دسته: 1

  • Slow down and take a closer look at the issue of trans athletes

    Slow down and take a closer look at the issue of trans athletes


    Credit: Philip Strong / Unsplash

    As a San Francisco liberal, I was surprised to find myself agreeing with some MAGA arguments. It reflects a common way of thinking these days: You are either with us or against us. You are either a flaming woke liberal or an ignorant nutcase conservative.

    Not so.

    There are two basic ways people make decisions. Thinking fast and thinking slow. That’s the analysis of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman.

    Thinking fast is how we make emotional, stereotypic, unconscious decisions. Knee-jerk reactions. Thinking slow, on the other hand, takes more effort and analysis.

    Unfortunately, we sometimes come up with quick, simple answers to questions that require more complicated analysis.

    Let’s take the controversy of whether trans athletes should play on girls sports teams.

    President Donald Trump successfully used this issue to fuel culture wars between Democrats and Republicans during the 2024 presidential campaign.

    The first reaction is emotional, on both sides of the political divide.

    • Conservative response: It’s not fair to give one team a competitive advantage and risk injury to students.
    • Liberal response: Of course they should play on girls teams. We should never discriminate against trans athletes. Banning the athlete treats her as an outsider or misfit. This further traumatizes the trans athlete, who is already struggling with acceptance.

    These “my way or the highway” approaches are playing out at both the federal and state levels.

    One of Trump’s first acts as president was an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

     “In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports. This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”

    Democrats later blocked an effort in Congress to turn Trump’s executive order into law.

    Since 2014, California students have had the right to play on a sports team that aligns with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the student’s records.

    However, two bills were recently introduced in the Legislature to ban this.

    • Assembly Bill 89 (Sanchez), would have required the California Interscholastic Federation to amend its constitution, bylaws and policies to prohibit a pupil whose sex was assigned male at birth from participating on a girls interscholastic sports team.
    • Assembly Bill 844 (Essayli) would have required that a pupil’s participation in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use of facilities, be based upon the pupil’s sex at birth, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

    Both bills were blocked in committee on Tuesday, but Republicans have promised to continue their efforts.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has angered Democrats and human rights advocates by breaking from the party line. He believes that allowing transgender girls and women to participate in female sports leagues is “deeply unfair.”

    Let’s now take the “think slow” approach: Analyze the issue. Don’t jump to conclusions.

    This issue is not hypothetical for me. My son has played on a girls team, and my daughter has played on a boys team. I have played on women’s soccer teams against trans athletes. For years, I played on co-ed teams.

    But there is one undisputed fact: On average, adolescent boys and men are stronger, taller and faster than girls.

    I absolutely support trans athletes playing on girls’ teams … unless they are bigger and stronger than the girls.

    The table below shows you the physical differences.

    There are no simple answers.

    Conservative response: Ban all trans athletes from playing on a girls team. To heck with equity.

    Liberal response: Allow all trans athletes to play on a girls team. To heck with competitive advantage and safety.

    Neither approach makes sense.  We need a middle ground.

    Let’s try an approach that puts students first.

    • Recognize this is an issue of fairness and equity for both the trans athlete and the members of the girls team.
    • For high school interscholastic sports, base the solution on the particular situation in junior and senior year of high school. That’s when the dramatic differences in strength, weight and height can influence the outcome of the game and impact the safety of the students.
    • For college sports, assess whether there will be a competitive advantage or risk of injury.
    • Understand that whatever the decision, people will be angry.
    • Forget the political divide and rest your decision on what you think is best for students.

    •••

    Carol Kocivar is a child advocate, writer for Ed100.org, retired attorney and past president of the California State PTA.

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





    Source link

  • Democrats reject California bills banning transgender athletes

    Democrats reject California bills banning transgender athletes


    A general view of the California State Capitol building in Sacramento.

    Credit: Kirby Lee / AP

    California Democrats on an Assembly committee blocked two bills Tuesday that would have banned transgender athletes from girls’ sports, locker rooms, bathrooms and dorms, after an emotional three-hour hearing that underscored the political divide in both the country and state.

    Assembly Bill 89 would have required the California Interscholastic Federation to change its policies and prohibit an athlete who was male at birth from participating in a girls’ interscholastic sports team. Assembly Bill 844 would have changed state law to require college and K-12 students who play sports to play on the teams and use the facilities that align with the sex they were assigned at birth.

    Both bills failed in party-line votes to move out of the Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism.

    The hearing drew an overflow crowd of people with strong opinions on transgender rights, the political divide and President Donald Trump.

    Assemblymember Kate Sanchez, R-Rancho Santa Margarita, author of Assembly Bill 89, said the bill was not politically motivated. 

    “Let’s be clear; it is not about hate,” Sanchez said. “It is not about fear, and it’s not right-wing talking points. This is entirely about fairness, safety and integrity in girls’ competitive high school athletics. That’s it.”

    Committee member Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Hollywood, disagreed.

    “It’s about playing on the hate and fear of transgender people, one of our most marginalized communities,” he said. “And it is right-wing talking points.”

    Transgender rights are political

    The rights of transgender people, who make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, have been rolled back under the Trump administration. Since Jan. 20, Donald Trump has signed executive orders restricting gender-affirming care and proclaiming there are only two biological sexes. He has announced plans to ban transgender troops from serving openly in the military, directed federal agencies to recognize only a person’s biological sex on passports and ordered that incarcerated transgender women be moved to men’s prisons.

    “The Trump administration has not only targeted transgender people through hateful executive orders, but has tried to erase their existence — erasing websites that talk about them, erasing studies that inform us about the needs of the community, (and) attempting to ban them from medical care, from public life,” Zbur said. “And, you know, the thing I just want to say is this is really reminiscent, to me, of what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.”

    Since 2013, the California School Success and Opportunity Act has allowed students to participate in sports based on their gender identity. It’s not a popular stance in much of the nation. According to a Pew Research Center study released last month, two-thirds of the country prefer laws and policies that require athletes to compete on teams that match the sex assigned at birth.

    Bill supporters quote Newsom

    Republican lawmakers and other supporters of the bills were quick to bring up comments made by California Gov. Gavin Newsom during a recent podcast, during which the Democrat called the participation of transgender athletes in female sports “deeply unfair.”

    “This bill is not just about compliance with federal law, it’s about doing the right thing for our girls,” said Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, who authored Assembly Bill 844. “To quote Gov. Newsom — that right-wing extremist — this is an issue of fundamental fairness.”

    Essayli has authored two other failed bills aimed at transgender students. Assembly Bill 1314, introduced in 2023, would have required schools to notify parents within three days if their child identifies as transgender. Assembly Bill 3146, introduced last year, would have banned health care providers from providing gender-affirming care in the form of procedures or prescriptions to people younger than 18. 

    California in the federal crosshairs

    Last month, the U.S. Department of Education announced it was investigating the California Interscholastic Federation because it allegedly violated federal nondiscrimination laws by allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s and girls’ sports.

    Essayli called California’s law allowing transgender students to participate in sports and to use facilities based on their gender identity a violation of Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sex.

    “If the Legislature does not take action to bring California into compliance with Title IX and federal directives, we will not only be failing our female students and athletes, but we are also jeopardizing a critical funding source for our school districts,” he said.

    The Department of Education announced last month that it would revert to the Title IX regulations put in place during Trump’s first term in office, which base protections on biological sex, instead of on gender identity.

    U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent a letter to Newsom last week warning that the state could lose funding because of its policies, Essayli said. The federal government contributes about $8 billion annually to California schools.

    The department has also announced it is investigating the California Department of Education because of a state law that bans schools from implementing parental notification policies requiring teachers to inform parents if their child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth.

    Democrats on the dais, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, who showed up at the hearing as a substitute for an absent committee member, railed against the Trump administration’s policies.

