دسته: 1

  • Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students 

    Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students 


    Two students with drill press

    A student uses a drill press to work on an engineering project.

    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    The design of California’s higher education system has been influential for its twin goals of high-quality undergraduate education and broad access to college. Though our public universities are renowned for their research prowess, the focal point for access has been our extensive network of community colleges — now comprising 116 — offering students first- and second-year courses with the opportunity to transfer and earn a four-year degree at a university.  

    But for students seeking to transfer in STEM fields, that opportunity borders on illusory: While 16% of community college students nationally complete a bachelor’s degree, only 2% earn a degree in a STEM field. Misaligned math policies play a role in unnecessarily narrowing that path. Absent a coordinated statewide approach, that is unlikely to change.

    It’s not just that a student seeking to transfer in, say, computer science has to take three to six semesters of math, depending on the transfer destination. Before even taking those courses, many community college students must first complete two or three math prerequisites. And, because the actual requirements may vary from campus to campus, some have to take extra courses to ensure they are eligible for junior status at more than one university. 

    To make matters worse, there are inconsistencies in whether four-year campuses articulate — or recognize — a given community college course. Plus, the tools available to students to navigate their options tend to be clunky and outdated. Some students have been forced to enroll at a different college to repeat an already completed math course when one of their prospective transfer campuses doesn’t accept the first college’s course. 

    This maze of inconsistent and opaque math requirements is among the barriers to STEM transfer identified in our recent report, “A Complex Equation: Confronting Math Barriers on the Path to STEM Transfer.” Because these barriers are often out of students’ control, it is up to institutions to fix them. But, under current state policies, the state’s higher ed systems have little apparent incentive to alleviate them and increase transfer access to some of the state’s most popular STEM majors. 

    In fact, it appears that at some campuses, it is not a priority to admit even those students who do clear the math hurdles and other STEM requirements, according to the California State Auditor. The education code requires universities to provide “adequate” space for transfer students — generally interpreted as meaning at least one-third of upper-division enrollments — in all “colleges or schools.” But some high-demand majors at some campuses are balanced heavily against transfer students. 

    In biology, for example, for academic years 2018-19 through 2022-23, only 14% of Cal State LA’s juniors and seniors were transfer students, with Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo enrolling just 12% and UC Santa Barbara 14%, the auditor found. UC Berkeley’s transfer enrollment in two highly ranked departments was even lower: 11% of enrollments in computer science and 9% in environmental science are transfer students. Many of these campuses appear to be turning away eligible students, the auditor found: For example, in 2022, Berkeley denied 95 transfer computer science applicants whose preparation was considered “best prepared” or “strongly prepared.” 

    Added oversight is currently the only mechanism for shifting such patterns. A legislated pilot program requires UC campuses, beginning with UCLA, to create paths to STEM transfer. But UCLA chose to focus the program on relatively low-enrollment majors — atmospheric sciences, geology, math, and environmental science — not popular ones such as biology, computer science or engineering that are already at capacity. 

    Barriers in articulation also prevent community college students from benefiting from pioneering instructional approaches. Take, for example, a redesigned math sequence at UCLA. The new course, which has been offered to UCLA undergraduates since 2013, covers some traditional calculus topics in the context of modeling dynamical biological systems. Students taking the innovative course earned “significantly” higher grades in subsequent STEM courses than students who took the traditional course, and their interest in the topic doubled. 

    The two-course sequence is the primary math requirement for UCLA’s biology undergrads. But community colleges have not been able to offer the course. Since it is not available within the CSU system or at other UC campuses, if a community college were to offer it, only students who successfully transfer to UCLA could apply it toward a life sciences degree. UCLA allows students to transfer with a traditional calculus course, but this means that transfer students are deprived of the benefits of the modernized curriculum. 

    Both UC and CSU can take steps to better prioritize transfer students in high-demand STEM majors, as the auditor recommends. But to set and achieve statewide goals for transfer participation and completion — including STEM-specific goals — and improve success for historically underrepresented groups requires a greater degree of coordination across all three higher education systems. 

    One step toward achieving that is establishing a coordinating body in line with a proposal currently circulating in Sacramento. Another is ensuring that students have up-to-date, accurate and actionable information about transfer and course articulation through modernized transfer planning tools. A third is supporting innovation in STEM education through the California Education Learning Lab

    These would be minor investments toward ensuring more efficient, transparent, and evidence-based use not only of the billions of dollars our state invests in education, but also of another precious resource: our students’ time.  

    •••

    Pamela Burdman, Alexis Robin Hale, and Jenn BeVard work for Just Equations, a policy institute dedicated to enhancing the role of math in education equity. 

    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

  • Legislative analyst projects bigger funding drop for schools, community colleges

    Legislative analyst projects bigger funding drop for schools, community colleges


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office is warning superintendents and school boards working on their next year’s budget that more storm clouds are on the fiscal horizon. 

    In a Feb. 15 report, the LAO forecast that further erosion of state revenues will likely reduce state funding for TK-12 by an additional $7.7 billion — $5.2 billion in 2023-24 and $2.7 billion in 2025-26. That would be on top of the $13.7 billion shaving that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in his proposed budget for the current budget cycle that he released just a month ago. 

    When he presented the proposed state budget in January, Newsom built in a small cost-of-living increase and vowed to preserve funding commitments for schools and community colleges, but the deteriorating revenue estimates may force him to reconsider that promise when he revises the budget in May. 

