بلاگ

  • California struggles to support personal, educational needs of children, report card finds 

    California struggles to support personal, educational needs of children, report card finds 


    Despite statewide efforts, California is still struggling to support the personal and educational needs of its students, according to the 2024 California Children’s Report Card conducted by the organization Children Now, which “grades the State on its ability to support better outcomes for kids” and evaluates progress made on California policies and investments. 

    “California has failed to significantly improve outcomes for kids, allowing unacceptable and economic disparities to stagnate and in many cases grow,” Ted Lempert, Children Now’s president, wrote in a letter included in the report.

    “What’s particularly disturbing is that California continues to trail far behind other states on a number of important indicators of child well-being. Despite our relatively high tax burden, our progressive leanings, and our enviable 5th largest economy in the world, California is far from a leader when it comes to kids. That’s not only a threat to our state’s collective future, but to the entire country as well since California is so often a bellwether for the nation.”  

    Children’s health

    Among the health categories assessed, “health insurance” received the highest grade, A-minus. Meanwhile, “birthing health,” “preventative screenings,” “supporting mental health,” “preventing substance abuse” and “health care access and accountability, all received grades in the D range. 

    The rest of the health categories — including “environmental health and justice,” “oral health care” and “relationships and sexual health” — all received grades in the C range.

    Additionally, the report noted that “while many states and municipalities across the country have declared racism as a public health crisis, California has yet to do so.”

    According to the report, “children’s poor health outcomes are largely driven by racism at the intersection of poverty, sexual orientation, gender, and geography.” 

    Children’s education 

    Of the 12 topics under education, none earned a grade in the A range. Here’s how the report assessed the state on its education:

    • C-minus for child care.
    • B-plus for preschool and transitional kindergarten. 
    • B-minus for early care and education workforce.
    • D for early intervention and special education. 
    • C-minus for education for dual language and English learners.
    • C-plus for funding. 
    • B for expanded learning programs
    • D for science, technology, engineering and math education. 
    • C for educator pipeline, retention and diversity. 
    • D for school climate: connections with adults on campus. 
    • C for “school climate: discipline and attendance.
    • B-minus for higher education. 

    “California is investing record amounts in public education, yet struggles to effectively support students, especially those who need the most help,” the report reads. 

    It added that the state’s education system “ranks 43rd of 50 states of outcome gaps by race and ethnicity.” 

    Support from family 

    In terms of family support, “voluntary evidence-based home visiting” earned a C-minus, while in “paid family leave,” the state received a B-minus. “Income assistance for low-income families” was given a B. 

    “Children’s well-being is fueled by good health, enriching learning opportunities, and positive and nurturing relationships with adults. Both adult and child well-being can be undermined by unmet basic needs, economic hardship, social isolation, and stress,” according to the report. 

    “Throughout the pandemic, California made positive policy changes to bolster families with key supports, even as federal funding withered away,” the report read. “However, too often, families with young children are an afterthought in California policy.”

    Child welfare in California

    None of the child welfare categories garnered an A or B. 

    Instead, the state earned a C for “home stability and enduring relationships” and a C-plus in “health care for kids in foster care.” 

    Meanwhile, the state earned a D in both education supports for students in foster care and transitions to adulthood.

    “For children and youth who cannot remain safely at home and must enter foster care, the State must ensure access to stable and nurturing foster homes, trauma-informed services, and targeted, high-quality educational supports to help them heal and thrive,” the report states. 

    Cross-sector issues facing California children 

    In terms of “cross-sector” issues, both “food security” and “cradle-to-career data systems” received a B-minus, while support for LGBTQ+ youth received a C-plus, “decriminalization of youth” received a D-plus and support for unaccompanied homeless youth landed a D-minus. 

    “While all of the issues in the “Report Card” are interrelated, the topics in this section have especially strong implications across multiple sectors and systems,” the report read.

    “A whole-child approach to supporting kids incorporates services that meet young people where they’re at and address the many factors that are needed to help them thrive.” 



    Source link

  • 5 Benefits Of Data Analytics For Businesses In 2025


    5 Benefits Of Data Analytics For Businesses In 2025—Infographic

    In 2025, data analytics will continue to be a powerful tool for businesses across industries. As companies seek to stay competitive, the advantages of leveraging data analytics have become more apparent. Here are five key benefits for businesses in 2025:

    1. Improved Decision Making

    Data analytics empowers businesses to make informed decisions based on real-time insights. By analyzing data trends, patterns, and customer behaviors, companies can forecast outcomes more accurately. This leads to better strategic decisions, allowing businesses to respond to market shifts, optimize operations, and meet customer needs more effectively. With predictive analytics, businesses can anticipate potential challenges and opportunities, ensuring that decisions are proactive rather than reactive.

