds should go towards education and community and not war.”

    Calls for UC to divest are likely to continue Wednesday, when the regents will convene for the second of their three-day meeting at UC Merced. Ahead of the regents meeting, protesters at UC Merced set up a pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus, making Merced the latest of UC’s 10 campuses to establish such an encampment.

    In a statement posted on Instagram, organizers of the encampment wrote that they are demanding UC to divest, call for a ceasefire in Gaza and end ties with Israel, including study-abroad programs.

    “The UC regents are meeting on our campus. … They will hear us!,” the organizers wrote.





    Source link

  • Getting California kids to read: What will it take?

    Getting California kids to read: What will it take?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xd4Alvvblo

    Leading literacy experts agreed that more young California students need to learn how to read, but they couldn’t reach a concensus on how to make it happen.

    While several participants in EdSource’s May 14 Roundtable discussion, “Getting California Kids to Read: What Will It Take?” suggested they would work together to pass a literacy bill, they also acknowledged that their disagreements remain in the details.

    Moderated by EdSource reporters John Fensterwald and Zaidee Stavely, the lively hourlong roundtable focused on how to achieve literacy for California children. The panel grappled with a myriad of thorny issues including state policy dynamics, the needs of dual-language learners and long-standing disagreements over how best to teach reading amid rising illiteracy rates. 

    Putting the needs of children and their teachers first should be the North Star when trying to solve the deepening literacy crisis, panelists agreed.

    The bottom line is grim. In 2023, just 43% of California students were reading at grade level by third grade, state data shows. Worse still, far fewer Black and Latino students met that standard.  

    “This is also a matter of civil rights,” said Kareem Weaver, an NAACP activist, co-founder of the literacy advocacy group FULCRUM and a key figure in the “The Right to Read” documentary, who has long argued that literacy is a matter of social justice too often obscured by esoteric debates about pedagogy. “Kids need access to prepared teachers, and communities like ours, I feel like we’re bearing the brunt.”

    Against the backdrop of an ongoing battle over state policy and crippling pandemic learning loss, the stakes are perilously high for children who graduate from high school unable to read. They struggle to navigate the world, from job applications to rental agreements, and studies point to the connection between illiteracy and incarceration

    “We’re counting on reasonable people to come together and figure this stuff out,” said Weaver. “These decisions that are made, they do fall on real kids, real communities.”

    What will it take to make sure that all kids, including English learners, read by third grade?

    While the state has taken some steps to get all kids to grade level, such as funding for tutors and testing students for dyslexia, a reading disability, there is no comprehensive plan. Given local control policies, districts decide how reading is taught, and many use methods that have been debunked by some experts. That’s a problem because consensus is key to reform, experts say. 

    “You want to make sure that whether you’re in the district office or you are a teacher in the classroom, you’re singing the same song,” said Penny Schwinn, former Tennessee education commissioner, who led that state’s renowned reading reform initiative, Reading 360. “The curricular materials are aligned, the professional development is aligned. All of that has to row in the same direction. Otherwise, you have people who are all doing different things in different ways and kids get confused.”

    What’s standing in the way of systemic change in California? One key question underpinning this debate is whether a statewide approach can meet the needs of English learners.

    “I do have to say that many times students and biliteracy programs are not included in the literacy conversation,” said Martha Hernández, executive director of Californians Together, an advocacy group. “Our literacy policy must have a focus on student-responsive teaching. I will say that multi-literacy is really the way of the future, particularly for our diverse state in this 21st century. It must be a cornerstone of literacy, biliteracy education policy in California.”

    Another key obstacle is the resistance to any top-down mandate that the state imposes on schools. 

    “When you do not have educators at the center of this, along with parents and students, it is set up to fail,” said David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “Frankly, going and passing legislation that reinforces a top-down approach, it’s antithetical to what all of our goals are about: really having all students succeed.”

    In hopes of giving the state a comprehensive plan focusing on phonics and other skills like vocabulary and reading comprehension, supporters backed Assembly Bill 2222 authored by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park. It also had the support of the California State PTA, state NAACP and more than 50 other organizations. But the bill died last month in committee before it could even get a hearing, succumbing to opposition from the state teachers union and English language advocates.

    Getting a literacy bill passed, as hard as that may be, is just the beginning, experts warn.

    “That is the easiest part of the process,” said Schwinn. “You can pass legislation, but implementation is the hardest thing you’ll ever do, because you have to win hearts and minds and you have to make sure you do it with respect and make sure you are operating with extreme dignity and professionalism and with a high quality bar for the people who are in the profession every day.”

    In a state as big and diverse as California, consensus can be elusive, noted Claude Goldenberg, emeritus professor of education in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. While almost everyone agrees that literacy instruction should be culturally relevant and content-rich as well as foundational, there remain disagreements about what exactly that looks like in the classroom. 

    “One of the big problems is when we speak at this level, there’s a lot of agreement,” said Goldenberg, “but we know the devil is in the details. … Time is limited in schools. Six hours tops, maybe six and a half, maybe five and a quarter. … We’ve got to make some choices and we’ve got to make some priorities at different stages of reading development. And that’s where the conversation kind of breaks down, because it gets very weedy, it gets very difficult. … We end up looking like we agree, but the subtext here is we’re still disagreeing.”

    One of the big hurdles is over whether the state should embrace what is known as the science of reading, which refers to research on how the brain learns how to read. In response to a question from moderator Fensterwald on what is irrefutable about that research, Goldenberg said there was no doubt about how children need to be taught how to read.

    “We have research on what to do when kids are having difficulty getting traction in beginning reading, whether they’re in Spanish reading programs or in English reading programs as English language learners,” said Goldenberg. “We know that there’s a reason they’re called foundational literacy skills. Because if you don’t have these skills, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to become literate.”

    While she agreed on many broad themes, Hernandez pointed out that children have differing needs. 

    “Of course, you know, science is never settled,” said Hernandez. “What works for one student may not work for another.”

    As the president of the state’s largest teachers union, Goldberg, for his part, noted that any approach that does not center the expertise of teachers is likely to be a non-starter. Teachers must have a seat at the table, he argued.

    “We have had decades of disinvestment in public education,” said Goldberg. “So when we hear educators, when our voice is constantly not listened to … when educators do not feel like their agency is respected, like the fact that we are educating many kids with diverse language needs, all kinds of issues, not the flavor of the month … it has to have deep engagement at the very base level to get educators to buy in.” 

    He is also concerned that the voices of students of color will be overlooked in the debate.

    “As a bilingual educator, how it comes across is that bilingual students, students of color in particular, their needs are always being pushed into silence,” said Goldberg.  “And so I hear what you’re saying, but if these programs have any legitimacy, they must put the needs of the most vulnerable people at the center.”  

    Megan Potente, co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia CA, an advocacy group, suggested that a statewide literacy initiative could be more akin to guardrails than a mandate. Certainly, many other states, including those with substantial bilingual populations, from Florida and Mississippi to Tennessee, have already launched comprehensive state policy reforms to change the way reading is taught, with impressive results. 