    The California Department of Finance, which disagrees with the LAO’s financial projections for this year and next, won’t revise its budget forecast until the May revision. However, its report on January revenues, also released in mid-February, confirmed that revenues were heading in the wrong direction. Receipts from the personal income tax, the largest source of state revenue, were down $5 billion — 25% — from the $20.4 billion that the state had forecast. For the full fiscal year that started July 1, total state revenues are down $5.9 billion from a forecast of $121.5 billion.  

    About 40% of the revenues to the state’s general fund is directed to schools and community colleges through a 4-decade-old formula, Proposition 98.

    The single biggest fiscal challenge facing Newsom and the Legislature is how to resolve a massive shortfall in Proposition 98 funding for 2022-23. Newsom and the Legislature were mostly in the dark when they passed that state budget based on a revenue estimate in June 2022. Because of storms and floods the previous winter, the U.S. Treasury delayed the tax filing date for 2022 from April 15 to Nov. 16. Thus, officials lacked reliable data, and it turned out they were way off. The shortfall for Proposition 98 was $12 billion. 

    Because school districts have already spent that money, Newsom is proposing to hold them and community colleges harmless without counting the overfunding as part of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. In a trailer bill that his administration released, he calls for a one-time $9 billion supplemental payment that, due to the unique, delayed tax deadline, would be paid from the general fund, not out of current or future funding for Proposition 98. It would be repaid over five years, starting in 2025-26. 

    Opposition of the Legislative Analysts’s Office

    The LAO is skeptical of the legality and wisdom of pushing off the solution for the 2022-23 deficit into the future; it’s recommending the Legislature reject the ideas and instead use the $9 billion cushion in the Proposition 98 reserve account to cover the shortfall. 

    “The Governor’s proposed funding maneuver is bad fiscal policy, sets a problematic precedent, and creates a binding obligation on the state that will worsen future deficits and require more difficult decisions,” it said in a report issued last week

    It recommends balancing the budget by cutting billions of uncommitted dollars for new programs, the largest of which is $2.8 billion for creating more community schools; eliminating the $1 billion cost-of-living adjustment for the Local Control Funding Formula; cutting $500 million for low-emissions school buses and reducing costs and restructuring other programs. One is the Expanded Learning and Opportunities Program, which provides free after-school activities for low-income students. 

    Newsom would use $5 billion of the Proposition 98 rainy-day fund to cover the budget shortfall this year and next while paying for the 1% cost-of-living adjustment next year. That would leave $4 billion in the reserve to cover at least part of a bigger deficit that the LAO is predicting.

    Lurking in the background is the option of deferrals — issuing IOUs for funding that would be repaid in subsequent years. That tactic was used extensively after the Great Recession when state revenues plunged. It requires that districts and charter schools borrow short-term to cover the delay in state funding.

    School advocates clearly prefer Newsom’s approach and are critical of the LAO’s recommendations, although they aren’t ready to suggest further cuts if revenues remain slow.

    “We don’t want to start negotiating with ourselves over which programs to cut, but need to be prepared for a challenging budget if revenues do not rebound in the second half of this fiscal year,” Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consultancy, wrote in a letter to his clients last week.

    Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, criticized the LAO and called on Newsom and legislators to protect their investments in schools. 

    “The LAO’s recommendations in response to the fiscal picture are potentially devastating to schools and especially students,” he said. “The programs that could be impacted are good for students, and we’ll be urging the Legislature and governor to do everything to protect California students.”





    Source link

  • California’s Youth Job Corps offers a second chance at career, higher education

    California’s Youth Job Corps offers a second chance at career, higher education


    Rubicon Landscape Group, which has a community beautification program in the city of Richmond, hires California Volunteers’ Youth Job Corps service members.

    Credit: Courtesy of Ebony Richardson/Rubicon Landscape Group

    One of Kaelyn Carter’s ongoing challenges these days is working early hours as a landscaper through the cold, often rainy San Francisco Bay Area weather — a world away from the stagnation he remembers feeling when he first arrived in California less than two years ago.

    Then, Carter had just been released from prison after three years of incarceration in Virginia, where he was born. He had made his way to California, which he heard might have more job opportunities.

    He’d tried working, but he’d run into more trouble and once again had a warrant out for his arrest. So he turned himself in.

    That decision led to significant changes in his life, he said, because his probation officer connected him with his current workplace, which is part job and part rehabilitation program.

    The job is with Rubicon Landscape Group, a landscaping company in the city of Richmond that has multiple branches, including a Reentry Success Center which offers a structured 18-week vocational training program where young adults under age 30 who’ve been impacted by the justice system learn about horticulture and landscaping.

    Working at Rubicon, Carter said, offered him a community and the means to provide for himself and rebuild his life.

    Kaelyn Carter, right, works is part of a community beautification program in the city of Richmond as a service member with California Volunteers’ Youth Job Corps.
    Credit: Courtesy of Ebony Richardson/Rubicon Landscape Group

    “It feels comfortable to be able to provide, to buy stuff that you need, (like) hygiene products. You don’t have to go and ask someone to do it for you. You can just go and get it yourself,” he said, and “being able to go to work every day and see a check or some kind of payment at the end of the week, it’s comfortable.”

    The program is part of a larger state effort led by California Volunteers, called the #CaliforniansForAll Youth Jobs Corps, that provides employment opportunities for Californians ages 16 to 30.

