Of course, the racist, homophobic, xenophobic Trump administration threatened to cut off Harvard’s federal research grants if they didn’t do more to combat anti-Semitism, a phony issue. Trump demanded an apology from Harvard for “egregious anti-Semitism.” Garber, the President of Harvard, is Jewish.
The administration also demanded that Harvard abolish all programs to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. But then it demanded that Harvard hire new professors to guarantee “diversity” of viewpoint. Is Trump for or against diversity?
Garber wrote:
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Certainly, Garber wrote, Harvard would fight anti-Semitism, but it would not sacrifice its independence.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Garner made clear that Harvard would not allow the government to control teaching and learning at Harvard.
Yesterday, Trump threatened to strip Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Doing so is literally illegal but law never gets in Trump’s way.
This is tyranny and a blatant attack on academic freedom.
The ignorant, self-centered Trump wants to wipe out academic freedom from any institution that does not kneel to his wishes.
Be it noted that Elise Stefanik, a graduate of Harvard, cheered on Trump’s attack on her alma mater. She wrote on Twitter: “Harvard University has rightfully earned its place as the epitome of the moral and academic rot in higher education,” she posted on X, and said that Harvard should lose its tax exemption. She obviously was not brainwashed at Harvard. She should return her diploma.
Happily, Harvard has the resources to fight Trump. He picked on the wrong target.
Travon Reed is currently a housing navigator in South Los Angeles who helps those who live on the street to find housing through the Homeless Outreach Program Integrated Care System (HOPICS). He credits the classes he took at East Los Angeles College for preparing him for his career in social work.
He described his classes at East L.A. as “the gifts that keep on giving.”
But when he was job hunting after graduating in 2022, employers didn’t seem to value what he had learned in his college courses. He settled for an entry-level social work position, repeating most of the training he had already received in college.
“I had to get here, and then kind of prove that I wasn’t brand-spanking new to the concept of social work,” Reed said. “I could have been given a little more recognition.”
Career education is something that happens in school, college, in an apprenticeship, on the job, through the military or even volunteering. But this valuable experience isn’t always reflected in the records of prospective employees like Reed.
That’s why California is embarking on a years-long effort to build infrastructure for a new virtual platform called the Career Passport. Its goal is to bring all these experiences into a digital portfolio — somewhat like a resume — called a “learning employment record.” This record, available to every Californian, would automatically update as a person gains skills and credentials with information validated by schools and employers.
Gov. Gavin Newsom described his vision for the Career Passport in a news conference in December.
“They take all your life experiences, take all of those skills you developed and create a passport where those skills can be utilized in the private sector and advance your opportunities as it relates to your career and your future,” Newsom said.
The concept of a learning employment record can sound deceptively simple, even obvious, but advocates for these records say that actually making this work isn’t easy.
“If this was easy to do, people would’ve done it a long time ago,” said Wilson Finch, vice president of initiatives at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), a national nonprofit that supports the creation of education-to-career pathways.
The idea of learning and employment records has been embraced by employers, colleges, workforce boards and political leaders around the country to resolve deep frustration among both job seekers and employers. The idea could have powerful ramifications for local and state economies, its backers contend, as long as potential issues such as fraud and fair representation of skills are solved.
“Any employer will tell you they’re not happy with the candidates they’re getting. They’re getting too many people, many of whom are not anywhere aligned to what they need,” Finch said. “And then you talk to the job seekers, and they’re applying for jobs all over the place and not hearing anything back.”
California won’t have to ‘figure out the potholes’
California’s Career Passport embodies many of the goals of the state’s Master Plan for Career Education, which aims to ease Californians’ sometimes fraught transitions between school, college, vocational training and, ultimately, a career.
Newsom’s proposed 2025-26 budget earmarks $100 million in one-time funding to begin building the infrastructure for the Career Passport and to expand Credit for Prior Learning, which allows students to receive college credit for training they get in the workplace, military service, a hobby or even volunteering.
The California Community Colleges system is leading the effort to build out the Career Passport. It will be a multiyear process, according to Chris Ferguson, executive vice chancellor of finance and strategic initiatives.
He said the effort is “focused on colleges to start, but designed in a way that allows for other entities to ultimately use it and participate as well.”
Finch said he’s excited to see that the Career Passport’s scope is the entire state, not just one group, like unemployed Californians.
“I’ve been working in this space long enough to know that when you only target a specific area, the impact is very limited,” Finch said.
There is a big push for learning and employment records all around the country. Some are happening in metro areas, like Pittsburgh or Dallas-Fort Worth. In Colorado, community colleges have taken the lead. Alabama piloted its version, called Talent Triad, in specific industries, such as health and advanced manufacturing, where the need was particularly great. California could learn from other states’ efforts.
