اینترنت

برچسب: All

  • Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring All Colleges to Submit

    Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring All Colleges to Submit


    Trump signed an executive order requiring colleges to prove that they are not continuing to practice affirmative action on behalf of racial minorities. He seems obsessed with the idea that Black students are gaining entrance to college without the right test scores. He wants to call a halt to it.

    Conservatives believe that admission should be based solely on grades and test scores. They ignore the fact that colleges have other goals they want to meet: students who can play on sports’ teams; who can play in the band or orchestra; who want to study subjects with low enrollments, like advanced physics or Latin. There are also legacy students whose parents went to the college. And students whose parents are big donors, as Jared Kushner’s father Charles was when he pledged $2.5 million to Harvard the year that Jared applied, a story told by Daniel Golden in his book The Price of Admission. RFK Jr. was admitted to Harvard by signing a form with only his name.

    Annie Ma and Joycelyn Gecker of the Associated Press reported:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions.

    In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.

    Trump’s Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination.

    The role of race in admissions has featured in the administration’s battle against some of the nation’s most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds. For example, the executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public.

    Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures.

    The executive order makes the same argument. “The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,” said a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing.

    The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges’ diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next.

    Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year.

    Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant’s background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling.

    “Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court’s conservative majority.

    It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges, which are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents.

    “Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,” Fansmith said. “But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.”

    Because of the Supreme Court ruling, schools are not allowed to ask the race of students who are applying. Once students enroll, the schools can ask about race, but students must be told they have a right not to answer. In this political climate, many students won’t report their race, Fansmith said. So when schools release data on student demographics, the figures often give only a partial picture of the campus makeup.



    Source link

  • Columbia and Brown Agree to Give Trump Administration All Data on Race and Test Scores of New Admissions

    Columbia and Brown Agree to Give Trump Administration All Data on Race and Test Scores of New Admissions


    In recent decades, many universities have sought to increase racial and ethnic diversity in their student body and faculty. In addition to grades and test scores, they looked at many other factors, such as talents, life experiences, meeting challenges. This process meant that more students of color were admitted, while some students with higher test scores were rejected.

    The Trump administration adamantly opposes this process, known as affirmative action. Its view is that scores on the SAT and ACT and grades should be the most important, if not the only criteria for admission. Those scores, to Trump officials, are synonymous with merit. Any deviation from their view will be grounds for investigating violations of civil rights laws.

    Sharon Otterman and Anemona Hartocollis reported in The New York Times yesterday:

    As part of the settlements struck with two Ivy League universities in recent weeks, the Trump administration will gain access to the standardized test scores and grade point averages of all applicants, including information about their race, a measure that could profoundly alter competitive college admissions.

    That aspect of the agreements with Columbia and Brown, which goes well beyond the information typically provided to the government, was largely overlooked amid splashier news that the universities had promised to pay tens of millions of dollars to settle claims of violations of federal anti-discrimination laws, including accusations that they had tolerated antisemitism.

    The release of such data has been on the wish list of conservatives who are searching for evidence that universities are dodging a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring the consideration of race in college admissions, and will probably be sought in the future from many more of them.

    But college officials and experts who support using factors beyond test scores worry that the government — or private groups or individuals — will use the data to file new discrimination charges against universities and threaten their federal funding.

    The Trump administration is using every lever it can to push elite college admissions offices toward what it regards as “merit-based” processes that more heavily weigh grades and test scores, arguing that softer measures, such as asking applicants about their life challenges or considering where they live, may be illegal proxies for considering race.

    The additional scrutiny is likely to resonate in admissions offices nationwide. It could cause some universities to reconsider techniques like recruitment efforts focused on high schools whose students are predominantly people of color, or accepting students who have outstanding qualifications in some areas but subpar test scores, even if they believe such actions are legal.