    Job placements for service members range from a few months to about a year, a timeline that’s set by each participating city or county depending on the region’s needs. The idea is to create a pathway to careers that may have been previously out of reach for them.

    Priority consideration is offered to youth who are in, or transitioning from, foster care, or have been justice system-involved, or in the mental health or substance abuse system. Participants must also be low-income, unemployed and not enrolled in school. They must also not have participated in an AmeriCorps program.

    Out of over 8,000 total service members to date, about 400 were either in foster care or transitioning out of it, and 702 have identified as justice-involved.

    The #CaliforniansForAll project includes other service programs, such as College Corps, which in its first year included 3,250 students from 46 California community colleges and state universities.

    While the Youth Job Corps prioritizes young people who may not be on a college track, it encourages them to pursue higher education.

    “That’s a goal of the program, and it’s why we focused on those populations,” said Josh Fryday, chief service officer of California Volunteers. “The idea here is creating an opportunity for our young people to serve their community, to make a difference, stabilize them, and then get them on the path to a successful career, which we hope higher education is part of for many of them.”

    Service members are paid at least the state hourly minimum wage, now $16, but their city or county of residence can increase their wages.

    The corps launched in 2022 with $185 million in state funding, with $78.1 million in ongoing funding approved in the 2023-24 state budget.

    Since then, about 8,000 young people have worked in nearly 30 cities and counties that applied to join the list of participating locations, which range from Nevada County to the city of South Gate in Los Angeles County to the city of San Bernardino and more in between.

    Each location either hires the service member directly or works with local community-based organizations that provide connections to careers in city government, climate efforts such as fire mitigation, community beautification by way of landscaping, and more.

    “We really wanted to provide a lot of flexibility for local communities to decide how they were going to engage young people, depending on the needs of the community and what was appropriate for that area,” said Fryday.

    For example, most of the service members in the Los Angeles County city of Maywood were high school seniors or in their early college years, and one was a college graduate with a bachelor’s degree in political science.

    These participants were given the flexibility to choose placement in a career they were interested in pursuing. Their interests ranged from working at City Hall — which is where the college graduate was placed — to the local YMCA. Even some neighboring cities benefited from this flexibility: a service member worked at a technology center in the next-door city of Bell, which is not on the list of participating locations.

    Maywood, one of the most densely populated cities in the state, is home to a predominantly low-income and immigrant population that most often commutes to work in other regions of Los Angeles County. But at the end of their Youth Job Corps service time, many of the city’s service members were offered full-time jobs in their community.

    “The pay is helpful, the exposure they appreciate, but what I hear that, just to me, is so incredible and inspiring is when they say, ‘I just never thought I had something positive to contribute to my community. I never thought that I had something of value where I could give back, and I could lift up the community I love while also supporting my family at the same time,’” Fryday said. “I remember hearing that specifically in Maywood.”

    It’s a sentiment also shared by Carter in Richmond.

    “It might sound crazy, but Rubicon has been basically a safe haven for me because it helped me with dealing with … I want to say poverty, if that makes sense,” said Carter, now 29.
    His job also helps him address his depression. Rubicon’s wraparound services — such as mental health support, resume workshops — help with housing and transportation, and working with plants helps him feel more grounded, Carter said.

    All Youth Job Corps service members at Carter’s job with Rubicon are justice-impacted, which has given him a community of others with similar life experiences.

    “This cohort, they just really lean on each other a lot,” said Ebony Richardson, a reentry coach with Rubicon. “I feel like they look out for each other as a whole, and it shows in the work they are doing.”

    This community and support is part of what has kept Carter working at Rubicon, rather than returning to the life that led to his incarceration.

    “It helped me build structure as far as my character, as far as my work skills,” he said. “It’s really a rehabilitation program basically for those who need a second chance.”





    Source link

  • California should follow Mississippi’s lead on reading instruction

    California should follow Mississippi’s lead on reading instruction


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource (2017)

    Parents of young kids starting to learn to read in California should consider moving to Mississippi. No doubt, this advice is jarring. Decades ago, Southern families migrated to California in search of better opportunities. Mississippi’s child poverty rate today is nearly twice that of California. 

    Yet, when it comes to teaching children to read, Mississippi is a bright spot, one of three states whose gains in reading achievement put their schools ahead of where they were before the pandemic. California is one of ten states where reading scores continue to fall.

    Data shown above from Stanford and Harvard universities’ Education Recovery Scorecard reveals the stark contrast. Mississippi’s students were below California’s in 2016, and half a year behind the national average in reading. Mississippi made steady progress until 2019, but both states suffered similar-sized learning losses during the pandemic. 

    Their paths to recovery have diverged sharply: Mississippi students now read above average while California students are worse off than those in 2016. A student in Jackson now reads a quarter of a school year ahead of a similar student in Sacramento. This is the result not of a short-term fix but from a decade of intensive focus on reading throughout the state.

    California policymakers may be angered by the comparison, but they can’t ignore or dismiss the data. There are three things they could learn from Mississippi’s progress:

    First, Mississippi’s leaders, from governors to district superintendents, have articulated a common mission to improve reading achievement. A decade ago, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant set a reading improvement goal for the state, in support of legislation passed by his predecessor. Then in 2015, he said, “If we confront dyslexia aggressively, we can see a dramatic decrease in our state’s dropout rate and help turn around our reading scores.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has dyslexia, has not mentioned reading once in his State of the State speeches, nor did his predecessor Jerry Brown. To be fair, Newsom has talked about reading in his budget remarks, and the state has approved a new screening tool for dyslexia, but leaders across California lack a common goal to improve reading.