“California shouldn’t have to figure out the potholes, so to speak,” said Mike Simmons, the associate executive director of business development and strategic partnerships for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
What could be tricky is the sheer size and diversity of the state, whose workforce in Fresno looks really different from Silicon Valley, Simmons said.
Over the last year, the state’s Office of Cradle to Career Data hosted wide-ranging conversations about what its Career Passport will look like through a specialtask force. That group included employers, the California Department of Education, teachers, all three state higher education systems and many state agencies, including the Labor & Workforce Development, Rehabilitation and California Volunteers.
Reed represented the student perspective on the task force.
“I was so stoked to hear that there would be some linkage between schools and employers, and that everything would be cohesive,” he said.
Credit: California Cradle2Career Data System
The problem goes beyond technology
To apply for a job, an applicant may need to request school transcripts, submit copies of professional licenses and put together a resume that distills their work experience and training. This requires time, fees and energy to ensure that a lot of different organizations are swiftly communicating with each other.
“We heard from students that it’s really hard to request transcripts from different institutions,” said Mary Ann Bates, executive director for the Office of Cradle to Career Data.
That’s why the task force is focused on a related effort to improve and expand the state’s eTranscript system, making sharing student transcripts seamless and free.
But the problem goes beyond technology. Those promoting learning and employment records — or career education, in general — say that K-12 schools, colleges, state agencies, community organizations and employers aren’t working together the way they should.
It can feel like educators and employers are speaking different languages. There’s an emphasis on grades and credit for college transcripts, while employers are more interested in whether a prospective employee has certain skills, Finch said.
One problem is that employers don’t always accept that the training and experience are authentic, because anyone can exaggerate or outright lie on their resume. Reed believes that if his colleges had vouched for classes that provided specific skills, such as trauma-informed care and motivational interviewing, it might have saved him from unnecessary training.
The current employment system favors those who have a college degree. Some human resources departments will simply filter out applicants without a bachelor’s degree. A student who is only a few credits short of a degree looks the same on paper as someone with no college experience.
“It’s an all-or-nothing system,” Finch said.
Those who attended college but never received a degree — which describes roughly 1 out of 5 Californians over 25 years old — would benefit from a new system. A learning and employment record could demonstrate that an applicant has the skills needed for a job through specific college courses, job training and maybe a boot camp, Finch said.
Ultimately, the success of the Career Passport depends on buy-in. Employers will go wherever they can find potential employees, and job seekers will go wherever they can find jobs. Making it work requires a critical mass of both.
Reed said his biggest worry about the Career Passport is: “In the land of the free, will we get everyone to uniformly accept it?”
For our latest teacher feature, we connected with Julie Nicholson, a sixth-grade teacher in Texas. Ms. Nicholson just discovered Wowzers this year, but already the program has made a huge impact on her classroom. Because she works in a 1:1 school, she incorporates Wowzers whenever possible. Every day, she uses Wowzers after the students answer their bell ringer question of the day. As soon as she verifies each student’s correct answer, her students immediately log in to Wowzers to pick up where they left off in the curriculum. When she pulls out small groups of students, the rest of the students continue working on Wowzers. She finds that when students use Wowzers, they stay engaged longer so she’s able to concentrate on each small group.
Mrs. Nicholson’s favorite feature is how she’s able to import her students’ NWEA MAP Growth scores to create a personalized curriculum for each student. She toggles her students between these personalized curriculum paths and a general classroom path as needed. She explains, “I love the differentiation of it reaching my students right where they are as individuals. I have students below grade level, on grade level, and I have students a couple of grade levels above. This program allows my students to get that individualized instruction without me feeling bad that there is not enough of me to go around or enough time in one class period to work with ALL of my students. It is very important to me that the lower, middle and upper performing students grow.”
The reports built into Wowzers have also been a lifesaver for Ms. Nicholson since they save her time and energy. By quickly looking over the real-time reports, she sees which students are struggling, and who’s receiving remediation. Because she doesn’t need to spend hours grading papers, she’s able to give her best to her students and spend more time with her family. She describes the reports as a “make or break” feature for her as a teacher. Ms. Nicholson’s students seem to be enjoying Wowzers as well. As one student explained, “It gives you lots of things to do and keeps you hooked. I have never been attached to a math program, and when Mrs. Nicholson said we were getting a new one, I thought, ‘Oh great, another boring program.’ But I love Wowzers!”
When we asked Ms. Nicholson what else she’d like to see in Wowzers, she said, “One idea could be to set up a way for my students to compete against each other and in teams. They like the competition. It would also be great if they could compete against my other classes or classes within my school for points, or coins. It’s great motivation and creates excitement and teamwork.” What a great idea!
Freestyle Academy in Mountain View, California uses energy-efficient lighting, water-saving fixtures, solar panels, and eco-friendly materials. Native plants are also incorporated into the outdoor environments.