    “It’s not about one-size-fits-all because, just like in other states, there would be many choices of reading professional development and instructional programs,” said Potente. “And the choices would be vetted by state experts to ensure that they provide what California kids need to learn.”

    She argues that it’s actually the most vulnerable kids who may have the most to gain from a comprehensive literacy plan. Her organization fought long and hard for dyslexia screening legislation, for example, that only recently passed.

    “It took eight years and four bills to make it happen. We are in this for the long haul because we know that matters,” said Potente, a veteran teacher and the mother of a dyslexic child.  “We talk about structured literacy a lot. … It really needs to be the standard of care. Non-negotiable. Why is it not? That’s really what sticks with me. Why is it so hard to find access to evidence-based instruction that works for all kids? Why?” 





    Source link

  • Peter Greene: The Perverse Incentives of School Choice

    Peter Greene: The Perverse Incentives of School Choice


    Peter Greene nails one of the many flaws of school choice. The choice movement hurtles forward despite its record of failure to fulfill any of its promises but one: It provides choice. Not necessarily good choice or better choice. Just choice.

    Greene writes:

    When researcher Josh Cowen is talking about the negative effects of school vouchers on education, he often points at “subprime” private schools— schools opened in strip malls or church basements or some other piece of cheap real estate and operated by people who are either fraudsters or incompetents or both.

    This is a feature, not a bug. Because as much as choice advocates tout the awesomeness of competition, the taxpayer-funded free market choice system that we’ve been saddled with has built in perverse incentives that guarantee competition will be focused on the wrong things.

    The free market does not foster superior quality; the free market fosters superior marketing. Now, the marketing can be based on superior quality, but sometimes it’s just easier to go another way.

    The thing about voucher schools is that quality is not what makes them money. What makes them money is signing people up.

    That’s it. Voucher school operators don’t have to run a good school; they just have to sell the seats. Once the student is signed up and their voucher dollars are in the bank, the important part of the transaction is over. There is no incentive for the school to spend a pile of money on doing a good job; all the incentive is for the school to come up with a good marketing plan.

    Betsy DeVos liked to compare the free market for schools with a row of food trucks, which was wrong for a host of reasons, but one was the market speed. Buy lunch at a food truck, and you become part of the marketing very quickly. Within minutes, you are either a satisfied customer telling your friends to eat there, or warning everyone to stay away. Reputations are built quickly.

    But for schools, the creation of a reputation for quality takes a long time, time measured in years. The most stable part of the voucher school market is schools that already have their reputation in place from years of operation. But if you are a start-up, you need to get that money for those seats right now. If you are a struggling crappy private school with a not-so-great reputation, you don’t have time to turn that around; you’ve got to up your marketing game right now.

    So the focus (and investment) goes toward marketing and enrollment.

    Won’t your poor performance catch up with you? Maybe, but the market turns over yearly, as students age out and age in to school. And you don’t have to capture much of it. If you are in an urban center with 100,000 students and your school just needs to fill 100 seats, disgruntled former families won’t hurt you much– just get out there and pitch to the other 99,900 students. And if you do go under, well, you made a nice chunk of money for a few years, and now you can move on to your next grift.

    This is also why the “better” private schools remain unavailable to most families holding a voucher. If a reputation for quality is your main selling point, you can’t afford to let in students who might hurt that record of success.

    Meanwhile, talk to teachers at some of the less-glowing private and charter schools about the amount of pressure they get to make the student numbers look good.

    Because of the way incentives are structured, the business of a voucher school is not education. The business of the voucher school is to sell seats, and the education side of the business exists only to help sell seats. Our version of a free market system guarantees that the schools will operate backwards, an enrollment sales business with classrooms set up with a primary purpose of supporting the sales department, instead of vice versa.

    Charter schools? The same problem, but add one other source of revenue– government grants. Under Trump, the feds will offer up a half a billion dollars to anyone who wants to get into the charter biz, and we already know that historically one dollar out of every four will go to fraud or waste, including charter businesses that will collect a ton of taxpayer money and never even open.

    “Yeah, well,” say the haters. “Isn’t that also true for public schools”

    No, it is not. Here’s why. Public schools are not businesses. They are service providers, not commodity vendors. Like the post office, like health care in civilized countries, like snow plows, like (once upon a time) journalism, their job is to provide a necessary service to the citizens of this country. Their job should be not to compete, but to serve, for the reasons laid out here.

    And this week-ass excuse for accountability– if you do a bad enough job, maybe it will make it harder for your marketing department– has been sold as the only accountability that school choice needs.

    School choice, because its perverse incentives favor selling seats over educating students, is ripe for enshittification, Cory Doctorow’s name for the process by which operators make products deliberately worse in order to make them more profitable. The “product” doesn’t have to be good– just good enough not to mess up the sales. And with no meaningful oversight to determine where the “good enough” line should be drawn, subprime voucher and charter schools are free to see just how close to the bottom they can get. It is far too easy to transform into a backwards business, which is why it should not be a business at all.

    If your foundational belief is that nobody ever does anything unless they can profit from it (and therefor everything must be run “like a business”) then we are in “I don’t know how to explain that you should care about other people” territory, and I’m not sure what to tell you. What is the incentive to work in a public education system? That’s a whole other post, but I would point to Daniel Pink’s theory of motivation– autonomy, mastery and purpose. Particular a purpose that is one centered on making life better for young human beings and a country better for being filled with educated humans. I am sure there are people following that motivation in the school choice world, but they are trapped in a model that is inhospitable to such thinking.



    Source link

  • How school districts can better manage disagreement about difficult topics

    How school districts can better manage disagreement about difficult topics


    Credit: Alison Yin/EdSource

    School districts nationwide are grappling with whether, how and when to teach about LGBTQ and race-related issues. Deep-seated divisions are playing out in school board meetings, local social media, and directly between parents and educators.

    We have been surveying American adults’ beliefs about the potentially contested topics elementary and high school children should be learning in school since 2022. Based on our results, here are eight suggestions for those struggling to thread the needle between students learning to respectfully engage with diverse opinions, honoring parental authority and avoiding indoctrination.

    Start with common ground.

    Among the most surprising and hopeful results was strong bipartisan support for public schools. Adults are overwhelmingly supportive of public education, while wanting to see it improve. This bipartisan support for public schools provides a critical foundation necessary for communities to thread the needle.

    Seek to understand others’ underlying beliefs.

    Key to compromise is understanding others’ perspectives. We found large gaps related to core values; for example, three-quarters of Democrats think teaching children to embrace differences is a very important purpose of education, compared with just one-third of Republicans. More Republicans (81%) are worried about children feeling guilty if they learn about historical racism compared with Democrats (33%). More Republicans are worried than Democrats that learning about transgender or gay people might make children think about whether they are or want to be trans or gay. In both groups, people are somewhat more concerned about their children learning about trans people (66% of Republicans versus 23% of Democrats) than they are about lessons about gay people (55% versus 20%). We are better at listening to others’ perspectives when we feel heard ourselves.