    “The Trump administration’s ambition here is to send a chill through admissions offices all over the country,” said Justin Driver, a Yale Law School professor who just wrote a book about the Supreme Court and affirmative action and who said he believed that the administration’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisionwas wrong. “They are trying to get universities to depress Black and brown enrollment.”



    Source link

  • Newsom and DeSantis walk into a bar: How polarized education debates fail us all

    Newsom and DeSantis walk into a bar: How polarized education debates fail us all


    Gov. Gavin Newsom (left) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (right).

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource & Gage Skidmore/Flickr

    There’s a saying in politics that most people will vote for the candidate they’d rather have a beer with. I’ve been thinking about this a lot after hearing that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis agreed to a televised debate.

    Personally, I’m dreading it. Our national political discourse has already degenerated below the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). It’s impossible to escape the constant fighting in the press, social media and text chains of family and friends.

    I think it’d be more interesting if Gavin and Ron had to explain their views on a topic like education over drinks. I started to imagine what it would be like to be stuck between them in my local bar.

    They were already there when I walked in. DeSantis was dressed in his Navy intelligence officer uniform. He was nursing a vodka soda and kept furtively scanning the crowd for threats. Newsom was in the seat to my left and halfway through an expensive wine that he’d obviously brought with him.

    Both were staring at the local news on TV. When it started playing a story about the learning that kids had lost during the pandemic, DeSantis pointed at the screen and said, “That’s what happens when your politicians let teachers’ unions shut down schools for two years. In Florida, we prioritized our kids and parents.”

    Hearing this, Newsom snorted and said, “In California, we prioritized safety. Florida ignored the science and made dangerous decisions that put everyone at risk.”

    “What a load of crap,” said DeSantis. “We had just about the same mortality rates and kept our schools and businesses open. You kept them closed and forced people to wear masks long after everyone got vaccinated.”

    “At least we believed in vaccination,” yelled Newsom. “You guys were taking deworming pills for horses.”

    I laughed at the joke and said to Newsom, “You’re right. The anti-vax, horse deworming pills and other conspiracy lunacy kept us from getting back to normal.” Then I turned to DeSantis, “But you’re right that California, like many blue states went overboard with school shutdowns and severely damaged kids’ learning and mental health. The state and local leaders who should have advocated for those students, especially the most vulnerable ones, did nothing and that should forever stain their consciences.”

    Newsom looked shocked that I wasn’t in total agreement with him. After all, Californians, especially those in the Bay Area, are only supposed to think one way. His silence inspired the DeSantis to start another line of attack. “Truth is, it wouldn’t matter if they’d kept the schools closed. The kids in them weren’t learning anything anyway. Florida is in the top five nationally in reading and math and our kids were years ahead of California students before the pandemic. That’s why so many of your parents are leaving your state and choosing ours.”

    Newsom took a huge slug of red wine and snorted, “Our kids learn what your kids aren’t allowed to like ethnic studies and African American history. We teach the truth. You whitewash it.”

    I looked to my left and raised a toast. “Great line,” I said. “But he,” pointing to my right, “has another good point. We are way behind Florida and many other states in teaching reading and math. They’ve been at this work for years. We don’t even have a state-wide reading and math strategy. I think it’s amazing that we have an ethnic studies requirement but what’s the point if our students can’t read the books that tell our nation’s story, good and bad?”

    DeSantis downed his vodka soda and pumped his fist.

    I held up my hand, “But that doesn’t excuse Florida for forcing publishers to change books anytime its Republican politicians don’t like something and telling folks that they can’t use the words diversity, equity or inclusion if they want to work in schools.”

    Newsom piled on. “Don’t forget that Florida teachers can’t say the word gay before third grade!”

    DeSantis looked furious. “Of course, they can say gay,” he said. “What they can’t do is have any discussions of sex before third grade or indoctrinate them into critical race theory, so they hate their country and white people. Our anti-woke agenda is overwhelmingly supported by parents and voters in Florida and nationally.”