Credit: Tim Maloney, Technical Imagery Studios and Quattrocchi Kwok Architects
Top Takeaways
Climate disasters already impacting schools will continue to worsen.
LAUSD is investing in fire-resistant building materials, schoolyard greening projects, and modern heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
California needs a state master plan for climate-resilient schools.
When Los Angeles teachers welcomed students back to school in January, they couldn’t have imagined what lay ahead. Within days, climate-fueled wildfires would tear through Altadena, Pasadena and the Palisades, destroying or damaging twelve schools and disrupting education for more than 600,000 students across the region.
Unfortunately, in the years to come, the climate disasters that are already impacting our schools will worsen. In California, our leaders have the power to chart our own path to healthier, more climate-resilient school buildings — with or without federal support.
The LA fires provide a stark reminder of how unprepared many of California’s schools are for climate change. Beyond lacking fire-resistant building materials that could have mitigated damage, schools also lack necessities: cooling systems for heat waves and air filtration systems for smoke. Lack of cooling is a statewide challenge — between 15% and 20% of California’s K-12 public schools have no functioning air conditioning at all, and another 10% need major repairs to or replacement of their heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
But out of this crisis, solutions are emerging. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), our nation’s second-biggest school district, is turning crisis into opportunity. Instead of simply rebuilding damaged schools, the district is creating a blueprint for climate resilience that should inspire educational leaders across California.
The district is investing in fire-resistant building materials, schoolyard greening projects, and modern HVAC systems to combat increasingly frequent heat waves and filter wildfire smoke and pollutants. While some initiatives were already underway prior to the fires, new investments will be supported by the district’s $9 billion bond that Los Angeles voters approved in November and Proposition 2, the state school infrastructure bond also approved by voters last year. For the first time, the Legislature explicitly allowed districts to use this funding to create safer outdoor learning environments, strengthen vulnerable infrastructure, and advance state energy goals.
LAUSD’s progress is encouraging, but California can’t afford to wait for a district-by-district approach to climate resilience. California needs immediate statewide action to protect all students. Two key steps are essential:
First, we need better state planning and coordination. California currently spends billions annually on school infrastructure, but much of this funding isn’t aligned with climate resilience, indoor air quality, or emissions reduction goals. By allocating $10 million to the California Department of Education to build local capacity and provide regional support through county offices of education, we will build necessary support systems to assist school districts in planning for climate-resilient campuses.
California has already wasted precious time. For two years, we’ve worked with the Legislature on a proposal for a state master plan for climate-resilient schools, only to face Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto twice over cost concerns, despite strong bipartisan support and a moderate cost of $10 million. This delay puts our children’s safety at risk. This year, we must finally get it done.
Second, districts need comprehensive facilities master plans that address indoor air quality, climate resilience, and cost-effective electrification. Students need a California where every school district is armed with a detailed blueprint for creating climate-resilient facilities, and has the support and funding they need to implement these plans. Implementation guidelines for Proposition 2 are being developed now and should include guidance for school districts to develop these plans with climate readiness at the core. State leaders could also prioritize and leverage Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds administered by the California Air Resources Board, a program that collects money from the state’s cap-and-trade initiative to invest in projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to support much-needed HVAC upgrades and nudge districts to choose modern electric technologies.
A previous generation of state leaders made sure schools could keep our children safe in an earthquake — it’s time to do the same for the threats posed by extreme heat and weather. No school district should be investing state or local dollars in their facilities without considering current and long-term local climate impacts.
•••
Jonathan Klein is the CEO and co-founder of UndauntedK12, a national nonprofit working to ensure that every student has the opportunity to attend a safe, healthy and resilient school. Andra Yeghoian is the chief innovation officer of Ten Strands, a San Francisco-based nonprofit whose mission is to build and strengthen the partnerships and strategies that bring environmental literacy to all California’s students.
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.
Denis Smith retired from his position at the Ohio Department of Education, where he oversaw charter schools (which are called “community schools” in Ohio). In this post, he describes what he saw at the Network for Public Education Conference in Columbus, Ohio, in early April.
He wrote:
When It’s About Hands Off! That Also Applies to Public Schools
The Hands Off! demonstrations at the Ohio Statehouse that drew thousands of protestors wasn’t the only gathering of activists last weekend in downtown Columbus. Just a short distance away at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, a smaller but equally passionate gathering of concerned citizens from across the nation came to Ohio’s capital city to attend the Network for Public Education’s National Conference and affirm their support for the common school, the very symbol of democracy in this increasingly divided nation.
That disunion is driven in part by the rapid growth of universal educational vouchers and charter schools, where public funds flow to private and religious schools as well as privately operated charter schools and where public accountability and oversight of taxpayer funds is limited or even absent. In many states, including Ohio, those public funds in the form of vouchers are drawn from the very state budget line item that is earmarked for public schools.