    “Meanwhile, here in California, residents are facing cuts to Medicare, to schools, and to veterans’ services,” Rivas said. “Californians have lost their jobs because of DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency). But our Republican colleagues, they don’t want to talk about that. Republicans keep emphasizing how this bill protects women and girls. And women do face threats today, but not from the very small number of transgender kids playing sports.” 

    Rivas said that in his more than six years in office, he has never been stopped at the grocery store by constituents concerned about transgender athletes playing sports on girls’ teams. 

    “There is no epidemic of transgender kids playing basketball and soccer or any other sport for that matter,” he said. “There are more kids right now with measles in Texas than there are transgender athletes playing in the NCAA. Look, this past December, NCAA President Charlie Baker testified at a congressional hearing that out of more than 500,000 total college student athletes, he believed that fewer than 10 of those athletes were transgender. That’s not an epidemic.”

    Both sides cite harm to girls

    Sanchez said Tuesday that the California policy has had “devastating consequences,” resulting in transgender athletes taking titles girls should have won and hurting girls physically during competition. 

    Both sides rolled out stories of girls who they say have been harmed. An athlete who lost a spot on a team to a transgender athlete. A girl in a conservative state who had to pull up her top in a bathroom to prove she was not transgender. A girl who was knocked unconscious by a ball spiked by a transgender athlete.

    “I don’t feel there’s such a thing as girls’ sports anymore,” said a high school student identified only as Jaden, who says her chance to compete in the CIF State Track and Field Championships is at risk because of a transgender athlete with a No. 1 ranking.

    “It feels wrong,” she said. “I don’t understand how my hard work, my dedication, my very best can be rendered meaningless by a policy that ignores the differences between males and females. If we keep on the way we’re going, it sends a horrible message to young women like me that our achievements can be erased, our opportunities diminished, and our voices silenced.”

    Committee Chair Christopher Ward, D-San Diego, who also chairs the LGBTQ Caucus, called the bills harmful to all girls, many of whom could find themselves faced with intrusive methods to prove they were born female.

    Female athletes would be better served with legislation that would provide equitable funding and facilities for girls’ sports, diminish the harassment of players, and combat the exploitation and abuse by coaches and support staff, instead of by legislation aimed at banning transgender athletes, he said.

     “It sickens me that we’ve normalized that the cruelty is the point and that the collateral impact affects all girls,” Ward said. 





    Source link

  • California lawmaker again attempts to make computer science class mandatory

    California lawmaker again attempts to make computer science class mandatory


    Across more than two dozen Fresno County school districts, Quiq Labs, a tech education company, teaches students science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics through afterschool and summer or winter break enrichment programs.

    Photo courtesy of Quiq Labs

    Despite decadeslong efforts through legislation, funding and advocacy, California’s schools have still not caught up with — and are falling further behind — three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course. 

    According to the national 2024 State of Computer Science report, 52% of high schools across California offered computer science in the 2023-24 school year.

    In other states, statewide policy has been pivotal in expanding access to computing skills for all students.

    What is computer science?

    Computer science, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education, is “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society.” Proposed legislation has included the desire for students to go beyond using technology to understand how and why those technologies work.

    Assemblymember Marc Berman, for the third time, has introduced legislation to require every public high school to teach a computer science course, a mandate that will bring access to the 48% of California schools that do not offer a single class. 

    Because Assembly Bill 887 would require schools to implement computer science by the 2029-30 school year, it would expand access to all of California’s students in a way that initiatives have not been able to. 

    “Not having a requirement,” Berman told EdSource last year, “it’s not yielding the progress that our students deserve.” 

    The percentage of computer science classes offered statewide has increased slightly in the last 10 years because of legislation supporting standards and course development, funding for teacher training and on-the-ground efforts to address challenges in diverse communities across the state. 

    In 2014, legislation ordered the Instructional Quality Commission to develop computer science standards. Also, legislation established a method for computer science to satisfy graduation requirements in math. 

    In 2016, the state passed legislation to allow educators in other disciplines to pursue computer science certification with required coursework. 

    In 2018, the state adopted its computer science standards to ensure students received high-quality content in the subject.

    In 2019, the governor and superintendent of public instruction appointed a committee to develop a long-term strategic plan for the state to provide computer science courses to all students. Computer science is approved to count as a science credit. 

    In 2021, the state budgeted $20 million to computer science: $5 million for the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, which is professional development for teachers, counselors and administrators, and $15 million for teacher certifications and a statewide coordinator.

    Under the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, the state created Seasons of CS, California’s year-round computer science professional learning program.

    In 2023, the California Department of Education granted $50 million to expand existing educator professional learning in math, science and computer science.  Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation, requiring the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish a work group to develop a teacher preparation pathway for computer science to boost the number of qualified course teachers.

    For two consecutive years, a bill similar to AB 887 failed to come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which considers the fiscal impact of proposed legislation. 

    According to the Appropriations Committee’s analysis of the 2024 bill, about 425 school districts would have had to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development to teachers at an unknown cost. The Department of Finance opposed the bill because implementation would cost $50 million to $73 million in ongoing funding from Proposition 98. 

    In 2023, Berman’s first iteration of the bill requiring all high schools to teach computer science stalled, in part, because of a lack of teachers, CalMatters reported. 

    The state has, since 2016, invested more than $1.2 billion to address the state’s teacher shortage, including nearly $100 million for computer science teacher training. In 2021, $20 million was allocated to computer science in the state budget: $5 million for the Educator Workforce Investment Grant for professional development of teachers, counselors and administrators and most of $15 million for certifications of educators in other disciplines. 

    Efforts across California have supported over a thousand educators.

    For example, the Small School Districts’ Association, through a nearly $4 million federal CS4NorCal grant, has provided intensive summer workshops for nearly five years as well as ongoing training, coaching and networking throughout the year for educators in small and rural school districts in six Northern California communities of Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta and Siskiyou counties, said Kathy Hamilton and Karen Mix, director and co-director for the grant.

    As a result, teachers have integrated computer science into agriculture, communication, media, digital literacy, math, science and general education classes, electives and clubs.

    A Redding teacher rotates between five schools to make sure students have access to computer science at least once a week. Middle school teachers have added computer science to their schools’ elective wheels for students to rotate through.

    Collaboration between regional and statewide organizations focused on computer science as well as partnerships with local entities that can support program growth and development have also been critical in increasing the number of qualified teachers and expanding access, advocates say.

    In the 2018-19 school year, Modoc County high schoolers had no access to any computer science courses, but numerous nonprofits and community organizations have over the last few years participated in training opportunities to better collaborate in the development of computer science.  The nonprofit Advancing Modoc, which eventually began leading the implementation, recruited tutors and other staff to support the initiative. Some educators have since integrated computer science into core content classes and offered elective courses.

    The professional development, which included year-round training, has led teachers to provide computer science classes, merge concepts into other subjects or offer lessons through electives or clubs. 

    Even with robust professional development, some challenges persist, particularly the reluctance or inability of administrators to include computer science courses in school offerings.  

    “In the past, teachers were reporting back to us in our research, ‘I need support from my administrator to make sure that computer science gets on the master schedule, that we are providing more classes to reach more students,’” said Julie Flapan, an educator and researcher leading two initiatives to expand access and participation in computer science. 

    Amy Pezzoni, computer science teacher at Modesto City Schools, told EdSource last year that passionate teachers are not enough. 

    “You need admin to support you. You need the district to be on board with you,” she said, noting the importance of a legislative mandate.

    Computer science advocates statewide and nationally have recommended a legislative mandate to bolster California’s efforts and increase access to the course. 

    Since 2013, the Code.org Advocacy Coalition, an organization of over 100 nonprofit, advocacy and industry groups across the country, has made policy recommendations for states to “address the urgent need to build capacity in computer science education,” including statewide policy. 