    Come up with processes for reconciling disagreement.

    Adults disagree about processes for reconciling disagreement regarding the content children are learning in school. This means communities need to develop mutually agreeable consensus-building processes like public panel deliberation, advisory groups and provisions for dissent. Involving children and teens could develop their current and future civic capabilities.

    Educate adults about the challenges and consequences of opting children out of classroom content.

    We learned that a brief message specifying potential benefits of children learning diverse perspectives, and the logistical drawbacks of opting individual children out of lessons, substantially reduces the opt-out preference, by 15 percentage points (25%), from 57% to 42%. This approach was equally effective for Democrats and Republicans and when considering younger and older students. Educators and school boards could use this model to craft messages sharing potential challenges and benefits relevant to their own communities.

    Double down on approaches with broad support, like assigning diverse texts.

    Three-quarters of adults (64% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats) agree children should read books written by people from racial minority groups because they provide different experiences and perspectives. Teachers may find assigning and discussing age-appropriate books written by diverse authors to address topics of race, gender and sexuality to be an approach their communities will accept.

    Support teachers in facilitating discussion of potentially contested topics.

    Rand’s nationally representative survey of teachers shows many are afraid to facilitate potentially contentious discussions and lack guidance from their leadership. Curriculum and aligned professional learning should be designed to equip teachers with the skills and confidence they need to facilitate their students’ discussions of potentially contested topics. School and district leaders can also make clear their support for such discussions.

    Inform and involve parents.

    Transparency about how district curriculum content addresses state learning standards provides this insight. Parents will also benefit their children and themselves by learning about the diversity of perspectives within their community, and of the necessity of collaboratively resolving competing perspectives. Once processes are defined, parents, school board members and educators will need to build safeguards and respect for the system they collectively design.

    Remind everyone that children will live, study, work and be citizens of diverse local, national and international communities.

    Students need to learn about and how to communicate effectively with others, including those with different beliefs and backgrounds. Schools need to provide open forums allowing for sharing and evaluating both dominant and nondominant perspectives without fear of reprisal. A difficult tension for schools and teachers to manage is avoiding “indoctrination,” while maintaining norms of respect and care for others. Schools must intervene if/when students’ values negatively affect how they treat each other, indeed upholding the Golden Rule (i.e., “do unto others as you’d have done to you”)—a fundamental tenet of most religions and belief systems worldwide — requires they do.

    Educating children in our pluralistic democracy is challenging. We suggest a path forward for educators, parents, and school boards, ultimately to children’s benefit.

    •••

    Anna Saavedra is a research scientist in the Center for Applied Research in Education within the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research. USC is a private research university located in Los Angeles.

    Morgan Polikoff is a professor at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education.

    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

  • Why one California university leader thinks year-round operations will aid enrollment

    Why one California university leader thinks year-round operations will aid enrollment


    Students in a science class at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.

    Credit: Arabel Meyer / EdSource

    Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo recently announced that it will become the first public university in the state to shift to year-round operations starting summer 2025. The change would give students the option of starting in the summer and taking their academic break during a different term, and it would allow the university to admit more students per year.

    Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong said other universities have had success with this model. 

    “Secondary to growth (in enrollment), I think we’re going to see student success,” Armstrong said. 

    Taking inspiration from schools that have had year-round operations for years, like Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and the University of Waterloo in Canada, Armstrong said he hopes to put a “Cal Poly twist” on the idea to benefit all students. 

    Beginning next year, students will be able to choose to start either in summer or fall during the application process. Faculty and staff will also be able to choose which terms they will work.

    Armstrong said students and faculty will have enough information to make an informed decision about what their schedule will look like and “they will know what they’re getting into.”

    If a student opts to start in summer, they might have a greater chance of being admitted to Cal Poly, which currently has an admit rate of 28% and is highly impacted with more applications than available spaces, Armstrong said.

    “We’re not changing our standards,” Armstrong said. “What we’re doing is using year-round to open up more spaces so more students can get in.”

    Starting the year in the summer would be different from simply taking summer classes or taking a couple of classes in the last few weeks of summer through summer start programs to help students adjust to college.

    Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo President Jeffrey D. Armstrong
    Credit: Cal Poly SLO

    Students who start their year in the summer would have full course offerings equivalent to what is offered during the other terms, and classes would be for a full term, according to Armstrong.

    When asked about the expected cost of the change to year-round operations, Armstrong said, “Overall, we believe the investments required will not be significantly out of line as what would be required for enrollment growth through traditional non-year-round operations means.”

    Following the year-round model, students, including freshmen, would have more opportunities to participate in “high-impact practices” such as internships, study abroad and undergraduate research, according to Armstrong. 

    “We know when students participate in high-impact practices, it enhances their retention, it enhances their chance to graduate,” he said. 

    A student who chooses to start in summer could then study abroad or do an internship during the fall term and come back for spring term, for example. 

    Armstrong said students could also decide to take classes every term and graduate earlier, though this would not be required.

    It’s about “flexibility for all students, really,” he said. “I think it’ll be very positive, and it’ll expand access to high-impact activities. We want it to be more equitable.”

    Financial aid would still cover a full academic year (three quarters or two semesters) no matter when a student starts, Armstrong added. 

    In an ideal world, Armstrong said about a third of students would start in summer, though starting out, the numbers might be more like 15-20%. 

    “It’s allowing us to grow, [and] it’s taking the number of students in the regular academic year down, so it’s relieving some of the pressure,” Armstrong said.

    Cal Poly began discussing this shift in 2019, but it was delayed because of the to the pandemic. The change was then set to begin summer 2024 but delayed again after Cal Poly met its enrollment goals for the year by increasing course availability, allowing more students to enroll full time. 

    As college enrollment rates increase, universities have been trying to find ways to do so without increasing costs too much. In 1999, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report recommending universities switch to year-round operations. 

    Cal Poly is the only public university in California to make this switch, though other schools are making different efforts to increase their enrollment and expand summer instruction.

    According to Hazel Kelly, CSU spokesperson, other CSU campuses are also considering ways to offer more flexible academic calendars.

    “The Chancellor’s Office is working with those universities as they consider a range of implications of alternative calendars including student enrollment, campus budgets, financial aid, accreditation, labor agreements and facilities, among others,” Kelly said.

    California State University, Long Beach is working on expanding enrollment during the fall and spring semesters, focusing on “underserved majors with available space,” according to CSULB spokesperson Gregory Woods. 

    “To bolster enrollment, our strategy is to enhance retention rates and average-units load for current students, and to expand the class size of the incoming first-time, first-year student level,” Woods said. 

    San Diego State University, which has the second-lowest acceptance rate of all the CSUs and is also highly impacted, does not have a plan to move to year-round operations like Cal Poly but is exploring other ways of increasing enrollment, SDSU spokesperson La Monica Everett-Haynes said.