    “It’s just more censorship,” said the Newsom. “You deny the reality of our nation’s history and human sexuality.”

    I complimented Newsom for another good line and then said to DeSantis. “You make some good points. The language police are miserable, self-righteous scolds and the CRT people clearly overreached by describing every white person as privileged and racist. Parents should know what their kids are being taught in the earliest grades, but there’s a difference between talking about sexual acts and describing family structures that include gay and lesbian parents. You seem hellbent on delegitimizing those.”

    “And don’t forget how they treat transgender people. That’s even worse,” said Newsom.

    “So, we should let them play women’s sports?” said DeSantis.

    “Yes. And use the bathroom of the sex they identify with,” said Newsom.

    “Hold on,” I said. “I think that most people agree that letting transgender males play women’s sports is unfair. But there appears to be active effort to deny their existence as human beings, which just seems cruel,” I said. “Who cares about how they identify or what bathrooms they use?”

    This seemed to make them equally angry. They turned away from me, which was fine because I’d had enough of being stuck in the middle. As I paid for my beer, I wondered what I’d do if I had to choose between these guys in an election.

    I mostly leaned to the left, but Newsom hadn’t shown political courage when many urban school districts refused to open many months after mass vaccination, nor done much to improve teaching and learning; but he said all the right things.

    On the right side, DeSantis had prioritized students and families during the pandemic and his students were doing much better academically; but everything he did came with a dose of 1984 and a whiff of Voldemort.

    Then there was the fact that neither of them drank beer.

    What kind of choice is that?

    •••

    Arun Ramanathan is the former CEO of Pivot Learning and the Education Trust—West. 

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





    Source link

  • We need all hands on deck to ensure students get the financial aid they need for college

    We need all hands on deck to ensure students get the financial aid they need for college


    Parent Raul Zuniga and his daughter Sandy, a senior at La Habra High in Orange County, receive help with financial aid forms from counselor Rosa Sanchez at a “Cash for College” workshop.

    FERMIN LEAL/EDSOURCE TODAY

    California is better off when more people have education and training to power our economy and support thriving communities. Financial aid that reduces or fully covers the cost of college or job training is an investment that benefits all of us.

    About $550 million in federal and state aid goes unused annually when thousands of eligible California students miss out on financial aid. Many are unaware of financial aid, don’t know how to apply or if they qualify, or fear sharing personal information because of their immigration status.

    A new law is helping to ensure that financial aid is not left on the table. Schools must help all high school seniors complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or California Dream Act Application unless the student formally opts out. Students submit one of these applications, depending on their residential status, to access the grants, scholarships, work-study opportunities, student loans and other forms of aid available to help finance postsecondary education or training.

    Providing support for all students as they complete financial aid applications is an equity-driven game changer. This policy encourages students to plan for and attend college or job training programs and ensures that all students and families can make informed plans and decisions about their life after high school.

    Achieving universal participation in this student-centered systemic approach to financial aid requires planning and collaboration among K-12 school leaders, counselors, educators, student groups and community organizations. California’s All in for FAFSA/CA Dream Act campaign supports K-12 education partners as they work to achieve universal FAFSA/CADAA completion. Local progress can be tracked on the state’s Race to Submit dashboard. The data can help target assistance for students who may need extra support and encouragement to complete and submit a financial aid application. It also helps us to identify, learn from and share best practices with schools and districts across the state.

    Since universal participation was required, the number of California students applying for financial aid increased significantly. More than 60% of California’s high school seniors submitted financial aid applications by March 2, the deadline for students planning to attend a four-year college. By Sept. 5, the deadline for students heading to community college, the total FAFSA or CADAA completion rate for the class of 2023 climbed to nearly 75%. More than 24,000 financial aid applications were completed this year compared with the same time a year ago.