    2. Increased Efficiency

    Data analytics helps streamline business processes by identifying inefficiencies and bottlenecks in operations. Through data-driven insights, businesses can automate repetitive tasks, reduce operational costs, and optimize resource allocation. By monitoring performance metrics, companies can identify areas for improvement, allocate resources more effectively, and ensure that processes run smoothly. Increased efficiency not only saves time but also boosts profitability by cutting unnecessary expenses.

    3. Better Customer Insights

    One of the most valuable aspects of data analytics is the ability to gain deep insights into customer preferences and behavior. By analyzing customer data, businesses can segment their audience, understand buying habits, and personalize marketing efforts. This enables companies to tailor their products, services, and communication strategies to meet the specific needs of their target market. Enhanced customer insights foster stronger relationships, improve customer satisfaction, and drive brand loyalty.

    4. Enhanced Risk Management

    Data analytics plays a crucial role in identifying and mitigating risks. By analyzing historical data, businesses can spot potential risks, from financial issues to cybersecurity threats. With the ability to predict possible risks and assess their impact, companies can take proactive measures to minimize damage. This leads to better financial stability, improved compliance with regulations, and the ability to adapt to unforeseen challenges quickly.

    5. Greater Innovation

    Finally, data analytics drives innovation by providing businesses with insights that spark new ideas and solutions. By examining trends, customer feedback, and market data, companies can identify untapped opportunities for product development or process improvement. This fosters a culture of continuous innovation, where data serves as the foundation for creativity and new business ventures. With data at the core of decision-making, businesses can stay ahead of competitors and remain agile in a rapidly evolving marketplace.

    Conclusion

    In summary, data analytics offers businesses powerful tools to improve decision-making, increase efficiency, gain customer insights, manage risk, and drive innovation. As companies continue to embrace these technologies, the benefits will only grow, helping them thrive in an increasingly data-driven world.



    Source link

  • Arizona: Cost of Universal Vouchers Reaches $872 Million per Year

    Arizona: Cost of Universal Vouchers Reaches $872 Million per Year


    The Grand Canyon Institute has been tracking the growth and cost of vouchers and charter schools in Arizona for several years. The vast majority of students who take vouchers (almost 3/4). But this year, a larger share were drawn from district schools and charter schools.

    The report contains a number of excellent graphics. Open the lin to see them.

    This is the Grand Canyon Institute release:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Cost of Universal ESA Vouchers

    Contact: Dave Wells, Research Director, dwells@azgci.org or 602.595.1025 ex. 2.

    Summary of Findings

    • 73% of Universal ESA voucher enrollees have never attended district or charter schools (including adjustments for students entering Kindergarten).
    • In FY2025, however, net new Universal ESA voucher enrollees primarily came from charter and district schools.
    • While the total cost of the overall ESA program in FY2025 is expected to be $872 million, the net cost after adjusting for where students would have otherwise attended is $350 million for those in the universal ESA voucher program. This represents a slight increase from the $332 million estimated by the Grand Canyon Institute last year.

    The Grand Canyon Institute (GCI) estimates a $350 million net cost to the state’s General Fund in FY2025 (July 2024-June 2025) for the universal component of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) voucher program based on a student’s school of origin. This represents a slight increase over the estimated FY2024 cost of $332 million. The estimate assumes basic student funding weights. 

    The Joint Legislative  Budget Committee currently estimates the total annual cost of the ESA program to be $872 million, which includes the original targeted program and the universal component. Because student-level data on the universal program is not separated out by the Arizona Dept. of Education, GCI must estimate the origin of universal program enrollees. GCI’s estimate reflects the net cost the state would have incurred if the universal ESA voucher program did not exist. Almost every single child in the original targeted program had to attend a district or charter school for at least 45 days before enrolling in the program. GCI uses historical data on where the targeted students had come from previously, dating back to FY2017, along with current data on where all ESA students have left district or charter schools to estimate the distribution of students across district and charter schools for the original targeted program and the remainder are allocated to the universal program. 