    “Strong policies, supported by resources, action, and implementation, are key to building the capacity needed to improve student access, participation, and experience in computer science education,” according to the national computer science report, which the coalition authored. 

    Legislation requiring schools to offer computer science has been implemented in states such as Arkansas, where all high schools offer computer science, and in neighboring Nevada, where 96% of the state’s high schools offer the course, based on the 2024 report. 

    Alabama also passed legislation in 2019, phasing in the computer science requirement, starting with high schools, followed by middle and elementary schools. This has resulted in an increase from 57% in the 2019-20 school year to 94% this past school year in the rate of high schools offering computer science and more than 90% of middle and elementary schools teaching computer science. 

    Akin among Arkansas, Nevada and Alabama is the adoption of the recommended policies and actions by the Code.org Advocacy Coalition. 

    Although California has implemented most of the policy recommendations — a state plan, state position, funding, K-12 standards, certification programs and allowing it to count for other subjects — the state has not created programs at higher education institutions to encourage aspiring teachers to gain exposure to computer science; nor has it required all schools to offer the course or mandated it as a graduation requirement. 

    Due to the policy recommendations and the state, regional and local efforts, there’s been a double-digit percentage increase of high schools offering computer science since the 2018-19 school year — still far from the national average of 60%. 

    In both the 2023 and 2024 national computer science reports, the authors encouraged California to require all high schools to offer at least one computer science course, “as it would greatly help support the 48% of high schools that currently do not offer any (computer) science courses.” 

    The 2025 legislative attempt to do so passed out of the Assembly Education Committee and was referred to the Appropriations Committee in late March. 

    If computer science courses become a requirement, some schools, such as small, rural schools, will have a harder time offering computer science because of a teacher shortage. Often, educators are already teaching multiple grades and/or subject areas on top of other duties. 

    Integrating, or merging computer science into another subject area, may be the best short-term solution to providing the content to students, especially when semester- or year-long courses aren’t offered, said Kathy Hamilton, who works for the Small School Districts’ Association.

    “Integration needs to be one of the delivery mechanisms if you want to truly provide access for all students around the state,” she said. 

    And it will be. 

    Aware of the unique challenges that some schools face, the legislation acknowledges the need for a course requirement to offer some flexibility. It would require the state’s computer science coordinator to develop an implementation guide that includes “varied computer science course options to best meet local capacity and context,” including computer science concepts being integrated or merged into other subjects.

    And thanks to federal and statewide funding and advocates’ regional and local efforts, there are now scores of teachers trained and ready to teach or integrate computer science.  Whether that is enough to compel the Legislature to require all schools to teach computer science is unknown.





    Source link

  • California colleges report no financial aid delays so far but fear federal upheaval

    California colleges report no financial aid delays so far but fear federal upheaval


    A 2025-26 FAFSA form.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Financial aid staff at California’s colleges and universities have a cautiously optimistic message to share this spring — but are weighing contingencies in case massive restructuring and cuts at the U.S. Department of Education upend federal aid this summer and fall. 

    First, the good news. Federal aid for this spring term — like Pell Grants and work-study aid — has already been disbursed. Universities are processing files from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, for next fall on schedule. And in turn, colleges are sending prospective students preview offers of grants and other support they are eligible to receive if they enroll.

    But trepidation is building about what’s ahead for the hundreds of thousands of California college students receiving Pell Grants and federal loans. Layoffs that have roughly halved the U.S. Department of Education’s workforce “raise serious concerns about the near future, particularly potential delays to the upcoming FAFSA cycle and the federal government’s capacity to accurately distribute billions in student aid,” said Toni DeBoni, the associate vice president for enrollment management at CSU Channel Islands.

    Those worries come following President Donald Trump’s executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all lawful steps” to close the Department of Education. The White House wants to potentially shift the $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and even transfer Pell Grants to another department.

    Trump administration officials have pledged not to interrupt services as they wind down the Education Department, which would require congressional action to be formally eliminated. Trump says student loan servicing has “been a mess” and that it would improve under the SBA. But critics charge that dismantling Education parceling out its workload could hamper the distribution of aid to millions of students and harm student borrowers.

    If those dire predictions prove true, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems would face disruption to a major funding source. Cal State received almost $2.3 billion and UC about $1.7 billion in federal student aid in the 2022-23 school year, much of it for Pell Grants and student loans. Any delay would also be felt at California community colleges, where 24% of students received a Pell Grant in the 2023-24 school year.

    Both university systems are reassuring prospective students and saying they think federal student aid will continue uninterrupted, despite fears of possible cutbacks.

    A UC spokesperson said in a statement that the system of 10 campuses does “not expect recent news about the U.S. Department of Education to impact our ability to award and disburse financial aid to our students” and that federal grants and loans remain available “with no anticipated changes to availability in the foreseeable future.”

    A CSU spokesperson said the 23-campus university system does not anticipate any delay or stop to federal student aid in the 2025-26 school year, adding that “the number of [student and parent] concerns regarding recent federal actions haven’t been widespread.” Systemwide, almost 42% of CSU students receive a Pell Grant, a form of aid for students from low-income families that can provide up to $7,395 for the 2025-26 award year. 

    However, Cal State officials addressed the uncertainty about federal changes more directly at the March meeting of the system’s board of trustees.

    “We know that there have been some (departures) of employees in the Department of Education,” Chancellor Mildred García said. “We are concerned about the process it will take to really go through the FAFSA, and that’s the most that we have heard.”

    “We don’t know who’s going to be processing our FAFSA applications, who is the people in charge, etc.,” she added.

    Nathan Evans, the CSU system’s chief academic officer, said that students and families seeking help with their federal student aid “are having difficulty in connecting and engaging with folks that support the FAFSA process at the federal level. So our teams at our universities are working as hard as possible, but sometimes those answers can only come from the folks that are helping support that directly.”

    Meanwhile, the California Student Aid Commission reported in late February that the number of high school seniors completing financial aid applications was down 25% compared with the same point two years ago, before the rocky rollout of the 2024-25 FAFSA. State officials attributed the decline in part to a nearly two-month delay in the opening last fall of the current federal financial aid cycle.

    Aiming to boost applications, the California Student Aid Commission extended the state’s priority deadline — the date by which students planning to attend four-year schools must apply for most state aid programs — until April 2. The latest commission data shows that as of April 1, about 55% of current high school seniors have completed a FAFSA or the California Dream Act Application, a form of state financial aid aimed at undocumented students. An aid commission spokesperson said the commission plans to soon compare applications through early April to previous years.

    So far, there are promising signs that aid applications are increasing. An analysis by the National College Attainment Network found that FAFSA submissions in California have risen 11% year-over-year. Financial aid staff at Cal Poly Pomona, CSU Bakersfield and UC Riverside said they have observed more FAFSA applications than in the previous year or two, suggesting a return to normal after complications with the new FAFSA.  

    But financial aid officials said Trump’s call to close the Department of Education has led some families to mistakenly conclude that federal student aid is no longer available, discouraging them from applying. Officials are working to counter that misinformation.

    Chad Morris, the director of financial aid and scholarships at CSU Bakersfield, has a simple message to families questioning whether federal aid will be reduced or delayed: Apply anyway. “Take the steps as if there won’t be any disruption,” he said. 

    Cal Poly Pomona is also trying to keep students focused on the here-and-now basics: The Department of Education is still operational; Pell Grants and federal student loans are protected by the law and are still available; students should apply as usual.

    “We don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Jessica Wagoner, the university’s senior associate vice president for enrollment management and services, “but what we can do is tell (students) what’s going on now.”