    Second, Mississippi has placed reading curriculum at the center of its reform efforts. Like California, Mississippi has an approved textbook list, with the difference being that the choices in Mississippi are all highly rated for alignment to college and career-ready standards by EdReports. One of those curricula, Wit and Wisdom, is also well-regarded for its knowledge-building features. Students read whole texts of fiction and non-fiction that showcase diverse perspectives and topics.

    California last released a textbook adoption list in 2015. Districts aren’t required to pick from California’s current list, nor does the state keep track of which curricula are being used. The California Reading Coalition has carried out the most comprehensive review to date and finds that one of the more popular series used in California districts is poorly rated and negatively correlated with student achievement. 

     In the last nine years, publishers have created high-quality English language arts curricula that are well aligned with college-ready standards. Now, there are also well-regarded curricula such as Bookworms and EL Education, whose publisher has made them openly accessible to districts and schools. This helps districts save on costs and frees up resources to support teachers’ implementation.

    Third, Mississippi has worked to strengthen the professional expertise of teachers. 

    Mississippi added literacy coaches in its 75 lowest-performing schools to help teachers learn how to implement new curriculum and offer feedback to improve instruction. California added the exact same number as part of the settlement in the civil rights lawsuit. Research from Stanford found the coaches had a positive effect on early reading achievement. But California’s coaches only reached 1% of schools. If the policy had operated at the same scale as Mississippi’s, the state would have added 800 coaches, not 75. 

    Historically, most university teacher preparation programs have had a high amount of autonomy, with tenured faculty highly resistant to change. Mississippi redesigned its teacher prep program requirements so universities must offer three common courses for all aspiring early literacy teachers. Last year, the National Council of Teacher Quality gave high ratings to two-thirds of Mississippi’s nine colleges training teachers, as their courses now address all five components of scientifically based reading instruction. In California, 60% of university programs scored an “F” for not addressing any of the five components. 

    California has taken some important steps on teaching quality. It has created a new PK-3 teaching credential based on new literacy standards and is developing a performance-based reading licensure test for new teachers. But a world of minimal oversight of teacher preparation programs, which are allowed to teach anything they want, fails to ensure all students have expert teachers.

    Some policymakers and journalists dismiss Mississippi’s progress because the state has a third-grade promotion gate. Students have three attempts to pass the state test but are retained a year if they score below the state’s threshold. But those students don’t receive more of the same the next year. Instead, they are provided with an extra 90 minutes a day of intensive reading instruction, an individualized plan, and are guaranteed a high-quality teacher. A recent Boston University study found that students who repeated third grade scored higher on the state reading exams by sixth grade than fellow students who barely passed the third-grade test.

    Assembly Bill 2222, recently proposed by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, would initiate important changes in how reading is taught in California. A new textbook cycle would adhere to research-based methods for teaching reading. All current teachers, specialists and literacy coaches would have nearly a week of training to bring them up to speed on the latest research-based teaching. Most importantly, the bill borrows ideas from Colorado — a state whose policies are also rated highly by the National Council on Teacher Quality — on how to strengthen accountability for teacher prep programs that have not taught effective reading strategies. 

    Some policymakers have expressed concern that the proposed legislation infringes on local control of schools. Look at where local control has gotten California: only 43% of third graders read proficiently, while other states taking a stronger role show dynamic growth. It’s worth remembering that the responsibility for ensuring educational equity and excellence resides not in the Covina Valley or Chula Vista school districts but in California’s state constitution and the plenary power of the Legislature.

    •••

    David Scarlett Wakelyn is a consultant at Upswing Labs, a nonprofit that works with school districts and charter schools to improve instruction. He previously was on the team at the National Governors Association that developed Common Core State Standards

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





    Source link

  • What California college students think about online classes

    What California college students think about online classes


    “I don’t really like asynchronous or online classes. Yes, it’s convenient for me, but it’s not convenient for my learning,” Chase said. “It’s not conducive to any learning.” 

    Chase is currently taking a statistics class asynchronously with recorded lectures from Zoom and optional lab sections with a graduate student instructor. He feels these lab sections are helpful, but ultimately wished that his statistics lectures could also be in-person. 

    Chase doesn’t seek out online classes because he feels the opportunity to ask his professor questions is lost. He said although online lectures have benefits, including being able to rewind, edit and speed up lectures, he ultimately feels that interaction with classmates during lectures is more valuable for his learning. 

    “Sometimes a few things might slip that I can’t hear the teacher saying that I can’t get back, but I’m willing to sacrifice like a sentence or two for just a general overall interaction,” Chase said. 

    Despite the downsides of asynchronous learning, Chase does enjoy completing homework and exams online because he feels less pressure and is more comfortable. The flexibility in completing assignments on his own time and in a place of preference is an aspect of online class that Chase appreciates. 

    Ultimately, he doesn’t prefer online classes because he learns best in an in-person environment. Chase expressed the value in talking to and collaborating with a variety of classmates on problems. 