Of particular concern to the conference attendees is the division in communities fueled by vouchers, which have been shown in some states to subsidize private and religious school tuition exceeding 80% of those enrolled. In Ohio, according to research conducted by former Ohio legislator Stephen Dyer, the figure is 91%.Several speakers referred to this situation as “welfare for the rich” and “an entitlement for the wealthy.”
The research shared at the conference also confirmed the findings of the National Coalition for Public Education that “most recipients of private school vouchers in universal programs are wealthy families whose children never attended public schools in the first place.” So much for the tired Republican rhetoric of vouchers being a lifeline of escape from “failing schools” for poor inner-city children.
Another strong area of concern shared at the NPE event was the growing intrusion of religious organizations like Life Wise Academy which recruit students for release time Bible study during the school day. While attendees were told that school guidelines direct that such activities are to be scheduled during electives and lunch, the programs still conflict with the normal school routine and put a burden on school resources, where time is needed for separating release time students and adjusting the instructional routine because of the arrival and departure of a group within the classroom.
One presenter, concerned about students receiving conflicting information, said that his experience as a science teacher found situations where there was a disconnect between what he termed “Biblical stories and objective facts.” In addition, he shared that a group of LifeWise students missed a solar eclipse because of their time in religious instruction.
Some Ohio school districts, including Westerville and Worthington in Franklin County, had to amend their policies in the wake of HB 8, which mandated that districts have religious instruction release time policies in place. The district policies had been written as an attempt to lessen the possibility of other religious programs wanting access to students and the further disruption that would cause to the school routine.
The recent legislative activity about accommodating religious groups like Life Wise is at variance with history, as conference chair and Network for Public Education founder Dr. Diane Ravitch pointed out in her remarks about the founding of Ohio. As part of the Northwest Territory, she noted that Ohio was originally divided into 32 plots, with plot 16, being reserved for a public school. No plot was set aside for a religious school.
Ohio became the first state to be formed from the Northwest Territory, and its provision for public education would become a prototype for the young republic. The common school, an idea central to the founders of the state, would be located such “that local schools would have an income and that the community schoolhouses would be centrally located for all children.”
Unfortunately, the idea of the common school being centrally located in every community is an idea not centrally located within the minds of right-wing Republican legislators. From the information exchanged at the conference, that is the case in the great majority of statehouses, and a matter of great concern for continuing national cohesiveness.
The theme of the NPE National Conference, Public Schools – Where All Students Are Welcome, stands in marked contrast with the exclusionary practices of private and religious schools where, unlike public schools, there are no requirements to accept and enroll every student interested in attending. While these schools are reluctant to accept students who may need additional instructional support, they show no reluctance in accepting state voucher payments.
Texas Rep. Gina Hinojosa. Photo: Texas House of Representatives
Texas State Representative Gina Hinojosa, one of the keynote speakers, told the audience about her experience in fighting Gov. Greg Abbott’s voucher scheme and the double meaning of the term school choice. “School choice is also the school’s choice,” she told the audience, as she estimated that 80% or more of state funds will go to kids who are already enrolled in private and religious schools.
Her battle with the Texas governor, who has defined the passage of voucher legislation in the Lone Star State as his “urgent priority,” is a tale of his alliance with Jeff Yass, a pro-voucher Pennsylvania billionaire who has donated $12 million so far to Abbott’s voucher crusade.
Hinojosa was scathing in her criticism of Abbott and his fellow Republicans and of a party that once “worshipped at the altar of accountability.” Now, she told the attendees, “they want free cash money, with no strings attached.”
“Grift, graft, and greed” is the narrative of appropriating public funds for private purposes, Hinojosa believes, a tale of supporting “free taxpayer money with no accountability.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Photo: Denis Smith
The NPE conference ended with an address by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee. With his background as a former teacher and coach, Walz had a strong connect with an audience comprised mostly of educators and public school advocates. His folksy language and sense of humor further endeared him to the conference attendees.
Based on the continuing bad behavior of Jeff Yass and other affluent actors in the voucher and charter wars, greedy bastards is a better descriptor than oligarchs, he observed. From the reaction of the audience and what they heard previously from Gina Hinojosa and other presenters, the language offered by Walz was a more accurate definition of welfare for the wealthy.
At the end of his remarks, Walz encouraged educators not to despair but to accept their key place in society. “There is a sense that servant leadership comes out of serving in public education.”
Attendees at the NPE conference included educators, school board members, attorneys, legislators, clergy, and policy makers – a cross-section of America. Their presence affirmed a core belief that the public school, open to all, represents the very essence of a democratic society. And there is no debate about whether or notthose schools are under attack by right-wing legislatures intent on rewarding higher-income constituents with tuition support to schools that choose their students as they exercise the “school’s choice.”(As a devotee of the Apostrophe Protection Society, I applaud this distinction.)