    “We have, however, implemented efforts toward summer enrollment and, overall, continue to see high levels of enrollment growth during both the academic and summer session periods,” Everett-Haynes said.

    The University of California has similarly been working to expand summer enrollment without moving to the year-round model. 

    “Every UC campus is committed to expanding capacity and enhancing educational equity for California students through overall enrollment growth as well as more nontraditional approaches, including efforts to improve timely graduation and to expand online, summer and off-campus opportunities,” said Ryan King, UC spokesperson. 

    According to the “Building 2030 Capacity Report” issued in 2022, UC has turned to increasing online course offerings and financial aid for summer to help meet their enrollment goals. King noted that the report shows a spike in summer enrollment in 2020, and “UC campuses recognized this surge as an opportunity to increase summer enrollment and capacity over the long term by growing the number and mix of online and impacted fall-winter-spring course offerings.”

    Cal Poly decided that switching to the year-round model, and not just expanding their regular summer offerings, would be the most beneficial. 

    Armstrong said this shift to year-round operations will benefit all students, not just the ones who choose to start in the summer, because classes will be offered more often throughout the year, there will be more opportunities to participate in high-impact activities and the campus community will grow.

    As part of the effort to increase enrollment, Cal Poly is working on building more on-campus housing so that all first- and second-year students can live on campus, a project that “will result in several thousand beds added between now and 2030,” Armstrong said. 

    Armstrong also expects the switch to year-round operations, along with increased financial aid, to help Cal Poly’s efforts to increase diversity. 

    As Cal Poly begins this shift, students will only be able to choose between summer or fall starts, and only incoming students will get this option. Armstrong said he hopes everyone will have this option in the future, and that a spring start will also be available.

    “We think it’s going to be very significant,” Armstrong said. “Our evidence from polling and asking questions of prospective parents and students shows that the interest is very high in the year-round concept.”

    Ashley Bolter is a fourth-year journalism major and French and ethnic studies minor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • UC regents again postpone vote on policy to restrict some faculty speech

    UC regents again postpone vote on policy to restrict some faculty speech


    Public speakers address UC leaders during a March UC regents meeting at UCLA.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    The University of California’s board of regents on Thursday again postponed a vote on a controversial policy to restrict faculty departments from making opinionated statements on the homepages of university websites. The regents could next consider the policy at their July meeting in San Francisco.

    The proposal was initially introduced after some faculty departments, such as the ethnic studies department at UC Santa Cruz, posted statements on their websites criticizing Israel’s invasion of Gaza in response to the Hamas assault in Israel. The potential adoption of the policy comes as pro-Palestinian protests and encampments have popped up across the system’s 10 campuses, with arrests of hundreds and, at UCLA, a violent counter-protest.

    How a university should respond, if at all, to various forms of protest has suddenly become an overwhelming question across California and the rest of the nation, affecting graduation ceremonies and faculty support of campus leaders.

    The agenda for Thursday’s regents meeting at UC Merced included the policy as an action item to be voted on by the regents, but for the third consecutive meeting, the vote was delayed. Unlike previous meetings, the item was not discussed in open session before regents decided to postpone the vote. They did not say whether it was debated in closed session. 

    Faculty across UC have criticized the policy, arguing that it would infringe on academic freedom and questioning how it would be enforced. But supporters of the policy, led by regent Jay Sures, say it is needed to ensure that the views of faculty departments aren’t misinterpreted as representing UC as a whole. Sures could not be reached for comment Thursday about why the item was delayed again.

    Under the latest version, political and other opinionated statements would not be allowed to appear on the homepages of departmental websites. They would be permitted elsewhere on those websites, but only with a disclaimer stating that the opinions don’t represent the entire campus or university system.

    Entering the regents meeting, academic senate leaders had asked the regents not to adopt the policy and instead issue a statement endorsing recommendations made by the senate in 2022. The latest policy in many ways mirrors the senate recommendations but does have some differences. The senate recommendations say faculty departments should be able to make political statements on UC homepages, as long as the statements include a disclaimer and don’t take stances on elections. 

    “We would welcome a straightforward Regents’ statement endorsing the 2022 Senate recommendations rather than the creation of new and not entirely clear bureaucratic regulations that raise issues of compliance and enforcement,” wrote James Steintrager, chair of the senate, in a letter to regents ahead of this week’s meeting.

    Steintrager did, however, say the policy was an improvement over previous versions because it “enunciates clearer goals, defines key terms more explicitly, and better specifies the types of statements it covers.” 

    Steintrager also wrote that he appreciated that the regents took feedback from the senate ahead of this weekend’s meeting. That sentiment was echoed by James Vernon, a professor of history at UC Berkeley and chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association. Vernon said in an interview this week that the regents ahead of this meeting took “a more consultative approach to the academic senate.”

    But Vernon, like senate leaders, still has reservations about the policy and questioned whether it’s an issue the regents should be dealing with at all. 

    “For me, this policy represents an overreach by the regents. The academic senate has already issued a report about statements on websites. It set out a set of discretionary guidelines for campuses and departments to follow,” Vernon said.





    Source link

  • Teachers, school boards threaten to sue over Gov. Newsom’s fix for revenue shortfall

    Teachers, school boards threaten to sue over Gov. Newsom’s fix for revenue shortfall


    Gov. Gavin Newsom

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

    The article was updated on May 20 to include a quote from Rob Manwaring and a graphic showing differences in Prop. 98 funding between the governor’s May budget revision and CTA’s estimate of full funding.

    Two powerful education groups’ opposition could derail Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to fix a massive state budget shortfall for TK-12 schools and community colleges and lead to litigation this summer with an unpredictable outcome.

    The dispute is over Proposition 98, the 35-year-old, complex formula that determines how much money schools and community colleges must receive annually from the state’s general fund. Newsom says he’s complying with the law while largely sparing schools and community colleges the larger budget cuts facing UC, CSU and non-educational parts of state government.

    To which the California School Boards Association and the California Teachers Association say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

    In separate announcements, the school boards association on Wednesday and CTA on Friday threatened to sue over what they characterize as an end run around the Proposition 98 formula that would deny schools and community colleges billions of dollars. They argue that Newsom’s tactic would set a bad and expensive precedent that governors in other tight times would imitate if allowed.  

    David Goldberg, CTA President

    CTA President David Goldberg called the budget maneuver “an outright assault on public school funding” that would “wreak havoc for years to come.”

    Patrick O’Donnell, a former high-ranking Assembly member who is now chief of government affairs for the school boards association, said the organization is willing to sit down with the governor but will not permit a violation of the state constitution on Proposition 98, “our lifeline to education.”

    Like other areas of state government, schools and community colleges are facing a massive revenue shortage — a drop of $17.7 billion in Proposition 98 funding over a three-year period, including $3.7 billion just since January alone.

    The biggest piece of the drop reflected a big miscalculation. Because of winter storms in early 2023 across much of the nation, the federal government and California pushed back the filing date for taxes from April 15 to Nov. 15. As a result, Newsom and legislators lacked accurate revenue estimates when they set the 2023-24 budget in June; it turns out they appropriated $8.8 billion more than the minimum required under Proposition 98.