    The progress achieved with California’s universal financial aid requirement is due to the hard work of K-12 district leaders, high school principals, counselors and teachers, California Student Opportunity and Access Program counselors, Cash for College workshop coordinators, community-based organizations, and students and their families. They went all in to help more high school students than ever complete financial aid applications.

    In a few months, the U.S. Department of Education will release a revised federal aid application called the Better FAFSA. The good news is that the redesigned application will be easier to complete. The bad news is that the Better FAFSA application window will open two months later than in a typical year. This compressed timeline could most disadvantage students and families who need greater support to complete the aid application — and who have the most to gain from filling out the form.

    We will need all hands on deck at the state, district and high school levels to keep making progress and ensure that students don’t lose ground in this inaugural year of the Better FAFSA. The California Student Aid Commission will continue to support K-12 districts and high schools as they work to meet the universal FAFSA or CADAA requirement. We have confidence that with planning, collaboration with partners, clear communication and purpose, California can ensure that all high school seniors complete the FAFSA or CADAA, and California’s vision of increasing access to higher education for all students will become a reality.

    •••

    Catalina Cifuentes is chair and Marlene Garcia is executive director of the California Student Aid Commission.

    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

  • All kids need access to after-school programming

    All kids need access to after-school programming


    Students work together during an after-school tutoring club.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Last week, as one of Los Angeles’ major freeways was closed indefinitely and rainstorms hit the city, to top it all off, school was also out early in the Los Angeles Unified School District for parent-teacher conferences. These conferences provide valuable individualized feedback — but even with optimal weather and traffic conditions, shortened school days also mean that families scramble for child care and to ensure students continue learning.

    Fortunately, we have a way to support families in weeks like this and in other weeks when school still gets out well before the work day ends — effective after-school programming. It’s high time that enrichment, social, and academic support during the hours after school get the attention and investments they deserve.

    No matter what time that final bell rings, there is no doubt that after-school programming has become a vital supplement to a well-rounded public school education. By bridging the gap between school and home, after-school programs extend the academic support students receive during the day, ultimately leading to improved educational outcomes, social-emotional skills and more enriched lives. One national study showed that half of students regularly attending these programs made gains in their math and reading grades — and more than 60% improved their homework completion, classroom participation and behavior. 

    After-school programs also offer a safe and supportive environment for students, reducing crime and juvenile delinquency. When students have a constructive, nurturing place to spend their time after school, studies show they are less likely to engage in risky or harmful behaviors. According to a 2005 study from the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College, every dollar invested in afterschool programs saves at least $3 by increasing youths’ earning potential, improving their performance at school and reducing crime and juvenile delinquency. This not only benefits individual students but also offers working parents and guardians peace of mind by providing a reliable, quality child care option.

    The vast majority of parents believe that after-school opportunities are important to support their children’s safety and development—however, for every student enrolled in one of these programs, there are two students who would participate if given access. This disparity often falls predictably along socio-economic lines, widening the very achievement gap that it has the power to help close. And with a patchwork of funding and service models, we don’t always know which programs serve students best.   

    While the list of proven benefits is seemingly endless, the funding and resources needed to make high-quality programs equitably accessible to more families are not. The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program funding that Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced two years ago is a great start. At the same time, we need to ensure that this funding is ongoing, coherent with other funding streams, and remains flexible enough to make the most of these dollars and meet the needs of local students.

    That is why I brought forth a resolution that my board colleagues passed unanimously this week, calling on LA Unified to do more to study, fund and advocate for after-school programming and expanded learning opportunities to be available to all our students. We must collectively imagine what we can do for children all day long, including during the hours from when the bell rings until dinner. This will require expanded and flexible state funding, research and data analysis from our school systems and institutions of higher education, and collaboration with nonprofits and local entities who have been doing this work in silos for decades. We also need to find ways to ensure that we can staff after-school positions, which historically have been part-time jobs, with the caring adults we know our students need to thrive.