    “I get better understanding, especially when I’m mixing with my peers to ask for help. When everyone is separated, there’s no creativity, there’s no new ideas,” Chase said. “When everyone’s together mingling, that’s the spark of new ideas, new creations.”

    By Kelcie Lee





    Source link

  • Teachers alone can’t address the literacy crisis

    Teachers alone can’t address the literacy crisis


    Credit: Alison Yin/EdSource

    Improving literacy instruction is once again in fashion among America’s policy circles. Between 2019 and 2022, state legislatures passed more than 200 bills that sought to push and pull public schools to embrace the “science of reading.”

    But one year into closely following a big city school district’s effort to remake literacy instruction as part of a project with the Center on Reinventing Public Education, I can’t help but think these well-intended legislative efforts ignore the larger problem: teachers working alone in their classrooms are ill-positioned on their own to provide the support children most need to learn to read. 

    CRPE’s report on this project suggests that addressing the literacy crisis requires more than papering over the harms of bad curricula. It means rethinking the traditional teaching model, long a hallmark of public education in the United States, that leaves one adult in charge of supporting 25 or more children who arrive with wildly different levels of preparation and uneven or absent literacy support at home.  

    Thanks to the work of organizations like The Oakland REACH and the Oakland NAACP, the Oakland Unified School District started quietly overhauling its approach to literacy instruction two years ago. That work involved familiar investments in new curriculum and professional development.

    But the real stars of the strategy were early literacy tutors, community members — including parents and grandparents — who were trained and paid to support small groups of students working to develop foundational literacy skills. 

    Thanks to the investment in early literacy tutors, Oakland schools were able to offer significantly more targeted and differentiated instruction than they would have otherwise. One school we visited used an “all hands on deck” approach that leveraged eight classroom teachers, two tutors, and two non-classroom educators to ensure that every student was getting the targeted literacy instruction they needed. Another school described using tutors to support literacy instruction in a first-second combination class, where students’ instructional needs varied by multiple grade levels. 

    In interviews, teachers and principals alike described the importance of having an additional adult to support reading instruction. A teacher we spoke to said having a trained tutor in her classroom meant she could support five literacy groups instead of two and provide extra support to children who were furthest behind. Without the tutor, this teacher said she would have had to rely more on whole-group direct instruction, pushing children who didn’t yet know their letter sounds to learn alongside those already reading. 

    A parent contrasted her child’s experience in an Oakland school supported by a tutor with her own experience: “I think back to when I was in school. If you were behind where the class was, you were really left behind, or if you were ahead, then maybe you were bored and your mind was wandering and you weren’t paying attention. I feel like with (early literacy tutors) … (students) get special time with an adult who is working with them. And I think that is really impactful.”

    Importantly, in shouldering some of the work of literacy instruction, early literacy tutors provided a critical well of support for beleaguered educators, whose jobs have become ever more difficult coming out of the pandemic. Increasing behavioral challenges, an attendance crisis and larger variation in students’ learning needs are putting extraordinary demands on teachers at a time when public attitudes about work and the prestige of teaching are also evolving and eroding teachers’ commitment to their jobs. 

    Early literacy tutors could meaningfully help shoulder the load of reading instruction in large part because they were fully integrated into the district’s larger strategy around literacy. Unlike other tutoring programs that largely operate on the periphery of schools, Oakland’s early literacy tutors worked hand-in-hand with school staff charged with supporting literacy instruction. 

    Two years after they embarked on the new strategy, Oakland can’t yet claim to have solved the literacy problem, but there are glimmers of hope. Our study found that students who had access to evidence-based, differentiated literacy instruction — whether tutor- or teacher-provided — made statistically significant learning gains in reading and these gains were especially large in kindergarten. These results were achieved despite the fact that schools told us they needed additional tutors to fully optimize small-group reading instruction. Imagine what might be possible if every child had access to differentiated instruction that met their individual needs.

    Expecting teachers, working alone in their classrooms, to provide both all the individualized support students most need was probably always a fool’s errand; continuing to embrace it as students struggle and deal with the lifelong consequences of illiteracy is simply irresponsible. As schools look to make up ground lost during the pandemic, those that support them should understand the limitations that come with investing too little into the effort. 

    ●●●

    Ashley Jochim is a principal at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, where her research focuses on identifying opportunities and obstacles to addressing systemic challenges in K-12 schools. She co-authored a report on the organization’s work in Oakland Unified School District.

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





    Source link

  • Increasing access can raise number of California students eligible for 4-year colleges, panel says

    Increasing access can raise number of California students eligible for 4-year colleges, panel says


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhH3-SDb0Io

    California high schools can increase the number of students completing college prep courses if they raise awareness and support student success, according to panelists at EdSource’s roundtable, Keeping options open: Why most students aren’t eligible to apply to California’s public universities.

    Throughout the discussion on Tuesday, the panelists explored why a majority of high school students fail to complete A-G requirements — courses they need to qualify for admission to the University of California or California State University systems — and offered ways that schools can help change that.  

    “I think we have a responsibility to raise the expectations and then lean in to making sure that we have the support in place for students to be successful in those expectations,” said Sherrie Reed Bennett, executive director of the California Education Lab at the UC Davis School of Education.

    Panelists agreed that the more options students have, the better their situation after graduation and that increasing access to college prep courses is crucial. 

    Michael R. McCormick, superintendent of Val Verde Unified, said that awareness should start well before students enter high school and that schools should create a college and career culture with events such as College Days or elementary school lessons on A-G courses. 