    Since TK-12 and community colleges had already budgeted and spent the money,  Newsom promised to hold them harmless. The contention is over his Department of Finance advisers’ plan to treat the “overpayment” as an off-the-books accounting maneuver.

    The Department of Finance would pay for the $8.8 billion in cash — the state apparently has lots of it these days — and then accrue the expenditure from the general fund over five years, starting in 2025-26.  

    The proposed budget “is not only legal and constitutional in our view, but is designed to provide predictable and stable support” in response to unprecedented disruption in revenue projections,” said H.D. Palmer, the deputy director for external affairs for the Department of Finance. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has questioned whether the governor’s plan is prudent, without commenting on its legality. And key legislators, including the chairs of the budget subcommittees on education financing — Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, and Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego — appeared skeptical in hearings this week.

    CTA and the school boards association have a different beef: the “manipulation” of the Proposition 98 obligation. Voters passed the proposition as a constitutional amendment to protect education spending from tax cutters and, as has happened more often lately, tax volatility. The formula sets a funding floor but not a ceiling, and the Proposition 98 appropriation in any given year generally becomes the base for calculating the next year’s minimum. There are several “tests,” tied to economic conditions and growth in student attendance, that determine how much Proposition 98 funding changes annually.

    The teachers union and the school boards association argue that the extra $8.8 billion becomes the floor for calculating the 2023-24 obligation, and that it is not a mistake or overpayment.

    By CTA’s calculations, adding in the $8.8 billion and applying other Proposition 98 factors would raise funding for 2023-24 by $6.8 billion beyond what Newsom calls for in his May revision and $5.1 billion more in 2024-25.

    “The Proposition 98 maneuver proposed in the May Revise threatens public school funding,” Goldberg said in a statement. “Eroding this guarantee would harm schools for years to come and create the conditions for larger class sizes, fewer counselors, school nurses and mental health professionals, cuts to essential school programs and potential layoffs.” 

    Kenneth Kapphahn, senior fiscal and policy analyst for the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said that the agency hasn’t seen CTA’s calculations but that the union’s numbers are “close to what we are tracking.”

    “The Administration is trying to illegally exclude the $8.8 billion that already was spent on schools in 2022-23 when calculating the minimum guarantee for 2023-24,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser for the advocacy nonprofit Children Now. “In passing Proposition 98 as a constitutional amendment, voters were clear they wanted to avoid manipulations to suppress spending on schools and community colleges.”

    Suspension of Proposition 98 likely

    Newsom’s May revision to the budget calls for using $8.8 billion from the general fund to plug the shortfall for 2022-23, draining what remains of the nearly $8.5 billion Proposition 98 reserve to balance 2023-24 and 2024-25, and making a couple of billion dollars’ worth of cuts, including facilities spending for preschools and transitional kindergarten, middle-class college scholarships, tuition grants for teacher candidates and a delay in funding preschool slots.

    A win for the CTA and the school boards association, whether through negotiations or in court, wouldn’t immediately send additional revenue, which the state doesn’t have, to districts’ doorsteps or resolve the challenge of a $17.7 billion shortfall. 

    O’Donnell, representing the school boards, acknowledged that adding billions to the Proposition 98 minimum could compound the “short-term pain” of balancing the budget. 

    This immediate result could be additional cuts, an emergency suspension of Proposition 98 this year or the creation of billions of dollars in IOUs called deferrals.‘ The legislative analyst’s Kapphahn said that the state is heading into the next fiscal year with less state revenue and without a rainy day fund to help out. 

    Suspending Proposition 98 when the state cannot fund its minimum obligations has been done twice, in 2004-05 and 2010-11. Suspension requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and creates a debt, called the “maintenance factor,” that, Kapphahn said, “can take many years to be restored.”

    Deferrals, which were used in the years after the Great Recession, involve late payments, anywhere from days to months, into the next fiscal year, which are rolled over yearly until there’s enough new money to end them. 

    “There’s a whole series of options, and they are all difficult. Every single one seems to require us to pay money that is not budgeted with the possible exception of the governor’s proposed maneuver,” said the Senate’s Laird. “We are going to have intense discussions over the next few weeks about these options.”

    CTA acknowledged that a Proposition 98 suspension might be inevitable but also essential. “At least a suspension brings a constitutionally required restoration of the guarantee level” through repayments of the maintenance factor, it said in a statement Friday,  “thereby avoiding a permanent reduction in school funding and the whims of future Administrations.” 

    The union intends to put pressure on legislators. “We will be calling our elected leaders in the coming weeks to demand protection of school funding,” Goldberg said, adding that CTA will launch a media campaign to ensure that our communities understand what’s at stake.”





    Source link

  • Film program empowers Berkeley teens to tell their stories

    Film program empowers Berkeley teens to tell their stories


    Future filmmakers brainstorming ideas at Berkeley High.

    Credit: Courtesy of Allison Gamlen

    In fourth grade, Nico Lee dressed up as Miss Hannigan, the heartless head of the orphanage in the classic Broadway musical “Annie,” for Halloween. He put together such a fabulous costume, bedecked in a dress, lipstick and a messy bun, that his mother worried her son might get teased. But she was also proud that he had no qualms about being playful about gender. 

    Nico Lee, one of the young filmmakers at Berkeley High School.
    Credit: Nico Lee

    Now the thoughtful Berkeley 15-year-old, who grew up with two moms, digs into that formative memory and riffs on what it means to become a man today in his new short film exploring masculine tropes, “Changing Shapes.” 

    “One of the big ideas is finding your own identity in your own time,” Lee said. “It’s important to explore gender boundaries because if you are able to feel comfortable doing things that are outside of your gendered box, that opens up so much more freedom in how you express yourself. All that gender boundaries are is something that restricts people and separates them.”

    Lee is one of seven Berkeley High School students getting their big break as part of the Future Filmmakers program, which mentors teens through the process of creating short documentary films, from the first rough cut to the red carpet premiere. This new, immersive video project culminated in a sold-out film festival at Berkeley’s Rialto Cinemas Elmwood.

    “This kind of experience is rare,” said Allison Gamlen, visual and performing arts coordinator for the San Mateo County Office of Education, who helped produce the festival. “The chance for high school students to truly tell their own stories, work with real professionals, and go through every step of the creative process, from idea to finished product, is amazing for them. This program builds not only technical and career skills, but also confidence, communication, and self-awareness.” 

    From cinematography and sound design to editing, the students are learning the ropes of filmmaking under the tutelage of documentarian Jordan Olshansky. The class includes Lee, Madison Chau, Derrick Coney, Oliver Hufford, Camila Reyes Mendez, Keely Shaller and Madeleine Wilson.

    “I’ve never had an opportunity for kids like this one, where they’ve had long, sustained, in-depth, collaborative relationships with working professionals,” said Phil Halpern, a lead teacher in the communication arts and sciences program, which includes the video program, at Berkeley High. “You could equate it to an internship where you’re the CEO and that’s really cool.” 