So what are we going to do about this? Attendees left the conference with some strong themes.
The choir needs to sing louder.
Hope over fear. Aspiration over despair.
The road to totalitarianism is littered with people who say you’re overreacting.
Who are the leaders of the Democratic Party? They’re out there. On the streets.
It’s not just don’t give up. Be an activist.
As the loudness about the subject of what is more aptly described as “the school’s choice” gets louder,” you can bet that servant leaders like Diane Ravitch, Gina Hinojosa, Tim Walz and others are making a difference in responding to the challenge of servant leadership to ensure that the common school, so central to 19th century communities in the Northwest Territory and beyond, continues to be the choice of every community for defining America and the democracy it represents.
Ending several months of uncertainty, the California State Board of Education on Wednesday chose new labels to describe how students perform on the four levels of achievement on its standardized tests.
The decision was difficult. The 90 minutes of presentations and discussions offered lessons in the subtleties of language and the inferences of words.
Board members said they were aware of the need to send the right messages to many parents, who had criticized the California Department of Education’s previous choices for labeling low test scores as vague euphemisms for bad news.
“Labels matter,” said board member Francisco Escobedo, executive director of the National Center for Urban Transformation at San Diego State. “Knowledge is a continuum, and how we describe students in different levels has a powerful impact.”’
Researchers have warned that parents are getting confusing messages, with inflated grades on courses and declining scores on standardized tests of how well their children are doing in recovering from Covid setbacks in learning. The new labels will apply to scoring levels for the state science assessments and for the Smarter Balanced English language arts and math tests.
Board members quickly agreed on “Advanced” for Level 4 and “Proficient” for Level 3 labels, the top two levels of scores. But their selection of “Developing” for Level 2 and “Minimal” for Level 1 differed from the consensus of parents, students and teachers who had been offered various options during focus groups in December and January.
They had preferred “Basic” for Level 2 and “Below Basic” for Level 1. The terms are clear, simple and familiar, a summary of the discussions said. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) classifies Basic as the lowest of its three levels, and California’s old state tests, which the state abandoned a decade ago to switch to Smarter Balanced, used Basic and Below Basic for scoring criteria as well.
But for some veteran educators on the board, familiarity has bred contempt, or at least bad memories, of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal law under the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Schools were under heavy pressure to increase their math and English language arts scores, or potentially face sanctions.
“I had a visceral reaction to the word Basic,” said board member and veteran teacher Haydee Rodriguez. “I remember NCLB and how finite that felt for students.” The feedback should be encouraging, not a label that discourages growth, as Basic did under NCLB, she said.
She and Kim Patillo Brownson, a parent of two teenagers who served as a policy director at the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization, also pointed out that “basic” has a different connotation for students in 2025. It’s slang for a boring and uninteresting person.
“Calling a student Basic is an absolute insult in 2025,” said Rodriguez. “It could shut a child down.”
Board President Linda Darling-Hammond agreed. “If Basic is being used derogatorily, one can only imagine how Below Basic will be used. It is a real consideration; the meaning is different for adults.”
Board members turned to other words that had been presented to the focus groups. They agreed the choices should be frank, not Pollyannaish or dispiriting.
With Level 2, the purpose should be “trying to light a fire under parents to realize there is work to do,” said Patillo Brownson.
Stating that “Below Basic” says a student is failing, Escobedo preferred “Developing” for Level 1 and “Emerging” for Level 2. These terms are consistent with labels used for scoring the progress of English learners.
Patillo Brownson called Emerging “vague” and supported “Basic.”
Board Vice President Cynthia Glover Woods, who was chief academic officer of the Riverside County Office of Education before her retirement, favored “Minimum” for Level 1 because “it is important we are clear for students and parents that students scoring at the level have a minimal understanding of grade-level knowledge.”
Sharing the perspective of her peers, the student board member on the board, Julia Clauson, a senior at Bella Vista High School in Sacramento, recommended substituting “Approaching” for “Basic,” so as not to deter students from trying challenging courses. “Older students make academic decisions (based on what signals they get), so language matters,” she said.
The County Superintendents association also endorsed “Approaching” for Level 2 and “Developing” or “Emerging” for Level 1.
The board initiated what turned into a multi-month decision because of growing dissatisfaction with the labels that had been used since the first Smarter Balanced testing in 2015. They were Standard Not Met for Level 1, Standard Nearly Met for Level 2, Standard Met for Level 3 and Standard Exceeded for Level 4. Focus groups by the California Department of Education found that parents were confused about what “standard” meant. They found Standard Not Met as discouraging and Standard Nearly Met as unclear.