    In FY2025, the net growth in the universal ESA vouchers was 7,660 of the total enrollment of 61,688. GCI estimates that 73% of ESA universal voucher recipients never attended a district or charter school, slightly lower than the rate of 80% in FY2025. This includes estimates for kindergarten students using ESA universal vouchers. 

    The primary driver of the change in FY2025 was a significant increase in the portion of net new enrollees from district and charter schools. GCI examined the marginal changes since last year and estimates that nearly half the net gain in universal participants of 7,660 from FY2024Q2 to FY2025Q2 came via Kindergarten. Analyzing changes in the portion of students previously attending a district or charter school, GCI estimates that less than 10% never attended (or would have never attended for Kindergarten) while half came from charter schools and just over 40% came from districts.

    This change helped lessen the growth of the net cost of the program. GCI presumes that Kindergarten students do not have a record of prior attendance but would mirror the same distribution.  Given that charter school enrollment is about one-fourth of district enrollment, charter schools have been significantly disproportionately impacted by the Universal ESA program.

    Despite the change in FY2025, the majority of participants in the universal ESA program never attended a district or charter school should be self-evident. For FY2025, the Quarter 3 Executive and Legislative ESA report identifies that of the total 87,602 students enrolled in the ESA voucher program (targeted and universal), regardless of when they first enrolled, only 33,942 students  moved from charter or district schools to an ESA. Virtually all targeted participants must first enroll in a district or charter school first. The universal program does not require prior attendance. 

    Access the full report here.

    The Grand Canyon Institute, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization, is a centrist think tank led by a bipartisan group of former state lawmakers, economists, community leaders and academicians. The Grand Canyon Institute serves as an independent voice reflecting a pragmatic approach to addressing economic, fiscal, budgetary and taxation issues confronting Arizona.



    Source link

  • What I learned from ChatGPT’s math mistakes

    What I learned from ChatGPT’s math mistakes


    Credit: Matheus Bertelli / Pexels

    I was traveling recently when my daughter called for help with her algebra homework. Faced with a challenging problem, I wanted to confirm my understanding before guiding hers. As someone studying artificial intelligence in education, I was curious: Could ChatGPT help?

    I typed in the problem: “Given the equation y=abx, if b is less than one, what happens to the graph as x gets larger?”

    ChatGPT shot back an answer” — “As x increases, the graph tends to approach 0” — though no explanation was included. (I realized I should have asked for one in my initial prompt). The AI’s use of the word “tends” left me feeling unsure of my own comprehension, and I like to deeply understand a math concept before explaining it to another person (in this case, my own kid). So I asked ChatGPT: Why?

    The AI spat out an explanation for its solution, but confused and dissatisfied with its answer, I continued to probe. “But … why … I don’t understand … why?” After a few more exchanges, my decision to keep pushing for clarification was justified when, to my surprise and satisfaction, ChatGPT stated: “I appreciate your patience. I misspoke again. I apologize for any confusion. I made an error in my previous message.”

    Though I was able to effectively conclude my cross-country tutoring session, my concerns lingered. What if I’d accepted the original answer as truth? What if I hadn’t pushed several times for the AI to justify its response? And what if I’d been … an eighth grader trying to use ChatGPT to help me complete my algebra homework?

    Artificial Intelligence has become an integral part of our lives, and its presence in classrooms and schools is becoming ubiquitous. While AI has the potential to greatly assist students and educators, now, perhaps more than ever, we need to strengthen our uniquely human critical-thinking skills. My experience using ChatGPT sheds light on the importance of approaching AI tools with a discerning mindset and offers the following lessons:

    Challenging AI is a vital 21st century skill.

    My interaction with ChatGPT underscores the necessity for students to be equipped with the ability to challenge and question the information provided by AI. While these tools are powerful, they are not infallible. Students must be equipped with the ability to use these tools and, more importantly, with the skills to challenge and question the information they receive.

    Students need the confidence to ask probing questions.

    Persistence played a key role in my ability to uncover inaccuracies in the AI-generated information. Students need the confidence to ask probing questions and challenge AI responses to avoid accepting misleading conclusions. Educators should emphasize the importance of persistence when engaging with AI tools, encouraging students to pursue both accuracy and conceptual understanding.

    Beyond correct answers, embrace the learning process.