    Those soothing messages could be muddied by the loaded choice facing students who are eligible for federal aid as U.S. citizens or permanent residents, but who have spouses or parents who are undocumented immigrants. Students from such mixed-status families may have particular apprehension about whether data submitted through the FAFSA could be used for immigration enforcement purposes, though federal law prevents the U.S. Department of Education from using information students enter into the FAFSA for a purpose other than determining a student’s aid.

    University of California students have sued the Education Department, accusing it of turning over sensitive federal student aid data to members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. A federal judge in March blocked DOGE from accessing private data housed at the Education Department. 

    “When students are completing the FAFSA, they need to really look at the risk factor that they may take, especially mixed-status families,” said Jose Aguilar, the executive director of UC Riverside’s financial aid office. “But at the end of the day, if they are eligible for these federal grants and programs, I would encourage them to apply through the FAFSA.”

    UC Riverside has already started sending new students preliminary aid award letters. Its students receive about $79 million in Pell Grants, another $3 million from federal work study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant combined, and an additional $70 million in federal direct subsidized student loans, Aguilar said.

    Given the swings in federal education policy this spring, some university officials are starting to think about how they might respond if federal aid is delayed. DeBoni of CSU Channel Islands said her campus is “actively preparing contingency measures.” The university could extend internal deadlines for students to accept admissions offers or apply for scholarships, she said, and institutional scholarships could help to fund students’ expenses.

    At Cal Poly Pomona, Wagoner said the university could give students waiting for aid similar leeway. But the university, where almost 44% of students receive a Pell Grant, would face “a very big challenge” in the unlikely event of an abrupt drop in Pell dollars, Wagoner added. “I don’t know if we — if any institution — could supplement that loss.”





    Source link

  • Where are California’s high school students?

    Where are California’s high school students?


    High school students in a math class.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    As California schools continue their post-pandemic recovery, a troubling pattern has emerged: High schoolers aren’t showing up.

    Recent midyear attendance data reveals that while elementary school attendance has improved significantly, high school chronic absenteeism remains stubbornly high.

    Nationally and in California, chronic absenteeism numbers tell a concerning story about older students. While California’s average chronic absence rate, based on the sample in the new report, fell to 20.46% (down from 29.04% in 2022-23), high school students continue to struggle.

    Over 28% of California high school seniors included in the report have been chronically absent this school year. We must rethink approaches to engaging older students to improve high school attendance.

    When students miss school, they miss more than just instruction. They miss opportunities to connect with supportive adults and peers — connections directly linked to academic success and well-being.

    Research from YouthTruth, which surveys elementary, middle and high school students, reveals that only 40% of high school students feel they belong at school, compared with 47% of middle schoolers. Only 22% of high school students report that their teachers understand their lives outside school — the lowest percentage since before the pandemic.

    Traditional attendance approaches that work for elementary students don’t resonate with teenagers navigating complex social pressures, growing independence, and increasing responsibilities. Many high school students juggle jobs, family care duties and mental health challenges that are not as prevalent in younger grades.

    The California Safe and Supportive Schools initiative identifies school connectedness as fundamental to attendance. When high schoolers have even one strong connection with a teacher or staff member who understands their life beyond academics, attendance improves dramatically. Schools can implement connection mapping to identify which students could benefit from more connections.

    Schools can also leverage peer influence. According to YouthTruth, 68% of high school students want to help improve their communities, but only 30% report having opportunities to create positive change. Student-led attendance initiatives consistently outperform adult-directed programs. For example, a peer-led “attendance influencer” program has an impact exceeding what other systems can achieve.

    Educators must also seek to understand and address the specific attendance barriers older students face. Many chronically absent teens are helping to support their families, caring for siblings or facing transportation limitations. Flexible scheduling options, transportation assistance and partnerships with local employers can help address these obstacles.

    Communication must shift from punitive to supportive to effectively reach students and families. A recent K-12 family survey revealed that more than 71% of families want messages celebrating good attendance or improvements to share with their child, while only 37% of respondents reported receiving regular communication about steps they can take to improve attendance. Schools that successfully address absenteeism use data to identify patterns and engage students and families in collaborative solutions-finding rather than blame.

    Finally, we must address the mental health component of attendance. Nearly half of all California students (48%) cite depression, stress or anxiety as obstacles to learning — yet only 41% of students nationally report having an adult at school to talk to.

    This “support gap” is particularly pronounced among at-risk student populations. About 77% of LGBTQ+ students cite mental health challenges as barriers to learning, compared with 41% of their peers. While 46% of white students report having an adult at school they can talk to, the percentage is significantly lower for other racial groups, between 37-44%.

    The good news? When targeted strategies are implemented, improvement can happen quickly. Effective approaches to building a culture of belonging include:

    • Teacher-student connection time: Brief but regular one-on-one check-ins to understand students’ lives outside school.
    • Student voice channels: Creating opportunities for students to provide feedback and lead attendance initiatives that resonate with peers.
    • Positive communication: Shifting from absence-focused messages to celebrating improvements and recognizing attendance gains.
    • Data-driven intervention: Using integrated attendance, academic and behavioral data to identify early warning signs and track what works.

    As California continues to invest in attendance improvement, we must tailor our approaches to different grade levels. Our high schoolers don’t want automated calls or perfect attendance certificates. They need meaningful connections, relevant engagement and practical support for real-life barriers.

    California’s future leaders walk our high school hallways — when they show up. Meeting these students where they are isn’t just good policy, it’s our obligation to the next generation of leaders, innovators and citizens.

    •••

    Kara Stern is director of education and engagement at SchoolStatus, a company that provides school districts with data tools and communication support for student engagement. 

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





    Source link

  • When districts face the tough job of closing schools, Manny Barbara is the go-to guy

    When districts face the tough job of closing schools, Manny Barbara is the go-to guy


    Manny Barbara, right, and new Alum Rock Superintendent. German Cerda discuss plans to transition the district to fewer schools.

    Credit: John Fensterwald/EdSource

    Takeaways From Manny Barbara’s school-closure playbook:
    • Allow plenty of time; let the closure process play itself out.
    • Create a fully representative advisory committee without board members, and protect confidential discussions.
    • Celebrate the closure of a school with a community event.
    • Principals must take the lead to welcome parents, students and staffs to their new schools.

    Alum Rock Union Elementary District in East San Jose was out of time. By last fall, it had spent down most its savings; enrollment, more than 16,000 K-8 students in the early 2000s, had dropped to 7,300 and was headed to under 6,000.

    The state was threatening to take it over.

    With more than two-thirds of its 21 schools at less than 50% capacity, the school board faced what it had long delayed: downsizing. It turned to Manny Barbara, the closer. 

    Alum Rock would be the sixth school district in the San Jose area that Barbara had advised on closing schools in the two decades since, as superintendent, he had shuttered two schools in nearby Oak Grove. A former school psychologist, Barbara was well-respected, affable and a good listener. He also had a plan for closing schools.

    Having fired its last superintendent, the Alum Rock board hired Barbara in the summer of 2024 as interim superintendent to lay the groundwork in the community for likely closures. He switched roles to facilitator when the new superintendent, German Cerda, took over in September.

    Between 2019-20 and 2023-24, 222 elementary, middle, and high schools in California closed, according to the state. Along with the five that Alum Rock will close in the fall and additional consolidations of four schools, there will be many more statewide, with tighter budgets ahead and state enrollment projected to decline further.

    Barbara discusses his template for closing schools and how it worked in Alum Rock in an interview with EdSource. The interview was shortened and edited for clarity.

    It’s April; suppose you’re a school board planning to close some schools this fall. What would you say about the timing?

    It’s too late because you need time for the process.

    There are three phases in school closure. The first is the preparation, informing the board, making the case why it has to be done.

    Then the actual process itself: That involves engaging the community through a committee process and taking the recommendation to the board.

    And then, once the board makes a decision, the third phase, which is just as challenging, is the transition to fewer schools.