But a coalition of student advocacy groups, including Teach Plus, Children Now and Innovate Public Schools, along with the County Superintendents association and the Association of California School Administrators, criticized the labels for Levels 1 and 2 that the California Department of Education recommended as their replacements as soft-pedaling euphemisms for poor scorers. The department had proposed Inconsistent for Level 1 and Foundational for Level 2.
At its December meeting, the board told the department to try again with more focus groups.
Changing the labels to Advanced, Proficient, Developing and Minimal won’t change how scores are determined; the individual scores within each achievement band have remained the same in all the 18 member states that take all or some of the Smarter Balanced tests, which are given to students in grades three through eight and once in high school, usually in 11th grade.
However, additional work is needed to communicate the changes to parents and students. The department and its testing contractor, ETS, will spell out the differences between performing at the various levels in each subject and grade and the level of improvement needed to raise scores.
Tony Alpert, executive director of Smarter Balanced, pointed out that performance differences are a continuum with students showing gaps in some grade-level skills but not others. A student scoring at Level 1 may have answered some questions showing knowledge at grade level. As scores progress from Levels 2 to 4, students demonstrate increasing accuracy and complexity in their knowledge and skills.
Students who reach Level 3 have the knowledge to succeed in future coursework. Research has determined that for California high school students, Level 3 correlates with preparation for first-year courses at California State University.
The state board hoped that the label changes and new explanations would be ready for this spring’s testing results. Instead, they will take effect in 2026.
Local and state officials in mid-March piled 50,000 sandbags along the low-lying banks of the San Joaquin River when rising levels threatened to overtake Firebaugh.
Emma Gallegos/EdSource
Earlier this year, students across the country watched as wildfires devastated large parts of southern California. Yet even as they watched — and, in some cases, lived through — a very real example of what climate change can look like, many students don’t have a good understanding of why events like these are happening more frequently and with greater intensity. Without that foundational knowledge, they are ill-equipped to help mitigate the problem that is impacting their generation so significantly. Lack of climate literacy is a crisis — one that higher education has a responsibility to address.
Acknowledging the problem is no longer enough. Although 72% of U.S. adults recognize that our climate is changing, only 58% acknowledge that it is human-caused and even fewer understand the scientific consensus — that over 97% of climate scientists affirm our role in the ever-warming planet. We need a climate-literate electorate if we want to drive effective climate action because the solutions we choose to support are based on our individual understanding of the problem. To do this, we need to make climate education part of general education. And we must move quickly.
Many students know what is coming. Rising climate anxiety among 16–25 year-olds is telling but disempowering if they aren’t prepared to meet the moment because they hold misconceptions about the root causes. In a 2021 survey, students 14-18 years old overwhelmingly reported that climate change was real and human-caused, but follow-up questions showed large gaps between their conceptualization of Earth’s interrelated systems and reality. They also vastly underestimated the scientific consensus.
These gaps in knowledge make sense: when climate change is taught in middle and high school classrooms, nearly one-third of science teachers are sending mixed messages about the cause, often because they themselves were never introduced to the subject during their higher education experience. Prioritizing climate literacy as part of general education at colleges and universities would reduce the perpetuation of these false narratives.
Ideally, institutions would offer multi-dimensional climate education for all students; realistically, the pace of climate change far outstrips the pace of change in higher education. However, a general education requirement for climate literacy is possible — and necessary. These central concepts do not rely on additional college-level coursework, making a first- or second-year course on the topic accessible to students in any major.
Additionally, we need students to understand that policy, psychology, and art are just as important at shifting our trajectory as atmospheric science and clean energy technology. In this way, we make room for every student in the climate movement, no matter their professional aspirations. At Harvey Mudd College, we have developed a course to help students think critically about the impact of their work on society through an interdisciplinary look at the climate-fueled challenge of fire in the North American west. Our teaching team is intentionally broad, so we can cover California’s legacy of fire suppression, the depictions of nature in media, and the religious roots of environmental attitudes, as well as fire ecology and the greenhouse effect. While we do lay the groundwork for understanding the problem, fully 50% of the course is dedicated to analyzing proposed or current interventions.
In addition to a solutions-focused curriculum, basic climate education also needs to prepare students emotionally and mentally to keep engaging in the work. Nearly 60% of respondents in a recent global survey of youth indicated “extreme worry” about climate change. Considering students’ emotions doesn’t mean we shy away from hard truths — that would not serve our students well and undermine their trust in faculty. In fact, those hard truths can tap into students’ deeper motivations for learning, so long as we also help them build emotional resilience through reflection. Programs like the All We Can Save Project can offer resources and even course materials. And efforts to wrap this “affective approach” into climate education are already underway, as with the Faculty Learning Community in Teaching Climate Change and Resilience at California State University in Chico.