    But beyond awareness, high school students are not getting the support they need to complete the A-G coursework, and parents and students, who often know little or nothing about these requirements, are left to figure it out on their own, panelists said.  

    “To expect people to go out and figure it out on their own is really difficult,” Delilah Brumer, a student at Los Angeles Pierce College, said about high school students not having the resources to learn about A-G requirements.

    Some schools also struggle with offering the A-G coursework or doing so in a way that supports students. In 2018-19, 2.5% of schools offered no A-G courses, and another 6% only offered some A-G courses.

    Although Brumer met her A-G requirements at a Los Angeles Unified school, she said the process was stressful and confusing. Her Career Technical Education courses often conflicted with her A-G courses, and she could only take some courses online. 

    Taking A-G and CTE courses shouldn’t be a matter of “either or,” Reed said, adding that districts should work to prevent those conflicts. For example, Val Verde Unified offered 42 career pathways and ensured that every course within each pathway was also A–G approved, according to Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) research in which Reed co-authored and cited during the roundtable.

    Whether college or career, the A-G courses are important for all students, no matter what their plans are after high school, panelists said.

    Systemic changes needed 

    Students planning to attend UC or CSU must complete the college preparatory courses known as A-G requirements — 15 courses in seven areas that overlap with the requirements for a high school diploma but are more rigorous.  

    More than half, 56%, of high school seniors failed to meet these requirements in 2023, meaning they were ineligible to apply to a California public university and may struggle at a community college.

    Research indicates that enrollment and completion rates on A-G courses vary across student groups and schools. In 2023, 68% of Black students and 64% of Latino students did not meet A-G requirements, compared with 26% of Asian students and 48% of white students, according to EdSource’s analysis. The highest non-completion group was foster students at 88%, followed by disabled students at 85% and English learners at 82%.

    It’s a multifaceted problem that requires systemic changes at a district, and possibly, statewide level, panelists said. 

    Aleka Jackson-Jarrell, program coordinator for the Heritage program at Victor Valley Union High School District, said schools must evaluate support through an equity lens because there are systemic barriers keeping African American and Latino students from qualifying for four-year universities. 

    With just 6% of Black students graduating with A-G courses at Adelanto High, Victor Valley started Heritage, an equity program that helps place students in A-G courses.  The program also educates families about college applications, financial aid and housing, spearheading school and districtwide changes, such as career advisers helping all students with UC and CSU applications. 

    “So many system changes needed to be made in order for all of our students, not just the African American students, to benefit,” Jackson-Jarrell said. “So a lot of things have changed because of this one equity program; they’re mirroring and changing the systems.” 

    PACE research found that at the school or district level, routine data analysis, such as comprehensive A-G course audits, can also help inform school and course-level changes to support students with meeting the requirements. 

    McCormick suggested that a default enrollment process in the A-G courses would guarantee all students have access and the opportunity to reach their dreams. 

    “If we can, through a policy solution or the stroke of the governor’s pen, decide that we need to teach cursive writing, why can we not do some sort of a policy solution for A-G?” he said.  “It seems like a viable path is there.”





    Source link

  • California Legislature asked again to ban legacy admissions in all of higher education

    California Legislature asked again to ban legacy admissions in all of higher education


    Assemblymember Phil Ting introduced a bill Wednesday to ban legacy admissions in California’s private colleges and universities.

    A California assemblymember wants the state to join others in forcing private universities to stop legacy admissions.

    The bill would prohibit the state’s private colleges and universities from receiving state funding through the Cal Grant program if they give preferential treatment to applicants with donor or alumni connections. 

    The bill makes California one of a handful of states considering curbing legacy admissions at both public and private colleges. Nationally, Sens. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., have also introduced legislation to ban public and private colleges from considering legacy connections in admissions decisions. 

    “Unfortunately, we saw last year that the Supreme Court disallowed the consideration of race in college admissions, but what they didn’t do was disallow the knowledge of income or class in college admissions,” said Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who authored the bill, Assembly Bill 1780. “For the “1% of Americans, they have complete access, they have a back door, they have a side door, they have an express lane into our most elite institutions.” 

    Ting cited a study by Harvard University economists that found that children from families earning more than $611,000 a year are more than twice as likely to receive admission to a university when compared with low- and middle-income families with comparable standardized test scores. 

    Although the vast majority of private institutions in California say they don’t use donor or alumni connections to admit students, and none of the public institutions use legacy status for admission, six universities do, based on their admissions reports to the Legislature. 

    Stanford, the University of Southern California and Santa Clara University, in particular, all admitted more than 13% of their students based on connections to alumni and donors, based on their fall 2022 enrollment. 

    “This is a fairly limited practice within our sector,” said Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. “We have indicated to Assemblymember Ting’s office and others that we welcome the conversation and look forward to reviewing the details of the proposal once it is in print.” 

    Officials from Stanford and USC did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication. 

    Fall 2022 Enrollment Data

    Sophie Callott, a senior at Stanford University, said her parents met as law students at the university, and so she’s a legacy student. Despite that, she’s in favor of ending the practice. 

    “I do not want my achievements to be overshadowed or questioned by the possibility that I only got into Stanford because my parents went there,” she said, during a news conference hosted by Ting on Wednesday about the bill. “People who go to schools like Stanford have an unparalleled advantage in the job market that allows them to disproportionately occupy high-paying leadership positions. If their children are further given a leg up in the admissions process, then this cycle of wealth and privileges continues.” 