    At Oak Grove, we started a year in advance — meeting with community, explaining the rationale, presenting the information to the board. Once you begin, you need to be done around February so that you’ve got the last few months for the transition and closure.

    What are the factors to consider when deciding whether to close?

    It’s an economic decision. You don’t want to do this unless you absolutely have to. With Alum Rock, there was a potential receivership.

    It’s also a psychological experience — emotional for the people involved. Parents, staff, students do not want their school closed. I don’t blame them. They get angry. You have to be prepared for that. You can’t convince people with sheer logic.

    Finally, it’s a political process. Elected boards are vulnerable. Parents can make threats of recall.

    What are the factors to address even before you begin the process?

    Context is important. No two districts are alike. The size of the district matters, the number of schools you have to close, the political climate in the district, the stability of the board, superintendent experience. All should be taken into account.

    Employee unions have to be informed. I never expect the associations to support school closures. The associations in Alum Rock’s case weren’t thrilled about it. My expectation is that only if they say they understand the situation, then at least they don’t tell you one thing privately and then publicly say something different.

    Goal for savings: $1 million per school

    So how much would you expect to save from closing a school?

    Close to a million dollars from the savings in administration, support staff, energy costs and so forth. That does not count any revenue that might be received from leasing the school or selling a site, which could bring in tens of millions of dollars.

    When you consolidate two schools, for example, with 300 students per school, you only need one principal, not two.

    In Oak Grove, we were able to do it through retirements. That’s not always possible.

    What’s the role of the superintendent?

    It’s critical. The superintendent has to be front and center. It’s ultimately the board’s decision, but the superintendent needs to be the key communicator and take as much of the heat as possible.

    Is it wise for districts to consider a facilitator?

    I would not recommend that superintendents do it on their own. With a facilitator, a superintendent can observe.  A superintendent has to be out there communicating with behind-the-scenes meetings, listening to people, hearing their concerns, and explaining why it has to be done. You always should be focusing on what’s best for all the students in the district.

    You’re really selling hope that, at the end of the day, the district will come out better in terms of serving all the students. There’ll be more resources available for students and compensation for employee groups.

    I remember a meeting — it was close to 11 p.m. with 100 parents. I made a comment, “Look, if there’s anything I could do to avoid closing the school, I would do it.” Then I caught myself and said, “Well, no. There is something a lot worse: if I have to lay off a lot of staff that support other students in the district to keep open a small school.”

    Who should be on an advisory committee?

    Representatives from every school, all the employee groups, the administration, community groups like neighborhood associations. The one in Alum Rock was particularly challenging, with about 30 people.

    Who chooses them?

    Schools choose their own. The parents apply, and the principal selects. Unions choose their own representation.

    But no board members?

    No board members. The reason is that I don’t want the board members to get too involved because they’re going to be involved in making the final decision. It’s up to them — they can do what they want to do.  I did not encourage them to attend the committee meetings as observers, and they did not.

    As an advisory committee, their meetings were not subject to the Brown Act, the open-meetings law. Did you suggest that they not be open to the public?

    Yes, that is what I recommend. As the superintendent’s advisory committee, it is important to protect committee members. If you’re a parent and you realize “I have to vote to close my school,” it’s not fair to put them in a position where they’re taking the heat.

    Did their names appear in the vote on recommendations?

    The results, but not the names of how people voted. 

    Do you ask the committee not to discuss what is going on? With 30 people, I’m sure it was difficult to keep things in the room.

    I’m not naïve.  You tell people, please keep it in confidence, but we’re dealing with human nature, and sometimes things get out.

    However, after every meeting, a summary of everything that went on in the meeting is made public. The first part in the process is informational. They hear information on the budget, facilities, programs, enrollment, financial projections.

    What are the criteria for deciding which schools to close? Is it diversity, test scores?

    Test scores are not a factor, but it’s school enrollment, demographics; there are legal constraints you have to take into account, like the impact on a lower socioeconomic community. You take into account even political things, like how close they are to charter schools, whether they’re dual-immersion schools and special programs. You also look at the cost of improving facilities.

    Do you recommend speaking with parents?

    There’s constant communication. You need to go to the schools that are recommended for closing. As you might expect, there’s not a lot of, “Thank you for the great work.”

    What is the process before the board?

    You present in a hearing so the public can respond. Then you present again as action.

    How to handle the transition

    Then what after the decision?

    The bad news is that’s actually the easy part. Morale can be very down. And then you go through this period where people are losing their jobs.

    There needs to be a closure period. Schools are a large part of people’s lives, so you celebrate that ending. That is very hard for boards and superintendents, but they have to be there. For a district that closes many schools, it’s like a new district, and you’re now asking, “How are we going to reimagine ourselves going  forward?”

    So how do you bring two groups of parents and teachers together?

    It starts now, not in the summer, with a meeting with staff, explaining the process, meeting with PTA groups, school site councils, since they’re going to merge parent leaders. Principals have to take the lead in making this happen.

    The transition is easier for students and harder for adults. Once kids get there, and teachers welcome them, they adapt pretty quickly.

    Is there an effect on the receiving school, too?

    Depending on how many students they’re receiving, psychologically, they close, too. The teachers may still be there, but it’s a new school.

    For teachers, the transition can go smoothly if the cultures are similar. Sometimes, you need to bring in facilitators for staff to communicate.

    Do you have meetings where kids and parents meet one another before the end of school?

    I recommend that — whenever possible, not just once. Parents especially.

    In instances where things fall apart — boards rescind decisions or can’t reach agreements on closing schools — why does this happen?

    Usually, it falls apart if you rush the process. Anyone can close a school. You just make an announcement, and that’s done. Now, you have to deal with the repercussions.

    You hear about districts where parents said they didn’t believe the dire financial problems the district says existed.

    You have to have credibility with the financing, make budget numbers available to anyone who wants to see them, and explain it over and over. You have to make your case.  

    What happened in Alum Rock?

    You strive for consensus. I’ve been involved with closures in six districts. I’ve always had unanimous votes from the boards. In Alum Rock, with that many schools, we arrived at a consensus on six (four elementary and two middle schools), but the final three were very difficult, and we were under a timeline. The superintendent had to make the decision for the final three. The board responded and modified some. In the end, they got it done.

    How has the process affected you?

    Even as a facilitator, it’s emotional. People are grieving, they love their school. The superintendent and the board go through a lot of stress. Closing a school is the hardest initiative that you’re going to face as a superintendent. 

    I’ve been willing to help, although I kept saying I was never going to do it again. This time, I really mean it.

    How Alum Rock achieved its savings

    Alum Rock Superintendent German Cerda recalls sobering words from a fiscal adviser for the state last September on the plan to close or consolidate nine schools. “He said, ‘You aren’t going to be able to. This is impossible,’” Cerda recalled, with a laugh. “He told me in my face the day they’re approving my contract. And I’m like, ‘Thank you. I’m going out there to accept the contract.’” Cerda was previously assistant superintendent in nearby Campbell Union High School District.

    Cerda proved him wrong. The closure of five schools this fall, plus the expected closure of a school with 200 students in 2026-27, along with the consolidation of four schools into two, will save $8.4 million. The savings will come from reduced expenses like electricity and fewer staff positions (a single principal, secretary, custodian, counselor and community liaison instead of two of each), he said. Additionally, the district will save $7 million to $8 million through teacher layoffs and retirements, and fewer schools with undersized classes will lead to some larger class sizes within limits set by the teachers’ contract – 31 students per class in the case of middle schools, he said.

    The savings don’t include the potential income from selling or leasing closed schools; several companies and private high schools have expressed interest, Cerda said.

    District morale is low because of layoffs and school closures, Cerda acknowledged, but in meeting with principals who will remain, he sensed excitement for the future. There will be more enrichment courses, and once again, Alum Rock will offer algebra in eighth grade – essential for any middle school in San Jose.