    While AI can provide correct answers, its limitations become apparent when delving into the intricacies of the learning process. The purpose of education isn’t only about obtaining correct solutions; it is about understanding the underlying concepts, asking meaningful questions and engaging in a dynamic dialogue with the material. AI tools should enhance this process, not overshadow it.

    Cultivating a mindset of curiosity and skepticism

    As we integrate AI into educational settings, educators must cultivate in their students a mindset of curiosity and healthy skepticism. Students should be encouraged to view AI as a resource but not an infallible authority, and they should learn to ask follow-up questions to reach their own conclusions. We should all embrace the 2-year-old inside of us and constantly ask: Why? Why is that? And why is that?

    Teach the tool, not just the subject

    The incorporation of AI into educational practices necessitates a shift in our pedagogical approaches. This involves imparting not just technical skills but also fostering a critical understanding of the tools students interact with. Educators should integrate lessons on effectively using and questioning AI into their curriculum. This will ensure students grasp the subject while developing a critical understanding of their learning tools.

    Conclusion

    My exploration of the exponential decay equation with ChatGPT symbolizes the broader challenges and opportunities presented by AI in education. While AI offers incredible potential, it demands a massive recalibration of our educational approaches. Let us embrace the responsibility to guide students in navigating this landscape with discernment, curiosity and the confidence to question. In doing so, we can equip them not just with correct answers but with the skills to navigate the dynamic intersections of technology and learning in the years to come.

    I ran this essay through ChatGPT and asked it to suggest a good call to action for my conclusion, and will let the AI have the last word:

    In the ever-evolving classroom of the future, the most powerful tool may not be the one with the most answers but the one that empowers us to ask the right questions.

    (Follow the entire interaction with ChatGPT in the screenshots below.)

    •••

    Jonathan Osler is a nonprofit consultant and was formerly a high school teacher, principal, and CalTeach faculty member.

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





    Source link

  • Two types of housing vouchers for foster youth | Quick Guide

    Two types of housing vouchers for foster youth | Quick Guide


    Credit: Lisa Fotios/Pexels

    In California, where affordable housing is increasingly difficult to find, youth exiting the foster care system disproportionately face higher rates of homelessness, according to CalYOUTH, a study on foster youth conducted from 2012 to 2022.

    Two federal programs, the Family Unification Program (FUP) and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative (FYI), work to reduce these rates of homelessness by providing targeted housing vouchers commonly referred to as Section 8.

    But FUP and FYI vouchers go largely underutilized in California, according to a recent report from John Burton Advocates for Youth, or JBAY, a nonprofit focused on supporting California foster and homeless youth.

    According to the authors of the report, child welfare agency representatives from 37 of the state’s 58 counties responded to the survey, and the counties that responded are in charge of 93% of the state’s FUP and FYI vouchers for eligible young people.

    The results from the survey provide critical insight into these two housing vouchers for former foster youth, such as how often they are being distributed and various challenges with more widespread issuance. Some of those challenges include a lack of awareness regarding recent policy changes that simplify the voucher distribution process and insufficient funding for the supportive services offered in coordination with the voucher.

    This quick guide provides insight into what the FUP and FYI programs are, how the housing vouchers can be accessed, the challenge of California’s current housing climate, and where additional information can be found.

    What do the FUP and FYI housing vouchers provide?
    Both the Family Unification Program and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative vouchers provide eligible youth with up to three years of housing assistance, plus additional support such as locating available housing and covering some move-in costs. The housing vouchers, known commonly as Section 8, pay for all or part of the youth’s rent.

    A three-year voucher can be extended for an additional two years if the youth meets certain criteria. Those criteria include opting into a Family Self-Sufficiency program if one is offered by the local public housing authority issuing their voucher. In an FSS program, these youth can receive additional support services, including child care, job training and transportation. If a family self-sufficiency program is not offered, or if it’s impacted, youth can also meet the criteria by fulfilling education or employment conditions.

    More detailed information regarding those education or employment conditions can be found on Page 9 of this report.

    Who is eligible for the FUP and FYI?
    The Family Unification Program, or FUP, was established in 1992 and provides housing vouchers for families involved in the child welfare system and for transition-age former foster youth.

    The Foster Youth to Independence Initiative, or FYI, launched nearly three decades later in 2019, is specific to transition-age youth leaving the foster care system.

    In order to qualify for both programs, transition-age foster youth must be between the ages of 18 and 24 and cannot have reached their 25th birthday. Additional eligibility requirements include having exited the foster care system or being about to do so within 90 days and being homeless or at risk of homelessness at age 16 or above.