The world is currently on track for nearly twice the rise in global average temperature that leading climate experts warn is safe. The kind of climate education we need is appearing, but not at the scale or speed required. Higher education leaders must prioritize climate literacy by integrating climate education into the general curriculum. Institutions must ensure students are prepared academically, socially, and emotionally to address climate change. We need empowered graduates who have both climate knowledge and a solutions-focused mindset in uncertain times. Their world literally depends on it.
•••
Lelia Hawkins is a professor of chemistry and the Hixon Professor of Climate Studies at Harvey Mudd College. She is currently serving as the Director of the Hixon Center for Climate and the Environment, a new program expanding climate education for Mudd’s scientists and engineers.
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.
Flags fly outside of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington.
Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
The Trump administration doubled down on its plan to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the nation’s schools last week by opening an online portal where parents and other community members can report educators and schools that use the programs.
The announcement about the EndDEI.Ed.Gov portal came on Feb. 27 — the day before a deadline for schools to end diversity and equity programs or risk losing federal funding. The DEIprohibition was issued in a Valentine’s Day missive from the U.S. Department of Education.
The online reporting tool has teachers and other school staff nervous.
“I can say, in general, that there’s a sense of concern (among educators),” said Steven Frazer, president of Associated Chino Teachers, Chino Valley Unified’s teachers union. “… A tool to report teachers, who could just be making sure that their classroom is a safe place for all students, who could potentially be vilified. So, it’s certainly a unique and uncertain, unfortunate climate right now for educators.”
The San Bernardino County school district, which has a conservative school board, has little diversity, equity and inclusion programming, Frazer said. Despite that, teachers in the district feel susceptible to being reported to federal authorities.
The district’s board has already been at odds with the teachers union and the state over a board policy that required teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender.
Frazer is concerned that the White House effort to end diversity, equity and inclusion will embolden the school district to disregard a California law requiring ethnic studies classes to be offered next school year. There is also concern for the future of clubs that support students of color and LGBTQ youth, among others, he said.
“Things like that, outlets like that, are what make school a safe place for many students,” Frazer said. “A lot of students don’t get recognized enough at home, and so school is an outlet for them. And really, what keeps their mental state positive, what encourages them to learn and be happy and successful, is being able to meet in groups like this.”
Definitions of DEI vary
DEI has become a divisive issue in recent years, with the term’s definition and value dependent on a person’s political ideology.
“For me, it means ensuring that the marginalized are included and that equity is served, in that everyone can receive what they need to thrive, especially in a school district,” said Janice Rooths, executive director of the Center Against Racism and Trauma, which serves the state’s Inland Empire region. “And so, when you say that everyone should get what they need to thrive, it applies to every student.”
Schools with successful DEI programs offer teachers and administrators cultural sensitivity training and ensure students understand that using negative racial epithets or other threatening words is unacceptable, Rooths said.
On the other side, critics of DEI see it as dividing students, or making white students feel uncomfortable or bad about themselves. They say DEI focuses on race and ethnicity over merit.
“For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies, but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, in a statement included in a U.S. Department of Education news release announcing the portal.
Moms for Liberty is a far-right organization that has advocated against school curricula that include LGBTQ rights and instruction on race and ethnicity.
Portal opens just before deadline
The End DEI portal is separate from a webpage that already collects complaints of discrimination on the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights website.
“The U.S. Department of Education is committed to ensuring all students have access to meaningful learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination,” according to a media release announcing the portal.
In its Feb. 14 letter, the U.S. Department of Education letter claims that white and Asian American students have been discriminated against, and that “educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism.’ ”
The letter states that schools must cease using race preferences in their admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline and other programs and activities, including race-based graduation ceremonies and dorms.
On Feb. 21, the California Department of Education and State Board of Education issued a joint statement to reassure state residents and school officials that federal laws regarding public education have not changed, and that executive orders from the White House and memos from the U.S. Department of Education cannot modify or override them.
“We advise continued compliance with state and federal laws, and recommend that administrators and governing boards consult legal counsel regarding the impact of any potential federal actions,” the statement read. “If federal laws or regulations do change, we will provide guidance and take action as needed in continued support of California’s students and local educational agencies.”
In his own letter to school district leaders, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said the California Department of Education and other state agencies will consider legal action if the federal government attempts to freeze or cut funding because districts have diversity, equity and inclusion programs in place.
Teachers unions file lawsuits
The U.S. Department of Education letter and its demands have already resulted in at least two lawsuits. Both include the nation’s largest teachers’ unions. The American Federation of Teachers and American Sociological Association filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education on Feb. 25, and the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union did the same on Wednesday.
The lawsuits urge the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing a directive that they say undermines civil rights, stifles free speech and dictates what educators can teach.
“Across the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student, no matter where they live, how much their family earns, or the color of their skin — ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association.
“Now, the Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for doing just that: fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance.”