    “They can see the light at the end of the tunnel,” he said.





    Source link

  • Districts should target funds to foster youth to improve progress, report says

    Districts should target funds to foster youth to improve progress, report says


    As California expands services needed to grow the number of foster youth enrolling in college, more work is needed to help those students graduate.

    Julie Leopo/ EdSource

    California’s foster care students have improved their high school graduation rates since 2013, but have barely improved, or even lost ground, in rates of suspension, attendance and prompt college enrollment, according to a new report.

    And, in the 10 districts with the most foster students, only a fraction of 1% of the targeted money was directly spent on that group. The report, by WestEd, a nonpartisan education research agency, attributed the discrepancy to a disconnect between the administrators who drew up the spending plans and the staff who work directly with students, the report found.

    Published this week and titled “Revisiting Californiaʼs Invisible Achievement Gap: Trends in Education Outcomes of Students in Foster Care in the Context of the Local Control Funding Formula,” the report details how state policies have affected outcomes for foster youth over the past decade, at times positively, but often in ways that limit their ability to succeed.

    The authors conclude that while those changes facilitate school stabilization and other educational supports, challenges remain, including ensuring that planned school expenditures dedicate some funds to foster students’ unique needs.

    “The report suggests that the implementation of foster care supports remains difficult and that funding for tailored interventions to the unique situations and challenges of students in foster care is not yet a common rule even for districts with large numbers of students in foster care,” said Vanessa Ximenes Barrat, WestEd senior research associate and co-author of the report.

    Tailoring support to specific student populations

    The report’s authors noted that tailoring support to each student group is critical given their varying needs.

    For instance, in the school year immediately preceding the pandemic, which erupted in March 2020, foster students’ chronic absenteeism rate was 28% versus 12% for the overall student population across California. The rates sharply rose during the pandemic and have since steadily decreased. But data from 2022-23, the most recent school year included in the report, shows that discrepancies remain: 25% of all students were chronically absent versus 39% of foster students.

    The wide gaps indicate to school staff that foster youth might need stronger interventions than other student groups in addressing why they are missing so much instructional time.

    Similarly, suspension data shows continuing disparities, despite policy changes in recent years. Whereas suspension rates for all students have largely lingered between 3% and 4% since 2014-15 and through the pandemic, the rate for foster youth was between 13% and 15%.

    “All the things that make students in foster care have all the worst outcomes across the board — their instability, their trauma, etc. — means that they need more of the interventions than everyone else, and they need different interventions based on their unique needs,” said a child welfare and education professional who was interviewed for the report.

    Improved graduation rates, but concerns remain

    One area where foster students have slowly made strides is with graduation rates. Rates have steadily increased for high-needs students, including foster youth, since the 2016-17 school year. That year, 51% of foster students graduated from high school in four years. By 2022-23, 61% were graduating.

    A possible reason for the improvement, according to the report’s authors, is the passage in 2013 of Assembly Bill 216 which allowed some foster students to graduate after completing the state’s minimum requirements.

    School staff who were interviewed for the report said that the law prevented some students from dropping out as they were moved from one placement to another, and encouraged them to complete high school even if they had fallen behind in some courses.

    Other staff noted that the extension of foster care services to age 21 occurred during the same period in which graduation rates improved. The extension, they said, probably prevented students from leaving school because they were receiving added support to avert homelessness and other instabilities common among youth leaving foster care.

    But even with that improvement, school staff interviewed for this report saw areas of concern. Of those foster students who graduated, for example, less than one-fifth had completed the A-G coursework required to qualify for admission to one of the state’s public four-year universities.

    Other takeaways from the report include:

    • While dropout rates among foster youth remain higher than their peers’, they have lowered by 5 percentage points since 2016-17.
    • More foster youth are attending only one school each year, rather than moving between schools, which advocates say causes personal and academic instability — 66% in 2022-23, up from 62% in 2017-18.
    • More foster students are attending high-poverty schools — up from 56% in 2014-15 to 59% in 2022-23.

    As California’s general student population has dwindled, so has the state’s foster student population. State data shows that nearly 45,000 foster students were enrolled in the K-12 grades during the 2014-15 school year on census day, the first Wednesday in October. Eight years later, the state enrolled about 31,700 foster students.

    About a quarter of the state’s foster care students attend school across just 10 districts: Los Angeles Unified, Fresno Unified, Lancaster Elementary, Long Beach Unified, Antelope Valley Union High, Palmdale Elementary, San Bernardino City Unified, Moreno Valley Unified, Kern High, and Hesperia Unified.

    Local-control dollars rarely targeted solely to foster students

    The dip in enrollment of foster students in K-12 coincided with the state’s overhaul of the school finance system and the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula, commonly referred to as LCFF. One of the changes under LCFF was that districts receive supplemental grants based on the number of high-needs students, which includes foster youth, English learners and low-income students.

    Each district must also complete a Local Control Accountability Plan, known as an LCAP, and provide details on how it intends to help students succeed, including actions and expenditures related to the three groups of high-needs students.

    Equity across the state’s student population was part of the intent of implementing LCFF.

    But the report showed that of WestEd’s review of the 10 LCAPs, only 10 of 482 anticipated actions to support overall student populations were specific to foster students. Over half of the actions referenced foster students in some way, but mostly lumped all high-needs students together.

    Foster youth, for example, have alarmingly high rates of chronic absences and increased school mobility. If a service offered by a school requires students to be present in class, foster students may not always benefit; they might instead need greater access to transportation to help them travel to school regularly.

    The question of whether to target more funds specifically to each student group, rather than combining them, persists, given changes at the federal Department of Education and how they may impact foster students.

    Ximenes Barrat said, “As a relatively small and highly vulnerable population with distinct needs, there is a real risk that their concerns could be overlooked amid broader policy shifts.”

    WestEd CEO Jannelle Kubinec is president of the EdSource Board of Directors. EdSource’s editorial team maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage.





    Source link

  • Teachers need more prep time

    Teachers need more prep time


    Credit: Allison Shelley / American Education

    Yesterday — like every day last week — I had just 27 minutes to plan my lessons and grade my fourth-grade students’ work. In reality, I spent that time signing in to the office, getting my mail, setting up breakfast for my students, and calling a parent about their child who had been absent four days in a row. I had no time left to prepare for my first lesson of the day.

    This isn’t just an occasional bad day — it’s a constant reality. Survey results from recent years found that teachers nationwide identify “more planning time during the school day” as one of the most critical changes districts could make to support their teaching.

    Yet, in my district, Los Angeles Unified, the second-largest school district in the nation, elementary teachers have only 27 minutes of prep time — a staggering 20 minutes less than the national average of 47 minutes, which is still too little. This gap isn’t just a statistic; it’s a crisis that directly impacts our ability to plan, collaborate and provide the essential support our students deserve.

    As a 20-year educator and 2017 Teacher of the Year, meeting the needs of every student is my mission. However, a lack of prep time makes it nearly impossible to fulfill that commitment. Many of my students face behavioral challenges that require additional support — particularly those from our highest-needs neighborhoods. But without time to prepare, access resources or collaborate with colleagues, we are failing students before they even begin their day.

    Beyond the individual toll of teacher prep time, the schedule also isolates educators. Teacher collaboration is essential for strong schools, and while I value learning from my colleagues and offering guidance to new teachers, my district’s prep time policy leaves no space for additional collaboration, like mentoring, sharing best practices, or building a community. Burned-out, unsupported teachers cannot create thriving classrooms.

    The new reading program in LAUSD exemplifies the intense time demands on teachers. Each 90-minute lesson requires 30 to 40 minutes of planning — every day, five days a week — for just one subject I teach. This leaves little time for other critical tasks like grading, providing feedback or planning small group instruction. To keep up, I’m forced to spend hours working from home each week, sacrificing time with my family.