    It should be noted that transition-age foster youth age ranges might be different for other services, depending on the specific resource and the person’s location. In Santa Clara County, for example, some foster care transition services are available for 15-year-olds, while the city of San Francisco offers support for some former foster youth up to age 27.

    How many youth have been administered housing voucher?
    There has been a 54% increase in vouchers administered in the past two years: from 870 in 2021 to 1,341 as of Oct. 1, according to the JBAY report.

    Why don’t more eligible California youth have a housing voucher?
    There are multiple reasons for these housing vouchers being largely underutilized in California.

    One key challenge is that not every county chooses to participate in the FUP and FYI voucher programs. While those youth may likely still be eligible for other state or county-funded housing support, such programs are hard to get because they are utilized at higher rates.

    Additionally, the FUP and FYI vouchers are linked with offering supportive services and, despite new designated allocations to cover those supportive services, the costs remain prohibitive.

    Some county representatives are also unaware of key details that would facilitate the issuing of more vouchers. For example, about 65% of county child welfare agencies remained unaware that vouchers can be extended from three to five years for all youth with a voucher. Plus, recent federal policy changes have simplified the process that county agencies must follow when requesting certain vouchers, but many of the county representatives interviewed in the JBAY survey were unaware of those changes.

    How long does it take for youth to find adequate housing if they are administered a FUP or FYI voucher?

    The length of time for identifying housing ranges from less than one month to over six months, with 45% of California counties that responded to the survey indicating that the average search was one to two months. The range includes the beginning of the housing search to the moment the housing is secured.

    Finding adequate and affordable housing in California is increasingly one of the most significant barriers to using or even issuing the vouchers. Transition-age foster youth are particularly susceptible to this challenge, as they often have little to no income to rely on, no rental history and are less likely to have a co-signer to rely on.

    How can transition-age foster youth apply for FUP and FYI housing vouchers?
    If a transition-aged former foster youth thinks they might be eligible for a FUP or FYI voucher, they should connect with their child welfare or independent living worker. A direct point-of-contact for their county, if they offer vouchers, can be found at this link.

    Their local public child welfare agency makes the referral to the public housing authority and certifies whether the youth is eligible, based on their history in the foster care system.

    If the youth is eligible and the housing authority has FUP vouchers, that’s the type of voucher offered to the young person. Otherwise, an FYI voucher is requested from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Once housing is secured, the FYI voucher is administered to the landlord.

    Where can additional resources and information be found regarding housing vouchers for transition-age foster youth?

    Those potentially eligible for a FUP or FYI housing voucher can find contact information for their county on this spreadsheet compiled by JBAY.

    This fact sheet by the Youth Law Center provides an overview of the housing resources available in California for current and former foster youth.





    Source link

  • Joyce Vance: The Kids Are Alright Despite Trump’s Efforts to Kill Public Education and Academic Freedom

    Joyce Vance: The Kids Are Alright Despite Trump’s Efforts to Kill Public Education and Academic Freedom


    Joyce Vance is a former federal prosecutor for North Alabama. She writes an important blog called Civil Discourse, where she usually explains court decisions and legal issues. Today she turns to education.

    Today I’m recovering from the graduation tour, one in Boulder and one in Boston in the last two weeks, and getting back into the groove of writing as I continue to work on my book (which I hope you’ll preorder if you haven’t already). The graduations came at a good moment. 

    Watching my kids graduate, one from college and one with a master’s in science, was an emotional experience—the culmination of their years of hard work, sacrifice, and growth, all captured in a single walk across the stage. They, like their friends, my law students, and amazing students across the county, now enter society as adults. Even beyond the individual stories of hardships overcome and perseverance, witnessing these rites of passage makes me feel profoundly hopeful. The intelligence and commitment of the students—many of whom are already tackling big problems and imagining new, bold solutions—gives me a level of confidence about what comes next for our country. In a time when it’s easy to get discouraged, their commitment and idealism stands as a powerful reminder that they are ready to take on the mess we have left them. 

    The kids are alright, even though they shouldn’t have to be. Talking with them makes me think they will find a way, even if it’s unfair to ask it of them and despite the fact that their path will be more difficult than it should be. Courage is contagious, and they seem to have caught it. Their educations have prepared them for the future we all find ourselves in now.