    A peek inside the film/video classroom at Berkeley High School.
    credit: Phil Halpern

    Lee, who has always loved theater and film, jumped at the chance to make a movie of his own. It was a considerable time commitment, and he admits he had doubts about whether his story was dramatic enough, but overall he found the experience invaluable. In the end, he learned to trust his gut. 

    “The hardest part of making this film was that I think the whole time there was sort of a big worry that I didn’t have a story to tell,” he admits. “I learned to be comfortable with that and tell the story that I did have, and hopefully that would connect with people.” 

    Confronting those fears is often part and parcel of the creative process. 

    “My favorite part is witnessing students discover the power of their voice and find the courage to tell their stories,” Gamlen said. “That moment they see their story on screen is transformative. They realize that their perspective is not only valid, it’s needed.”

    Olshansky, a father of two teenagers, had always wanted to work with adolescents, but he wasn’t sure how many kids would want to commit to early morning workshops on Mondays before school. He needn’t have worried. Many students were eager to get their foot in the door of the film industry, long a pillar of the state’s creative economy.

    “The vision is not only to help them develop their storytelling skills,” said Olshansky, president of San Francisco’s True Stories production company, “but also to share their films in ways that spark meaningful conversations among other young people — about identity, family, and other issues that matter most to them.”

    One of the themes Lee wanted to explore was the power of influencers, such as Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan, to shape teen boys’ coming of age amid the rise of the manosphere. 

    “There’s a lot of stuff about toxic masculinity right now and about what masculinity means,” Lee said. “And I felt like maybe an interesting way to look at that was through what it’s like being a boy who was raised by women.”

    All seven autobiographical short films hit hard, resonating with an authenticity that’s rare in the social media age. Camila Reyes Mendez crafts a heartrending valentine to her late mother in “Corazon Espinado.” Madison Chau examines feeling caught between two worlds in “Overseas Vietnamese.”

    “The students share a huge range of life experiences,” said Gamlen, “dealing with parent death, deportation, divorce and blended families, leaving the nest to go to college, yet one theme that is emerging has to do with family and its impact on their lives.”

    Young filmmaker Nico Lee shoots his autobiographical film.
    credit: Nico Lee

    Lee’s mother, Becca, also had to venture outside her comfort zone because he interviewed his parents, as well as his grandparents, for the film. 

    “Honestly, I just felt so proud of him for wanting to dive into this topic and tell our family story,” she said. “But the part of it was being on camera, being in the film, that was a big stretch for me.”

    Hands-on learning is the secret sauce for this project, with its unique blend of funding. The school’s video program is funded through Proposition 28 and Career Technical Education (CTE) money, while the Future Filmmakers project is paid for by Olshanky’s company, True Stories.

    “We know that for most students, kinesthetic experiences make learning stick, when students are doing, not just watching or listening,” Gamlen said. “They’re holding the camera, adjusting the mic, recording their own interviews. And when it’s their own story on the line, they’re invested in every detail. That kind of ownership builds real-world readiness and pride in their work.”

    Lee, for one, will never forget working side by side with a professional editor, learning what to cut and what to keep, the magic of how to craft a cinematic moment that sticks with the viewer. 

    “It’s one of the things that I feel most grateful for about this project,” he said. “It was pretty awesome to be able to experience that kind of collaboration. That was the first really gratifying moment for me, to see this thing that’s just been in my head actually be in a movie.”





    Source link

  • These districts and charters were fined for violating TK requirements

    These districts and charters were fined for violating TK requirements


    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    This is the first in a series of stories on how inadequate staffing may be impeding California’s efforts to offer high-quality instruction to all 4-year-olds by 2025.

    Several California school districts and charter schools have been fined for violating state guidelines on average class size and/or staffing ratios in transitional kindergarten, a grade level that has been expanding to include all 4-year-olds by 2025.  

    Through its universal pre-kindergarten initiative, the state intends to offer high-quality instruction to all 4-year-olds through TK, an additional year of public education prior to kindergarten. To do so, California has implemented legislation placing requirements on transitional kindergarten and adding fiscal penalties for noncompliance. State-set TK guidelines require classes to maintain an average student enrollment of 24 kids and to use a 1:12 adult-to-student ratio.

    Here are the highlights from audit reports from the 2022-23 school year, the first school year since the state added the fiscal penalties for TK requirements:

    Ten school districts and 22 charter schools were not compliant with the required average class size of not more than 24 students, resulting in fines ranging from $1,706 to more than $6.9 million.  

    Seven school districts and 16 charter schools will pay between $2,813 and over $1.1 million for failure to meet the 1:12 adult-to-student ratio for TK classes. 

    Three school districts and 12 charter schools were out of compliance in both class size and adult-to-child ratio. 

    District audits review compliance with a sample of schools.

    Based on the audit reports released to EdSource, the nationwide teacher shortage seems to be a leading reason for districts being out of compliance. 

    While most districts blame the national staffing shortage, some districts are critical of the California Department of Education for not clearly outlining TK requirements as well as for fining districts unfairly. 

    “It is not typical,” Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said in late January when the district released its audit findings at a board meeting. “It does not make sense.”

    The following districts and charters have been named as noncompliant, and fiscal penalties they face:

    For going over the 24-student average enrollment 

    • Aspire Port City Academy, a charter and part of Aspire Public Schools: $20,146.42
    • A charter school under Big Picture Educational Academy: $2,116
    • Culver City Unified for two of its schools: $125,129
    • Equitas Academy Charter School for its first and third Equitas Academy schools: $38,504.90
    • Inglewood Unified for Bennett-Kew Elementary: $335,056
    • John Adams Academy, the El Dorado Hills campus, which is a charter school: $21,156.60
    • Seven charter schools in KIPP SoCal Public Schools – KIPP Iluminar Academy, KIPP Comienza Community Prep, KIPP Compton, KIPP Corazon Academy, KIPP Empower Academy, KIPP Ignite and KIPP Vida Preparatory Academy: $87,123.26, in all
    • Los Angeles Unified for two district schools: $6,963,151.68
    • Los Angeles Unified charter school, Hesby Oaks Leadership Center: $8,977.26
    • Los Olivos Unified, a one-school district: $4,488.63
    • Lowell Joint School District for Macy Elementary and Meadow Green Elementary: $81,051
    • Monroe Elementary School District, a one-school district: $1,706
    • A charter in Palm Springs Unified, Cielo Vista Charter School: $21,223
    • Four charter schools run by Rocketship Education – Rocketship Delta Prep, Rocketship Alma Academy, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary and Rocketship Spark Academy: $91,688.13, in all
    • Rowland Unified for Blandford Elementary: $217,351
    • Scholarship Prep Charter School – Oceanside: $22,833.88
    • Voices College-Bound Language Academies, charter school campuses in Morgan Hill, Mt. Pleasant and Stockton: $12,846.44