    Teachers should not have to choose between their families and students. Yet, a recent survey by Educators for Excellence, “Voices from the Classroom 2024“, found that the second-biggest reason teachers plan to leave the profession is that they take on too many responsibilities outside of paid hours, including lesson planning and grading at home. For teachers in high-need schools, this was the most significant reason — even more important than concerns about low pay.

    At the same time, the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) 2024 scores show little to no improvement in learning since the pandemic, particularly for LAUSD students. Hispanic students — who make up 80% of the district’s student body — continue to lag behind, with an average 31-point gap compared with white students across all grade levels and subjects.

    Addressing the root causes — including insufficient prep time — is critical for districts to close these gaps and keep teachers in classrooms.

    The future of our students depends on a system that prioritizes educator support and adequate prep time. Without action, schools risk losing more talented teachers and leaving students further behind. By demanding more prep time, we can create a stronger, more collaborative school environment — one where teachers stay, students thrive and outcomes improve. The clock is ticking.

    •••

    Misti Kemmer is a 20-year LAUSD educator, 2017 Teacher of the Year, and an active member of Educators for Excellence – Los Angeles, a teacher advocacy organization.

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





    Source link

  • Concern grows as visas are terminated for dozens of international students at California colleges

    Concern grows as visas are terminated for dozens of international students at California colleges


    UCLA campus in Westwood on Nov. 18, 2023.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    This story has been updated with additional information on visa terminations at UC Riverside.

    California campuses are searching for answers after dozens of international students had their visas terminated in recent days, a worrying trend for the state’s public colleges and universities, which enroll tens of thousands of international students and depend on the millions of dollars in tuition revenue they provide.

    Concerns are also growing that the visa actions could result in a sizable number of international students choosing not to attend U.S. colleges in the fall.

    Across the University of California’s 10 campuses, California State University’s 23 campuses and the state’s 116 community colleges, more than 80 current and former students have had their F-1 visas terminated, a number that could grow. In most cases, campus officials said the federal government, under new Trump administration policies, terminated the visas without explanation.

    The cancellations are especially concerning to UC and CSU because the two systems combine to enroll about 50,000 international students, who make up significant enrollments in many graduate programs and pay tuition at much higher rates than California resident students. Including private universities, there are 154,000 international students in California, according to data from the SEVIS Data Mapping Tool, accounting for about 14% of all international college students in the U.S. and the most of any state.

    The timing of the terminations is also concerning: Many prospective international students are currently deciding where they will attend in the fall, said Bernie Burrola, the vice president for international, community and economic engagement at the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU). 

    Burrola added that he’s worried there could be a chilling effect on international student enrollments.

    “Students spend quite a bit of money when they come to university. Do they want to invest that time and money and then get a visa termination? I’m sure that calculus is happening around the world right now, with students weighing their options between a U.S. higher education and that of another country,” he said.

    According to experts monitoring the terminations nationally, it’s possible the students had an infraction with law enforcement, even something as minor as a traffic violation. Nationally, there have also been reports that students are being targeted for involvement in pro-Palestinian protests. 

    The State Department, which handles student visas, did not return a request for comment Monday.

    In recent interviews, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the federal government will not cancel the “overwhelming majority of student visas” but is targeting students it believes “are supportive of movements that run counter to the foreign policy of the United States.” He also acknowledged that the government is also pursuing terminations that “are unrelated to any protests and are just having to do with potential criminal activity.”

    Visas have been terminated for current or former students from at least seven UC and CSU campuses and one community college:

    • Six students and six recent graduates at UCLA
    • Seven students and five recent graduates at UC Davis
    • Five students at UC San Diego
    • Four students and two recent graduates at UC Berkeley
    • Three students at UC Santa Cruz
    • Two students and four recent graduates at UC Riverside
    • One student at San Diego State
    • An undisclosed number of students at San Jose State
    • Six students at Santa Monica College

    In total, a CSU systemwide spokesperson said the visas of 32 students had been revoked as of Monday, but did not disclose which specific campuses were affected.

    Four students and two recent graduates at Stanford University have also had their visas terminated, showing the actions are also occurring at private institutions.

    “We reiterate our strong support for all international students and scholars,” UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Cynthia Larive said in a message to her campus. “UC Santa Cruz is enriched by the contributions of our international community members, and we are fortunate to research, teach, and learn with and from such outstanding students and scholars.”

    In fall 2024, the UC system enrolled about 35,000 international students, or about 11.5% of all students. About 20,000 were undergraduates and 15,000 were graduate students. CSU, in fall 2024, enrolled 13,718 international students, or about 3% of that semester’s enrollment. Of those students, 5,765 were graduate students.

    Across California’s 116-campus community college system, 14,533 students had a student visa in fall 2024, or about 1% of the student body. 

    UC and CSU receive significant tuition revenue from international students, who are charged a nonresident supplemental tuition fee on top of the base tuition that is also charged to in-state students. During the 2022-23 academic year, UC received $1.1 billion in revenue from nonresident supplemental tuition charged to nonresidents, which includes both out-of-state and international students. CSU likely receives tens of millions of dollars annually in tuition from out-of-state students.

    Concerns about that tuition revenue come as the universities also worry about federal threats to withhold funds for research and other purposes and a possible reduction in state dollars for UC and CSU because of budget constraints. 

    Higher education experts emphasized, though, that universities stand to lose more than just tuition revenue if international students choose not to attend. Burrola, the APLU vice president, noted that many graduate programs are “heavily dependent on international students” and that certain departments would be in jeopardy without those students, who often add value by working as teaching assistants leading discussion sections and being deeply involved in research.

    Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, an important lobby group for higher education, said it is “important for a host of reasons” that the United States remain a top destination for international students, “from the positive impact they make on our economy and cultural vibrancy to the way so many become ambassadors for the value of a U.S. education and our way of life.” 

    “It is important for international students to be treated fairly and afforded due process. It would be detrimental to the United States, both from an economic and academic standpoint, to chill the willingness of prospective international students to come here,” he said.

    In most cases, students at UC and CSU who had their visas terminated were not given explanations. Officials at UC Davis, UC San Diego, UC Santa Cruz, and CSU officials at San Diego State said the federal government didn’t explain the rationale behind the terminations. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk offered some clarity, saying the termination notices at that campus “indicate that all terminations were due to violations of the terms of the individuals’ visa programs.”

    The Associated Press reported that some students across the country have been targeted over pro-Palestinian activism, criminal infractions or even things as minor as a traffic violation.

    Burrola said an emerging theme nationally is that students who received terminations might have “some kind of infraction” with law enforcement, sometimes minor ones. He added, though, that his understanding is based only on anecdotal reports and that APLU is seeking further clarification from the federal government. He said the group sent a letter to Secretary of State Rubio asking for a meeting “to better understand why this is happening.”

    Mitchell of the American Council on Education penned a similar letter to Rubio and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, requesting a briefing on the terminations.

    “Recent actions have contributed to uncertainty and impedes the ability of our institutions to best advise international students and scholars,” Mitchell wrote. “It is important institutions are in a position to reassure international students so they can continue to make exceptional contributions to their campuses, communities, and the nation.”





    Source link

  • How districts can increase student access to computer science | Quick Guide

    How districts can increase student access to computer science | Quick Guide


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • Collaboration between districts and community organizations, including to mentor teachers, is the key to expanding the pool of educators to teach computer science.
    • Educational leaders must prioritize including computer science classes in course offerings.
    • Parents can play an important role in getting their children to take computer science classes and in pressuring administrators to offer the classes at their schools.

    In spite of statewide initiatives to increase access to and participation in computer science classes, California lags behind the national average of 60% and trails about three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course. 