    As students across the country prepared to graduate this year, Trump released his so-called “skinny budget.” If that’s how they want to frame it, then education has been put on a starvation diet—at least the kind of education that develops independent thinkers who thrive in an environment where questions are asked and answered. Trump pitches the budget as “gut[ting] a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security.” Defense spending would increase by 13% under his proposal.

    The plan for education is titled, “Streamline K-12 Education Funding and Promote Parental Choice.”Among its provisions, the announcement focuses on the following items:

    • “The Budget continues the process of shutting down the Department of Education.” 
    • “The Budget also invests $500 million, a $60 million increase, to expand the number of high-quality charter schools, that have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement and giving parents more choice in the education of their children.”

    As we discussed in March, none of this is a surprise. Trump is implementing the Project 2025 plan. In December of 2024, I wrote about how essential it is to dumb down the electorate if you’re someone like Donald Trump and you want to succeed. A rich discussion in our forums followed. At the time I wrote, “Voters who lack the backbone of a solid education in civics can be manipulated. That takes us to Trump’s plans for the Department of Education.” But it’s really true for the entirety of democracy.

    Explaining the expanded funding for charter schools, a newly written section of the Department of Education website reads more like political propaganda than education information: “The U.S. Department of Education announced today that it has reigned [Ed: Note the word “”reigned” is misspelled] in the federal government’s influence over state Charter School Program (CSP) grant awards. The Department removed a requirement set by the Biden Administration that the U.S. Secretary of Education review information on how states approve select entities’ (e.g., private colleges and universities) authorization of charter schools in states where they are already lawful authorizers. This action returns educational authority to the states, reduces burdensome red tape, and expands school choice options for students and families.”

    There are already 37 lawsuits related to Trump’s changes to education. Uncertainty is no way to educate America’s children. Cutting funding for research because you want to score political points about DEI or climate change is no way to ensure we nurture future scientists and other thinkers and doers…

    I am reminded again of George Orwell’s words: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” The historians among us, and those who delve into history, will play a key role in getting us through this. Our love and understanding of history can help us stay grounded, understanding who we are, who we don’t want to become, and why the rule of law matters so damn much to all of it….

    Thanks for being here with me and for supporting Civil Discourse by reading and subscribing. Your paid subscriptions make it possible for me to devote the time and resources necessary to do this work, and I am deeply grateful for them.

    We’re in this together,

    Joyce



    Source link

  • Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles

    Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles


    Is this a picture of something bad, or something good?

    Cognitive scientists call this the global-local processing dilemma: Do we perceive the overall image, or focus on the details? Education policy often faces the same question: Can a policy be considered “good” if the overall data look promising, but the day-to-day experiences feel “bad?”

    This tension is at the heart of California’s college math reforms.

    Like the image, the story of these policies may look “good” from a distance, but “bad” up close.

    Before recent reforms, community college students who needed extra math support were typically placed in remedial courses like elementary algebra. These classes didn’t count toward transfer requirements, and most students stuck in them never made it to a math course needed to transfer to a four-year university, such as college algebra or introductory statistics. This created an academic dead end for many.

    A 2017 law, Assembly Bill 705, changed that. It used high school grades for placement and gave more students direct access to transfer-level courses, with corequisite support (a support course taken concurrently with a transfer-level course) when needed. Instead of multi-semester remediation, students could move into transfer-level math courses faster.

    While challenges remain, the approach led to significant improvements. In 2016-17, before AB 705 was announced, only 27% of students passed a transfer-level math course within one year. But in 2019-20, the first full year of AB 705’s implementation, that number had nearly doubled to 51%. And by 2023-24, it reached 62%. About 30,000 more students were fulfilling their math requirements each year. The story is similar in English courses, and so it’s undeniable that AB 705 has helped California’s community college students get one step closer to transfer. 

    Despite these gains, many faculty don’t see AB 705 as a success. As one instructor put it, “There are a lot more people failing than before … largely students of color. … By making this change (i.e., AB 705) around equity, we’ve created an inequitable system.” And the data do show that pass rates have declined

    But here’s the catch: Far more students are now taking those courses. The graph below helps illustrate this shift using data from one community college district. Before AB 705, only a small fraction of students reached transfer-level math, but with high pass rates, as shown by the darker blue shading within the dashed box. After AB 705, access expanded, but pass rates declined from 80% to 70%. Critically, that’s 70% of a much larger group.

    With such an improvement, why do some faculty feel like the policy is a failure? 