    As we continue to address the learning gaps and emotional hurdles facing students after the pandemic, we cannot afford to go back to business as before. If time is one of the most significant things that our students missed during the pandemic, then I’ve found a few hours every day where we can make up lost ground and prepare our kids to be the best versions of themselves — after school.

    •••

    Nick Melvoin is a member of the Los Angeles Unified school board, representing the Westside and West San Fernando Valley, and is currently running for Congress.

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





    Source link

  • All students need to learn data science

    All students need to learn data science


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    We live in a world driven by data. Data is collected and stored on every human interaction, whether commercial, civic or social. Enormous server “farms” across the world save, preserve and serve data on demand. A list of the most in-demand jobs includes data-scientist and statistician. Algorithms determine prison sentences, scan video feeds to identify potential suspects of crimes, and assist in decisions regarding loans, college admissions and employment interviews. 

    But problems lurk. Algorithms trained using data that poorly represent the populations to which they are applied leave members of some groups at greater risk of being mistakenly incarcerated. Data models developed without input from contextual experts exacerbate existing patterns of racism and sexism. Data is stolen, allowing thieves to impersonate others and steal millions. Privacy is threatened, and your local grocery chain may know more about your medical conditions than your closest family members. 

    Would it surprise you, then, to learn that high school students are not required to study statistics or data science? Fortunately, even though such courses are not required, for more than a decade a growing number of California high school students have had the opportunity to take statistics courses — and since 2013, data science courses — to meet the admissions requirements of the University of California and the California State University systems. Currently, this pathway to college access is being reviewed by the University of California academic senate. Closing it will make it even more difficult for students to learn relevant and necessary skills for 21st century life.

    I, along with other statisticians, view data science as a much-needed upgrade of the current statistics curriculum. It was in this spirit of modernization that I joined a team consisting of high school teachers, UCLA statisticians, computer scientists and education researchers, to develop the Introduction to Data Science, or IDS, course.  This course, supported by the National Science Foundation and the first (I believe) yearlong high school data course in the U.S., was designed to better reflect the modern practice of statistics — which relies on computers, algorithms and both predictive and inferential modeling — than existing high school statistics courses do.

    The course was approved in 2013 as a statistics course by UC’s High School Articulation Unit. This came as no surprise because it reflected the fact that Introduction to Data Sciences was designed as a statistics course following guidelines established by the American Statistical Association, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the Common Core state standards (not the result of a flawed approval process, as some have alleged). Statistics courses have long been approved as high school math courses without being required to teach Algebra II standards.

    For some reason, this long-standing practice has recently been viewed as controversial, leading to the current UC review and allegations that data science courses offer insufficient algebraic rigor. The real issue is about the purpose of high school mathematics education. Is it designed only to serve students who will major in science, technology, engineering and math, which requires advanced algebra at some point, or should it serve the needs of all students? And if it is meant to serve only future STEM students, is Algebra II the only starting point? The real issue isn’t about offering “weak” math or strong math, but about providing rigorous courses that prepare students for life in the modern data-driven world. Modern statistics courses provide foundational skills and knowledge that are needed by most (if not all) high school students.

    Don’t just ask me. After all, I am one of the developers. Ask high school leaders. There has been widespread demand for these courses. Since our initial pilot in 10 schools in 2014–15, Introduction to Data Science is offered in 189 high schools around the nation, and more than 400 high schools around the state are offering one of the available data science courses.

    Ask the researchers who found that courses such as ours improved college preparation and matriculation.

    Ask leaders at UC Berkeley, among the first universities to recognize the importance of data science. In establishing their wildly popular introductory data science course, Data 8, they emphasized that the instructional approach “should not be viewed as ‘going soft on the math’” and that “conceptual understanding can be developed, perhaps even better developed, through direct experience and computational actions performed with one’s own hands, rather than through symbolic manipulation.” 