    What is not known about legacy admissions?

    The move to ban legacy admissions has taken off following the conservative-majority decision by the Supreme Court to effectively end race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities. California law has banned the use of affirmative action in public institutions since 1996, and a recent effort to reverse that decision failed in 2020. The state’s private institutions did not have to follow California’s affirmative action ban, but in order to accept federal dollars, they did have to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. 

    Alyssa Murray, a Stanford student and co-president of the Stanford Black Student Union, said during the news conference that legacy admissions is a form of racial preference and economic discrimination, and ending it would be one step toward creating true equity in higher education. 

    “For nearly a century, California private schools have predominantly admitted white students, creating an insurmountable racial imbalance,” she said. “That means legacy admissions will always favor white and wealthy applicants at the expense of low-income students of color who often do not have alumni relations.” 

    Ting attempted a similar bill in 2019 following Operation Varsity Blues, the national college admissions scandal that exposed a scheme through which the children of rich parents were able to get into top-tier schools using fake athletic credentials and bogus entrance exam scores. That bill ultimately failed and was opposed by the state’s private colleges because the system of legacy admissions was unrelated to the scandal and there were concerns that disallowing private schools that use legacy admissions from participating in the Cal Grant program would only hurt low-income students also attending those institutions. 

    Ting said the 2019 bill failed because Varsity Blues was too anecdotal and there wasn’t enough hard data, but now the numbers show where legacy admissions are prevalent. That data is now available because of a separate 2019 bill, AB 697, that Ting authored in the aftermath of the scandal, forcing private universities to send admissions and enrollment reports to the Legislature.

    A June report by the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, which did not include data from Stanford or USC, found that only five of 70 private institutions allowed legacy admissions — Santa Clara, Pepperdine, Vanguard, Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd.

    “It is a fact that legacy admissions perpetuates a cycle of privilege that fortifies inequity in higher education,” said Murray, co-president of the Stanford Black Student Union. “Legacy admissions perpetuates the racism of decades past when colleges and universities were closed to Latinx, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native people.”





    Source link

  • Interactive Map: LAUSD’s 100 Priority Schools

    Interactive Map: LAUSD’s 100 Priority Schools



    .errordiv padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; width:500px; #advanced_iframe_52 visibility:visible;opacity:1;vertical-align:top;.ai-info-bottom-iframe position: fixed; z-index: 10000; bottom:0; left: 0; margin: 0px; text-align: center; width: 100%; background-color: #ff9999; padding-left: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px; border-top: 1px solid #aaa a.ai-bold font-weight: bold;#ai-layer-div-advanced_iframe_52 p height:100%;margin:0;padding:0var ai_iframe_width_advanced_iframe_52 = 0;var ai_iframe_height_advanced_iframe_52 = 0;function aiReceiveMessageadvanced_iframe_52(event) aiProcessMessage(event,”advanced_iframe_52″, “true”);if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener(“message”, aiReceiveMessageadvanced_iframe_52); else if (el.attachEvent) el.attachEvent(“message”, aiReceiveMessageadvanced_iframe_52);var aiIsIe8=false;var aiOnloadScrollTop=”true”;var aiShowDebug=false;
    if (typeof aiReadyCallbacks === ‘undefined’)
    var aiReadyCallbacks = [];
    else if (!(aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array))
    var aiReadyCallbacks = [];
    function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) jQuery(“#”+id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”); function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) aiResizeIframeHeight(height,advanced_iframe_52); function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);var ifrm_advanced_iframe_52 = document.getElementById(“advanced_iframe_52”);var hiddenTabsDoneadvanced_iframe_52 = false;
    function resizeCallbackadvanced_iframe_52()

    Source: Los Angeles Unified District Open Data Catalog; California Department of Education



    Source link

  • LAUSD’s 100 priority schools target district’s highest-need students

    LAUSD’s 100 priority schools target district’s highest-need students


    LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho interacting with a student.

    Credit: LAUSD

    This story has been updated to remove demographic data, which the CDE has reported may not be accurate.

    Shortly after Alberto Carvalho became superintendent of LAUSD two years ago, he created a 100-day plan and named the district’s top 100 priority schools. 

    At the time, neither Carvalho nor district staff publicly identified the schools. However, LAUSD has continuously maintained that the schools are some of the district’s lowest-performing campuses in all measures, and that they would serve as the focal point of various district initiatives, such as decisions on adding additional instructional days to help students recover from pandemic learning loss and the new policy precluding charter schools from sharing their campuses. 

    LAUSD’s 100 priority schools, which is being made public for the first time because EdSource sought it, were selected based on considerations about what schools had the greatest need to improve in areas such as attendance rates, performance on the state Smarter Balanced Assessment and interim assessments, rates of completion of college-required courses (known as A-G), and proportion of students who are English learners, a district spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource this month. 

    The district also ensures that the principals of these priority schools participate in special programs where they can identify and express their schools’ special needs in academics, facilities or human resources. 

    The principals then receive an immediate response from support personnel with the goal of rapidly accelerating student achievement, the district spokesperson said. 

    EdSource does not have accurate demographic data for the 100 Priority Schools or the district because California Department of Education’s DataQuest website has noted inaccurate reporting from LAUSD.