    Because of this paradox: AB 705 absolutely led to more students passing. But it also led to more students failing. 

    People respond more strongly to stories than to statistics, and losses loom larger than gains. The students we see struggling — their faces, their frustration, their stories — linger longer than a bar graph showing statewide gains. As faculty members, we know this all too well. We remember the students who didn’t make it. We think about what we could’ve done differently. We agonize over them.

    And often, faculty haven’t been given the full picture. Our research has found that many instructors hadn’t even seen outcome data on AB 705’s impact. So, without that context, and given the classroom experience, it’s reasonable to assume the policy failed.

    This disconnect is a classic challenge in public policy: a policy can be effective overall but still feel painful on the ground. And this tension is always a part of the hard work of building systemic justice. AB 705 succeeded in dismantling long-standing barriers and expanding access to transfer-level math. But that progress has introduced new classroom dynamics that feel personal, urgent and overwhelming to faculty. Good policy must account for both the big-picture gains and the human cost of change. Reforms don’t succeed on data alone. They require understanding, empathy and support for those doing the work.

    And just as faculty were beginning to adjust to AB 705, we face Assembly Bill 1705, a sharper and even more controversial new policy. It asks colleges to stretch even more, limiting their ability to offer even prerequisite math courses. Understandably, many educators are still reeling. They’re trying to adapt to new expectations while managing unintended consequences in their classrooms. Recent guidance has softened the rollout, but confusion remains. The stakes are high, and many faculty feel mistrustful and angry.

    If AB 705 taught us anything, it’s that mistrust grows when there’s a gap between what the data show and what people experience. This is why the next phase of work cannot be just about compliance or policy enforcement. It must be about storytelling, listening and solutions. Faculty need to see the big picture. Policymakers need to understand life on the ground. The policy “worked” in aggregate, but not without professional and emotional cost. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very equity goals these reforms were meant to achieve.

    Like the image above, the truth lies in seeing both levels clearly. We must acknowledge the trade-offs, the tension, and the very real pain of transition. Let’s take concerns seriously without retreating from hard-won progress. Let’s keep asking the harder, more honest questions: How do we support both students and faculty through ambitious change? How do we ensure that every student, not just the most prepared, has a real shot at success? 

    If we can do that, maybe we’ll find a way forward that is both honest and hopeful, one that sees the whole picture.

    •••

    Ji Y. Son, Ph.D., is a cognitive scientist and professor at California State University, Los Angeles and co-founder of CourseKata.org, a statistics and data science curriculum used by colleges and high schools.
    Federick Ngo, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His research examines higher education policy, with a focus on college access and community college 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.





    Source link

  • See The Bigger Picture: How to Protect User Data


    See The Bigger Picture: How to Protect User Data—Infographic

    In today’s digital landscape, protecting user data is critical to maintaining trust and preventing breaches. Implementing data protection strategies like securing networks, using encryption, and limiting access to sensitive information ensures a robust defense against cyber threats. Regularly updating software and enabling two-factor authentication also strengthens data security. Transparency with users about how their data is collected, stored, and used fosters confidence and compliance with regulations like GDPR. Safeguard personal and organizational data by following these actionable practices and creating a culture of security. Every small step counts in keeping sensitive information safe from unauthorized access.​



    Source link

  • Top Skills Every Digital Marketing Executive Needs

    Top Skills Every Digital Marketing Executive Needs





    Top Skills Every Digital Marketing Executive Needs – e-Learning Infographics
















    Background image

    Background image

    Stay up to date on the latest eLearning news, articles, and free resources sent straight to your inbox!



    Source link

  • How Does Self-Service BI Enhance Organizational Efficiency?


    How Does Self-Service Business Intelligence Enhance Organizational Efficiency?—Infographic

    Discover how self-service Business Intelligence (BI) empowers teams to make faster, data-driven decisions. By offering intuitive tools for visualization, analysis, and reporting, organizations can reduce dependency on IT, enhance collaboration, and foster operational efficiency for long-term success. Data serves as the backbone of modern business success, enabling organizations to make informed decisions and drive growth. However, traditional Business Intelligence processes often create bottlenecks, slowing progress and limiting access to critical insights. Self-service BI emerges as a transformative solution, democratizing data access and simplifying analytics. Empowering employees across all levels to independently explore, analyze, and utilize data fosters a culture of efficiency and proactivity.



    Source link