    For not meeting 1:12 adult-student ratio

    • Aromas-San Juan Unified for two of its schools: $154,715
    • Culver City Unified for two of its schools: $61,886
    • The same seven charters in KIPP SoCal Public Schools: $167,080.05
    • Equitas Academy Charter School, Inc. for its first, third, fifth and sixth schools: $142,327.45
    • A school in Laton Joint Unified, which only has one elementary: $30,943
    • Los Angeles Unified for 20 district schools: $1,175,824
    • Los Angeles Unified charters Canyon Charter Elementary and Knollwood Preparatory Academy: $30,943 and $61,886, respectively. 
    • Los Olivos Unified: $2,813
    • Pomona Unified for Kingsley Elementary, San Jose Elementary, Armstrong Elementary and Philadelphia Elementary: $123,772 with each being penalized $30,943
    • Two of the four charters fined for average enrollment under Rocketship Education, Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary and Rocketship Spark Academy: $12,376.30, with both being penalized $6,188.15
    • Sacramento City Unified for Hubert Bancroft Elementary: $53,261
    • Scholarship Prep Charter School – Oceanside: $12,376.30

    Not all the districts, such as Aromas-San Juan Unified, Culver City Unified and LAUSD, disclosed the names of the penalized schools in the audit reports. They are not required to do so.

    The school districts and charters will lose funding from the Local Control Funding Formula in the amount of their penalties. 

    Unlike the other charter schools penalized, those in LAUSD and Palm Springs are operated by their respective school districts, rather than by charter management organizations. The fines received for the charter schools operated by LAUSD and Palm Springs Unified will be paid at the charter school level, not at the district level, according to the California Department of Education (CDE). 

    Why requirements on TK? 

    The state Education Department has outlined several benefits of implementing smaller TK class sizes and adult-to-student ratios.

    According to the department’s September 2022 TK requirement presentation, more attention and feedback from adults creates more opportunities for student learning and engagement. With a smaller class size, teachers form better relationships with students, and parent participation improves. 

    The lower adult-to-student ratios, the CDE has said, allow staff to provide individualized instruction as well as supervision at all times. Additional adult support, the department says, leads to increased cognitive and social-emotional development, lower rates of students being placed in special education and teachers experiencing less stress. Plus, the 1:12 ratio is closely aligned with 1:8 staffing practices in early education at licensed child care centers, private preschools and state preschool programs and the 1:10 ratio at Head Start. 

    Noncompliance brings fiscal penalties

    State compliance with TK requirements is verified in a district’s annual audit at the end of the school year. The TK class size requirement is based on the average number of students while the 1:12 staffing ratio is based on the number of district staff dedicated and available to all TK students in each class. The numbers are counted on the last teaching day of each school month before April 15. For most school districts, that is August to March. 

    How is the penalty determined? 

    Depending on whether the violation is for average student enrollment or the staffing ratio, penalty calculations consider areas such as base funding, the TK funding rate add-on, average daily attendance and the statewide absence rate. 

    For average student enrollment violations, the penalty equals the grade span base funding for TK/K-3 multiplied by the Second Principal Apportionment (P-2) for TK Average Daily Attendance (ADA). 

    For TK staffing ratio violations, the penalty equals the product of:

    • Additional adults needed 
    • 24 reduced by the prior year elementary statewide absence rate 
    • TK add-on funding rate for the school year, which is available online; $2,813 was the funding rate for 2022-23

    Some district audits miscalculated the class average or staffing ratio penalties, reducing the expected fines by hundreds of thousands of dollars for some. 

    Penalty amounts changed from $369,347 to $125,129 for the class average penalty in Culver City Unified; went from $641,561 to $217,351 for the class average penalty in Rowland Unified; changed from $239,133 to $81,051 for the class average penalty in  Lowell Joint School District; and decreased from $10,483 to $2,813 for the staffing ratio penalty in Los Olivos School District. 

    A school district or charter school must maintain an average TK class enrollment of not more than 24 students for each campus. Because the audit considers the number of students each month, it is possible for a school to have a TK class that exceeds the limit for a time and still maintain an average of 24 or less. 

    For example, Marcella Gutierrez, a Mountain View School District TK teacher, told EdSource that she received her 25th student in February because her class enrollment average was under 24. Based on active enrollment at the end of each month, the number of students in her class was 24 in August and September, 23 in October when a student moved, 23 in November and December and 22 in early January when another student left the program but 24 by the end of the month when two new students joined her class. 

    With her class average at 23.5, not the 24-student classroom average for TK, the district accepted a 25th student for Gutierrez’s class. The district also added a third aide to meet the 1:12 student-staff ratio, she said.

    According to the state Education Department, to be counted in the staffing ratio, the “assigned” adult must be an employee who is dedicated and available to all TK students the entire school day.  

    The audit selects a representative sample of schools to review compliance. If districts or charter schools are found to have violated the TK guidelines, they will face penalties for each sampled school in violation. 

    Schools blame staff shortage, CDE for shortfalls

    School districts nationwide have struggled to hire paraprofessionals, such as aides, who work closely with teachers to support students in the classroom. 

    Legislation requires paraprofessionals to work alongside California teachers to lower class sizes and fulfill the 1:12 adult-to-student ratio requirement in TK classes. 

    According to the audit reports, districts and schools such as Scholarship Prep Charter School in Oceanside, Pomona Unified in eastern Los Angeles County and Culver City Unified, also in Los Angeles County, blame staffing shortages for their inability to comply with state guidelines. 

    But the staffing shortage isn’t limited to paraprofessionals. Based on state and regional hiring and vacancy data, state legislation has identified TK teachers as a high-need teaching position impacted by the teacher shortage. 

    Pomona Unified couldn’t maintain its staffing ratio at four schools that each needed the equivalent of 0.5 additional adults. 

    Culver City Unified was unable to hire enough teachers to stay within the class size enrollment or staffing ratio guidelines, resulting in noncompliance in two classes at two schools. 

    Even when staffing shortages played a role in noncompliance, some districts faulted the state Education Department. 

    The seven charter schools in KIPP SoCal Public Schools in Los Angeles that were penalized for being out of compliance for both class average and ratios said the state guidance about the TK program was not clear when their elementary schools planned their instruction and classroom models for the 2022-23 school year. Planning takes place before the school year starts.  

    Although July 2021 legislation introduced the TK requirements on average class size and staffing ratios, legislation in September 2022 added details to the requirements, at which time KIPP schools had already planned classroom instruction.

    Historically, KIPP schools have created combination classes of TK and kindergarten students, with no more than five TK students in the class of 24, supervised by one teacher and an aide. 

    Because the students are educated in the same space, the TK adult-to-student ratio requirements must apply to all students in the combo class, according to the CDE. The class average has to be at or below 24 and the ratio at 1:12, even though only five TK students are in the class. 

    Similar to KIPP schools, Monroe Elementary School District in Fresno offered a combo class with TK and kindergarten students, resulting in an average enrollment of 29 kids. 