In the US, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires that students be tested in math once a year, starting in third grade. While there are no national laws that require testing before that point, many states and schools are choosing to test students in as young as kindergarten as well. In fact, the desire is so great that there are a number of national grants available for states that wish to implement testing at an earlier age. The reasoning is typically quite different–instead of measuring student progress or judging teacher success, tests for K-2 students are usually designed to identify students in need of special education services. Research has shown that the earlier students receive these extra services, the more effective they are. The idea isn’t to hold back students but to provide extra assistance wherever needed.
As you might imagine, these assessments usually look quite different than the ones given to older students. Although they’re often computer-based, the questions rely more on visuals, assessments are shorter to match younger students’ shorter attention span, and testing is often more informal. However, one of the biggest problems with testing at such an early age is that these students often don’t have the computer skills necessary to demonstrate what they do and don’t know. Teachers have reported their kindergarteners attempting to swipe or tap a computer monitor and being baffled by the idea of a mouse since their primary technology use is based around tablets and phones. Other teachers report their young students accidentally skip questions or log themselves out of the program, requiring them to completely start the assessment over.
Even with these difficulties, many teachers still believe the pros of early assessments outweigh the cons. By gathering data, they’re able to identify effective teaching strategies, what their students need more assistance with, and can implement special education services as soon as possible. In order to make sure this data is as accurate as possible, it’s clearly important to make sure students are comfortable using computers while providing fun math practice that keeps young students’ attention. This is the goal of our K-2 math practice in Wowzers, where students practice using math manipulatives and answering questions in short sessions. Although it doesn’t look like a typical test prep, it’s exactly what students need at that age: practice answering math questions on a computer while colorful games and an engaging story keeps their attention.
Pastors for Texas Children has been working hard to defeat vouchers, which would not only eliminate separation of church and state but destroy the state’s rural schools.
Pastors for Texas Children said the following:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jay Pritchard, 214.558.6656, jay@upwardpa.com
April 14, 2025
Faith Leaders Condemn Voucher Vote During Holy Week as an Affront to Religious Liberty
Austin, TX — Pastors for Texas Children (PTC) strongly condemns the Texas House’s decision to schedule a vote on HB3—the Governor’s private school voucher bill—for this Wednesday, squarely in the middle of Jewish Passover and ChrisHan Holy Week.
“This is an outrageous assault on religious liberty,” said Rev. Charles Johnson, ExecuHve Director of Pastors for Texas Children. “Governor AbboP is exploiting sacred days of worship and family observance to silence faith leaders who have led the opposiHon to his dangerous voucher scheme.”
For months, clergy and faith communiHes across Texas have spoken out against diverHng public funds to private and religious schools. By scheduling this vote during the holiest days of the year, Governor Abbott and House Public Education Chair Brad Buckley are showing calculated disrespect for those religious tradiHons.
“By forcing this vote during ChrisHan Holy Week and Jewish Passover, Greg Abbott and Brad Buckley aredefiling our sacred Hme and silencing prophetic voices,” said Rev. Johnson. “It’s a cynical and cowardly political tacHc.”
Let the People Decide
PTC calls on Governor Abbott and Chair Buckley to reschedule the vote or, better yet, put the issue on the November 2025 ballot and let Texans decide whether public tax dollars should fund private and religious schools.
Momentum is growing to place a school voucher referendum before the voters. Texas law allows for ballot initiatives with a simple majority vote in the Legislature—a far more democratic path than ramming this bill through during a religious holiday week.
“God is God is God—not Greg Abbott,” said Rev. Johnson. “We have a divine and constitutional mandate to protect free, public education. To schedule this vote when clergy are in the pulpit and families are at the Seder table is a disgrace. If the Governor believes in his plan, he should put it before the people—not hide behind a holiday.”
Pastors for Texas Children urges lawmakers of all faiths and parties to stand up against this manipulaHon and vote NO on HB3. Let Texans decide the future of their schools—not politicians exploiting the calendar for poliHcal gain.
About Pastors for Texas Children
Pastors for Texas Children is a statewide network of nearly 1,000 churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship working to protect and support public educaHon. We equip faith leaders to advocate for fully funded public schools and oppose efforts to divert public dollars to private and religious institutions.
For our latest teacher feature, we connected with Julie Nicholson, a sixth-grade teacher in Texas. Ms. Nicholson just discovered Wowzers this year, but already the program has made a huge impact on her classroom. Because she works in a 1:1 school, she incorporates Wowzers whenever possible. Every day, she uses Wowzers after the students answer their bell ringer question of the day. As soon as she verifies each student’s correct answer, her students immediately log in to Wowzers to pick up where they left off in the curriculum. When she pulls out small groups of students, the rest of the students continue working on Wowzers. She finds that when students use Wowzers, they stay engaged longer so she’s able to concentrate on each small group.