    According to the national 2024 State of Computer Science report:

    • 52% of high schools across California offered computer science in the 2023-24 school year.
    • Students who are female, belong to a racial or ethnic minority group, live in rural areas and small towns or attend schools serving predominantly low-income students are less likely to attend schools offering computer science classes.
    • Policies in other states have expanded student access to computing skills and closed racial, gender, geographic and socioeconomic gaps.
    What is computer science?

    Computer science, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education, is “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society.” The course teaches and prepares students to “meaningfully engage” in a digitally driven world, according to Computer Science for California (CSforCA), a group of educators, nonprofit organizations and industry leaders that has worked to improve equity in computer science access.

    Advocates say that in addition to legislative action, districts and communities can and should take the following steps to increase access to and enrollment in computer science. 

    Start with teachers

    Julie Flapan, co-director for Computer Science for California (CSforCA), said proper teacher preparation is the first step in computer science education. 

    “Part of that means sending a teacher to professional learning. Not only do they learn the curriculum and pedagogy, but they’re part of an ongoing community of practice to feel supported in teaching computer science,” Flapan said.

    Local, regional or statewide collaborative spaces where educators can learn from and support one another are crucial for teachers who are the only computer science instructors in their schools. 

    Teacher collaboration is key in small, rural districts or schools, where there may only be one educator trying to integrate computer science, said Tracey Allen, who has worked with rural districts across Northern California for Seasons of CS, California’s year-round computer science professional learning and training program.

    “They might be the only science teacher that’s trying to integrate computer science, or they’re the only math teacher on site,” Allen said. “It’s kind of hard to have a robust conversation with yourself if you’re the only one in that content area.” 

    How do schools or districts find interested teachers? 

    Karen Mix, co-director for the federal CS4NorCal grant under the Small School Districts’ Association, said recruiting teachers requires developing relationships. 

    “I pop into schools and meet teachers,” she said. “Answer questions that they may have, show them the benefits and the values of computer science and how they can use it and encourage them to go to the training. One of our teachers — I had to pop into their school and talk to him and their principal maybe four or five times before we got them on board.” 

    Do teachers need to have a background in computer science? 

    In 2016, the state passed legislation allowing educators in other disciplines to pursue computer science certification with required coursework. 

    Though a leader in computer science advocacy, Allen in Northern California was a multiple-subject credentialed teacher with no background in the subject. 

    “You don’t need a background in computer science to begin learning about computer science and find easy entry points to start implementing or integrating it into your classroom for the benefit of your students,” she said. 

    Beyond professional development, how can schools and districts support teachers? 

    State and federal grant funding for computer science initiatives created ongoing professional learning. For that to continue after grant funding expires, Allen said, districts and schools can connect with county offices or other districts that are already doing the work.

    “We are strapped for time,” she said. “Don’t feel like you have to create the wheel or that you have to be the one to put a resource bank together for your teachers. Reach out to other colleagues and tap into professional learning that’s already happening.

    “I think sharing resources, sharing professional learning opportunities, will be key.”

    CS4NorCal has even created and regularly updates an implementation dashboard — an interactive online tool — that will allow educators and school leaders to explore ways to implement computer science through the different approaches being used elsewhere. 

    And advocates emphasize the importance of connecting with local community partners. 

    Collaboration with community groups is vital, too

    In the 2018-19 school year, Modoc County high schoolers had no access to any computer science courses, but nonprofits and community organizations participated in training opportunities to better collaborate in the development of computer science. The nonprofit Advancing Modoc, which eventually began leading course implementation, recruited staff to support the initiative. 

    Partnerships can broaden access and participation not just in computer science concepts but in basic digital and technological skills.

    “Partnerships where you actually bring in subject matter experts like ourselves into classrooms can augment and help,” said Damon Thomas, co-founder of Quiq Labs, a tech education company that teaches students science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) through enrichment programs. 

    ‘Be creative with your master schedule’ 

    “You have to really have that administrator in your building or in your district being a support for you,” Mix, the co-director for the CS4NorCal grant, said. 

    It’s school and district leaders who determine what classes are offered on a school’s master schedule.

    So, no matter how much professional development teachers receive, it goes nowhere if computer science isn’t prioritized in schools, said Rudy Escobar who has provided professional development and offered family engagement in his roles in Stanislaus County, the Central Valley and statewide. 

    School and district leaders must balance the availability of courses required to graduate with non-mandatory but needed classes that can, undoubtedly, prepare students for life after high school. But many administrators are reluctant or unable to prioritize a subject that isn’t explicitly a part of the state’s dashboard, the requirements that are used to measure and hold districts accountable for student progress toward college and career readiness. 

    “We have to really change the mindsets of site and district administrators, and even superintendents, to be able to see this as a priority,” Escobar said.

    To increase access, Turlock Unified in Stanislaus County will start by offering an Advanced Placement (AP) computer science course in its high schools, Escobar said. 

    The College Board, which administers the AP program, offers resources to California educators teaching or planning to teach AP. According to Holly Stepp, a spokesperson with College Board, those include: 

    • Free professional learning for educators planning to teach AP Computer Science in the 2025-26 school year
      • A grant is available for the four-day online or in-person training in June, July or August that will provide teaching strategies, instructional materials and a supportive teacher community
    • Online workshops led by veteran AP instructors
    • Mentoring 
    • A teacher collaborative 
    • Innovative curriculum with pre-approved syllabi, lesson plans and other instructional materials
      • Professional learning is also available to prepare teachers to use the curriculum
    • Free, online resources that can be tailored to meet the needs of students 

    Computer science advocates urge leaders to be creative with their master schedules and balance what courses they offer.

    For example, in rural Siskiyou county in far Northern California, a kindergarten teacher on a half-day schedule teaches computer science as an afternoon elective in other elementary grades, Mix said. 

    Likewise, the small, rural Modoc County created a middle school coding class in the 40 minutes between 2:40 p.m. (when classes end) and 3:30 p.m. (when buses arrive).

    “Just be creative with your master schedule,” Mix said.

    How can administrators justify adding a class? 

    Kathy Hamilton with the Small School Districts’ Association acknowledged that small, rural schools and districts lack resources and credentialed teachers to offer computer science courses, and students may have no interest or awareness of the value of such classes. 

    “It’s a long-term strategy, but you have to build up the interest, build up the pressure, in grades K-8 so that by the time the kids get to high school, there’s a demand for the course, and then the principal can justify providing the assignment in the master schedule to offer a course,” Hamilton said. 

    Escobar recommends that administrators open up opportunities for teachers to integrate, or merge computer science into another subject area, to expose students to computer science in middle and elementary grades. 

    “Start early,” he said. “Make it a consistent thing that the students are seeing every year, so that way, when they get to high school, students are seeking to take those courses.”

    What resources are available to school and district administrators? 

    Administrators remain concerned about how to implement computer science courses, especially if it becomes a requirement.  

    According to Flapan, the co-director for CSforCA, several organizations, many of which have received grant funding, have provided resources, including learning guides on how to implement computer science.

    “There’s a lot of statewide resources and a lot of momentum and expertise in computer science in the state of California,” she said. “All of these folks are interested in helping to guide and support other administrators that are looking for ways to implement computer science in their schools.”

    Resources for administrators and others

    Some of those include: 

    How parents can help 

    “Parents want computer science when they hear what we talk to them about,” Escobar said, and they can advocate for computer science to be a priority in their school district. 

    “Statewide, we’re seeing that even though there are more computer science classes being offered, that the classes themselves aren’t always representative of the student body in the schools they serve,” Flapan said. 

    “How do we make sure that students of color and girls are taking advantage of those opportunities? We think that parents can play a strong role in encouraging their students to take it if they have a better understanding of why it’s important and how it could help them in their post-high school plans — whether it’s college or careers or  just engaging in their communities.” 





    Source link