    While it is true that high school students shouldn’t be forced to make “major” life decisions such as whether to take Algebra II and embark on the STEM path, for many students, this decision is made for them. One study of over 450,000 California high school students found that of those who passed Algebra I, only 40% continued to Algebra II. Courses such as Introduction to Data Science create more opportunities for students to develop mathematical skills and prepare to attend a four-year college — and even to take Algebra II if they choose. 

    Statistics and data science courses prepare students to address many of the major issues of our time. STEM students are not excused from the need to study data science. Many recent scandals and controversies in scientific work have centered around the misuse and misunderstanding of fundamental statistical concepts. These challenges point to the need for students of STEM to deepen their study of data science.

    All students need data science; some students also need Algebra II. Not the other way around.

    •••

    Robert Gould is a teaching professor at the UCLA Department of Statistics and Data Science, a fellow of the American Statistical Association, founder of the ASA DataFest competition, and co-author of a college introductory statistics textbook: Exploring the World through Data.

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





    Source link

  • One size doesn’t fit all in learning how to read

    One size doesn’t fit all in learning how to read


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    The K-12 “reading wars” discussions have been missing a critical point: No matter the curriculum used, too often, teachers are being asked to stick to a script and execute equal teaching, not equitable teaching. And equal teaching is illegal.

    In the panicked quest to improve literacy outcomes, it’s tempting for schools and teachers to fall back on a “one-size-fits-all” scripted curriculum despite our knowledge that teaching all students the same thing, in the same way, at the same pace, can be ineffective for students with language or learning differences. Students have individual strengths and needs, and teachers should differentiate their approaches in response to the individuals in their class.

    If it’s the same for everyone, it’s not targeted toward anyone.   

    Equal, non-differentiated instruction is illegal for our students who are classified as English learners or who require special education services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 ensures that students with special needs are appropriately served by schools. Modifications and accommodations are required based on students’ strengths and needs to meet their individual education plans. Equal teaching — everyone getting the same thing — is not appropriate.

    Similarly, in the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the Supreme Court determined that San Francisco’s school district was required to provide equal access — not equal instruction, but equal access — to all students. For students classified as English learners, English language development support was needed to provide students access to the core curriculum. The court based its decision on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

    If we were to expand the intention behind the court’s decision, we would ensure that all students — regardless of home language, ZIP code, or cultural background — get equitable access to education. This means doing whatever it takes to support individual students, not giving every student the same instruction. In particular, research has shown that scripted curricula don’t work for multilingual students. So, what does? Recently, science of reading advocates and multilingual advocates — including researchers — published a joint statement identifying literacy practices that are effective for multilingual students.

    How can all students be successful? While a complete solution would extend beyond the education system, here are two important and realistic steps that could move us forward:

    Improved and ongoing professional learning for teachers. The better teachers get at observing, assessing, diagnosing and intervening at points of difficulty, the better they will get at modifying and differentiating instruction based on students’ needs and strengths. Identifying students’ needs before they fall behind is key. The further behind they fall, the harder it is for students to catch up. By identifying and meeting individual needs, teachers can help all students succeed. Doing so requires equitable — not equal — teaching. Ongoing professional learning is required to help teachers continually practice and improve their skills. 

    Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. It’s important for students to see themselves in the curriculum to develop a sense of belonging and to increase engagement. Traditionally, students who are different in any way — whether by language, (dis)ability, culture, religion, race, ethnicity, immigration status, etc. — do not see themselves represented in the curriculum. Students from historically marginalized communities may not see themselves in the characters or content they study and can feel like outsiders, as if school is intended for others, not them. Teachers who learn from and about their students and who authentically integrate students’ lived experiences into the curriculum can engage and motivate students in their classroom. When teachers use culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, it is inclusive and not generic, not scripted and not the same for all. It is equitable, not equal.

    These research-based solutions are not complex, but they require districts’ focus and state funding for teachers to have access to high-quality professional learning.