    Schools on the LAUSD priority list 

    1. 107th Street Elementary School
    2. 109th Street Elementary School
    3. 112th Street Elementary School
    4. 28th Street Elementary
    5. 42nd Street Elementary School
    6. 49th Street Elementary School
    7. 52nd Street Elementary School 
    8. 54th Street Elementary
    9. 59th Street Elementary
    10. 75th Street Elementary
    11. 93rd Street Elementary
    12. 95th Street Elementary
    13. Alta Loma Elementary School
    14. Dr Maya Angelou Community Senior High
    15. Aragon Avenue Elementary
    16. Audubon Middle School
    17. Bancroft Middle School
    18. Bethune Middle School
    19. Blythe Street Elementary School
    20. Tom Bradley Global Awareness Magnet
    21. Budlong Avenue Elementary School
    22. Bushnell Way Elementary School
    23. Camellia Avenue Elementary
    24. George Washington Carver Middle School
    25. Century Park Elementary School
    26. Cesar Chavez Elementary School
    27. Cimarron Avenue Elementary
    28. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School
    29. Coliseum Street Elementary
    30. Columbus Avenue Elementary
    31. Compton Ave Elementary School
    32. Contreras Learning Center-School of Social Justice
    33. Crenshaw High School STEMM Magnet
    34. Susan Miller Dorsey Senior High
    35. Charles Drew Middle School
    36. Mervyn M. Dymally High School
    37. Thomas Alva Edison Middle School 
    38. Lovelia P Flournoy Elementary
    39. John C. Fremont Senior High
    40. Gage Middle School
    41. Samuel Gompers Middle School
    42. Grape Street Elementary
    43. Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School
    44. Haddon Avenue Elementary
    45. Harmony Elementary School
    46. Harrison Street Elementary
    47. Bret Harte Preparatory Middle School
    48. Augustus F. Hawkins High School
    49. Hillcrest Drive Elementary
    50. Hillside Elementary
    1. Holmes Avenue Elementary
    2. Hooper Avenue Elementary
    3. Thomas Jefferson Senior High
    4. Dr James Edward Jones Primary Center
    5. Jordan High School
    6. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
    7. La Salle Avenue Elementary
    8. Gerald A. Lawson Academy of the Arts, Mathematics and Science
    9. Limerick Avenue Elementary
    10. Los Angeles Academy Middle School
    11. John W. Mack Elementary
    12. Charles Maclay Middle School
    13. Main Street Elementary
    14. Manhattan Place Elementary
    15. Mann UCLA Community School
    16. Manual Arts Senior High School
    17. Marina Del Rey Middle School
    18. Edwin Markham Middle School 
    19. McKinley Avenue Elementary
    20. Miramonte Elementary
    21. John Muir Middle School
    22. Murchison Street Elementary
    23. Napa Street Elementary
    24. Nevin Avenue Elementary
    25. Normandie Avenue Elementary
    26. Northridge Middle School
    27. Norwood Street Elementary School
    28. Barack Obama Global Preparation Academy
    29. Panorama High School
    30. Rosa Parks Learning Center
    31. Pio Pico Middle School
    32. Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte Elementary
    33. Leo Politi Elementary School
    34. Ramona Elementary
    35. Sally Ride Elementary: A SMArT Academy
    36. Carlos Santana Arts Academy
    37. Francisco Sepulveda Middle School
    38. Sheridan St Elementary School
    39. Hilda L Solis Learning Academy
    40. Southeast Middle School
    41. Trinity Street Elementary
    42. Valerio Street Elementary School
    43. Van Nuys Middle School
    44. George Washington Preparatory Senior High
    45. Lenicia B Weemes Elementary
    46. West Athens Elementary
    47. Western Avenue T.E.C.H. Magnet
    48. Charles White Elementary School
    49. Woodcrest Elementary
    50. YES Academy

    Enrollment numbers at LAUSD’s priority schools 

    LAUSD’s overall enrollment, excluding charter schools, is 533,495. Based on census day enrollment data from the 2022-23 academic year, 53,959 students attend the district’s priority schools. 

    Of the 100 priority schools, there are 12 high schools, 20 middle schools and 63 elementary schools. Two are listed as K-12 schools, while three are alternative schools of choice. 

    Chronic absenteeism rates 

    The schools sustained a chronic absenteeism rate of 38.2% in the 2022-23 academic year, meaning that 38.2% of students missed at least 10% of school. 

    LAUSD on the whole, however, sustained a 32.8% rate of chronic absenteeism. 

    Performance on state assessments 

    Just over 23% of students attending priority schools have met or exceeded English standards, while 16.12% have met or exceeded math standards. 

    By comparison, across the district, 41.17% of students met or exceeded state standards in English, according to Smarter Balanced test results, while 30.5% met or exceeded state standards in math. 

    High school graduation rates 

    During the 2022-23 academic year, LAUSD sustained a graduation rate of 90.4, while, on average, nearly 80.74% of students enrolled at Priority high schools graduated. 

    Rate of  A-G requirements completion 

    Across LAUSD, 43.8% of students in the 2022-23 academic year did not complete the A-G requirements and were thus ineligible for admission to the California State University and University of California systems. 

    At the priority schools, however, 69.18% graduates did not complete their A-G requirements. 

    Yuxuan Xie, EdSource data visualization specialist, contributed data analysis to this report.





    Source link