    The district acted under the incorrect assumption that the combo class would be considered two separate classes since the TK and kindergarten students had their own teachers. However, the class was considered one class and out of compliance. 

    KIPP schools have since implemented a monthly process to check student enrollment and ratios and will conduct more frequent audits. 

    Monroe Elementary School District also agreed to monitor enrollment numbers more closely; the school district will be annexed into Caruthers Unified by next school year. 

    One district publicly contests fines

    Los Angeles Unified, California’s largest district, continues to struggle to fill vacant positions and achieve the required adult-to-student ratio. 

    District leaders called the penalties “egregious.” Los Angeles Unified incurred over $8.1 million in fines for being out of compliance with TK ratios and class size limits. 

    In the audit sampling of 88 schools, two exceeded the 24-student class size average and 20 did not maintain the 1:12 staffing ratio. 

    When the district’s audit results were released during a January LAUSD board meeting, district leaders, including Carvalho, said the district will work to ensure compliance but will push against schools incurring fines for lacking one additional adult. 

    The district received 20 fines, totaling $1,175,824, for not complying with the 1:12 ratio in its district schools, a fine they would have avoided if they had 19 additional adults in the TK classrooms.

    “A small variance from the ratio brings about a significant fine,” Carvalho said, calling the penalties unfair and in need of fixing. 

    The district has already put mechanisms in place to track compliance this school year, including a TK toolkit for school and district administration, distributing specific revisions to TK legislation, and holding meetings with principals in the spring to review guidelines.  

    The school district will also host biweekly department meetings to monitor classes and have monthly meetings to identify schools that are not compliant with staffing ratios, according to its audit report.  

    Besides taking corrective action to address compliance with the transitional kindergarten requirement, penalized schools have two other options to respond to audit findings: an appeal or a payment plan. In March, the CDE issued letters to most of the penalized districts and charters asking them to choose what they plan to do.  

    Existing legislation does not allow districts to avoid penalties. 

    Under the appeals process, schools can challenge the finding based on “errors of fact or interpretation of law” including incorrect information in the audit findings or in the way the law is applied or interpreted.  

    They may also appeal on grounds that they were in substantial compliance with the law in which they can argue that, despite minor or unintentional noncompliance, they provided an educational benefit consistent with the purpose of the transitional kindergarten program. 

    According to CDE spokesperson Scott Roark via email, how soon the penalty is deducted from a district’s funding will depend on whether the school district or charter uses one of the options for resolving audit findings.





    Source link

  • To teach math effectively, California must focus on deep, conceptual learning

    To teach math effectively, California must focus on deep, conceptual learning


    Third graders discuss possible ways to solve a new math problem.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Fierce wars continue to rage around math instruction, but there are many practical changes we should make for mathematics students upon which most of us can probably agree, that could transform their ability to achieve. 

    A promising new initiative for California that we have both been involved with tackles two of the most pressing flaws of traditional math instruction with elegant solutions that should be appealing to many, no matter which camp they occupy in the debates. Ask any teacher of math what they wish they did not have to deal with, and they will tell you the excessive amount of content they need to teach, which leads to the second problem — the shallow coverage of hundreds of methods that students do not learn in meaningful ways.

    U.S. math textbooks are massive and heavy tomes. By contrast, math textbooks in Japan and China are small and slim. The reason for this is that U.S. curriculum repeats content every year. In China and Japan, content is taught less frequently but more deeply and conceptually. As teachers in the U.S. are forced to “cover” an extensive amount of content in every year of school, students only gain a shallow experience of mathematical methods and rules.

    The second problem, linked to the first, is that students are taught hundreds of methods as though they are all equally important, without experiencing the more foundational concepts deeply and conceptually. Some concepts are much more central than others because they link to other areas of content, and they deserve to be learned deeply, over multiple lessons, through applied tasks that relate to students’ lives.  An example of a central concept in grade four is “factors and groups.” Instead of learning about these through short questions and answers, students can learn them through rich tasks in which they are more deeply engaged, as can be seen here.

    Students can learn all foundational concepts, such as fractions or functions, by drawing, building and learning about them through real-world examples. Every important idea in mathematics can be learned visually, physically and conceptually, including algebra and calculus. Instead, most students work through pages of numerical calculations, absent of any connection to the world, and spend hours of algebra class manipulating X’s on a page.

    A solution to both of these problems is to teach the “big ideas in mathematics” for every grade, as set out in the California Mathematics Framework,  such as “being flexible within 10” (kindergarten) or “unit rates in the world” (grade seven), making sure that for each of the eight or so big ideas in every grade, students have a deep and rich experience of their underlying concepts: by drawing them, building them and talking about them. Even if it is only these eight or so ideas that are experienced in this way each year, they will serve as a foundation for everything else students learn as they progress.

    Many California school districts are now waiting for funding to be devoted to the training of teachers to move to the approaches set out in the framework. But in Kern County, leaders have been sharing these ideas for the past three years. Semitropic Elementary school, which serves mainly Latinx, English learners and socioeconomically disadvantaged students, is one example of a school that has moved to the approach of the framework. In the 2018-19 school year, before Covid-19 and the implementation of the new framework, only 5.6% of Semitropic students met or exceeded standards on math Smarter Balanced tests in grades 3-8, with less than 5% in grades four and five, and no students in grades 6 or 8. After the leaders in Kern County supported teachers in learning and implementing the ideas of the framework, through a series of professional development sessions to build capacity, with classroom demonstration lessons to model the new strategies, in action with their students, and coaching to meet teachers where they were, proficiency levels shot up, increasing to 16.3% overall, with the fourth grade showing the most significant increase, to 36.8%. There is more work to be done in this and other districts, but the demonstrable positive changes already unfolding are impressive.

    What changed in the classrooms of the schools in Kern County? The teachers focused on big ideas, such as “being flexible within 10” which starts in kindergarten and extends through the elementary grades. Instead of students learning 10 as a fixed number that they use to calculate, they now spend time learning how 10 is made up, and all the ways they can make 10. A powerful strategy teachers started to use was “number talks,” in which teachers pose a number problem and collect the different ways students approach the problem, representing them visually. They also started using richer, deeper tasks, encouraging students to discuss ideas and learn with visuals and manipulatives. The superintendent and county math coaches were thrilled with the high levels of engagement they saw in the classrooms, as well as the significant changes in state test scores.

    There are several problems with the systems of mathematics education in many states, and proposed solutions often spark disagreement. But perhaps we should all agree on one thing: Students need to learn important mathematical concepts deeply and well. They should not be working through sets of procedural questions that mean nothing to them, but rather should experience rich applied mathematics that inspires them, helps them learn effectively, and shows them that mathematics is important to their lives.

    •••

    Jo Boaler is a Stanford professor and author of “Math-ish: Finding Creativity, Diversity & Meaning in Mathematics.” She was one of the writers of California’s new mathematics framework.

    Cole Sampson is the administrator of professional learning for the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link