    The most significant factor that impacts student learning is the teacher. So, the next time someone says that students should all receive the same instruction, share with them what works for individual students. Remind them that teachers have a legal obligation to provide all students access to content, and differentiated, culturally responsive approaches are needed to achieve that. 

    ●●●

    Allison Briceño is an associate professor at San José State University and an OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow.
    Claudia Rodriguez-Mojica is an associate professor of teaching at the University of California, Davis.

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





    Source link

  • Parent engagement can make all the difference

    Parent engagement can make all the difference


    A school principal addresses parents during a monthly meeting.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for EDUimages

    As upcoming national elections loom, there is a concerning overshadowing of local political engagement. 

    City councils, school boards and local commissions significantly shape our daily lives, particularly affecting our children’s future. Local elections are crucial as they directly impact essential services like water, sewer, garbage collection and infrastructure maintenance such as roadways, park systems, bike trails, and sidewalks. On top of that, local governments regulate zoning, permits and land use, profoundly molding our communities’ development and quality of life.

    My journey advocating for my daughter’s safety at school propelled me into local advocacy through school site councils and, eventually, as a mayoral appointee to my city’s Commission United for Racial Equity. You’re not alone if “site council” doesn’t ring a bell for you. Four years ago, I found myself in the same position. Site councils are the mechanism districts use to engage parents, caregivers and the broader community in pursuing an equitable educational experience for students. 

    When my daughter started first grade, a visceral moment fortified my intention to engage in local politics. I’d given our then 6-year-old daughter a phone watch for safety and comfort. I soon learned that electronic devices are not allowed on a student’s person during the school day and must remain inside their backpacks. I felt the policy defeated the device’s purpose. I had a series of terse but kind conversations with the school about the importance of my child always wearing the watch. The school did not budge. 

    In a burst of frustration, I stormed into the living room, tossing freshly printed pages at my husband. “What’s wrong?” he asked, noticing my anger.

    “You’re going to the school office today and using that white privilege,” I demanded. As a multiracial couple in a predominantly white district, I felt my identity as a Black woman might hinder progress, so I urged my husband to take action. “I’ve already prepared everything you need to say,” I added sharply. Standing over me, he embraced me as I broke into tears, then took on the task as requested.

    My husband reiterated to the school, ad nauseam, my concerns about the rampant threat of school shootings in the U.S. and the imperative for constant communication with my child, emphasizing our proactive measures such as relocating closer to her school; it’s a 5-minute journey from our front door to the front steps of her school; I could run there in an emergency. The phone watch served as another layer of safety, compelling me to adamantly push for a revision of the policy on electronic devices. As parents, we are our children’s foremost advocates, necessitating relentless advocacy, always.

    In California, site councils play a crucial role in schools by conducting assessments recommending equitable uses of federal funds to meet the educational needs of our students, reviewing school safety plans, and partnering in the development of schools’ plans for student achievement.

    Parents must understand the importance of participating in these spaces to support effective decision-making and their children’s safety and academic and personal growth. I just finished year three as a site council member and have learned a great deal about the policies and practices that govern our children’s educational experience. Many site council members proceed to serve on school boards or in city leadership, as I have with my city’s Commission United for Racial Equity, where we shape the long-term policies and practices that impact our community. 

    In my home of Benicia, community engagement with the site council process continues to yield tangible outcomes. This has led to integrating professional development opportunities, encompassing restorative practices, implicit bias training, and social justice at both district and site levels. Additionally, diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging have been integrated into the district’s accountability plan, alongside construction efforts undertaken to enhance the safety and accessibility of the physical environment. Finally, revisions to the classroom curriculum and the school library have been made to ensure a comprehensive representation of history’s diversity.

    You have the power to engage as a parent, caregiver or concerned community member. Start by contacting your principal for the site council’s meeting schedule. These meetings are open to the public, and agendas are provided in advance, allowing you time to prepare thoughtful questions or comments on topics that directly impact your child’s educational journey.

    And if you are wondering, yes, my daughter’s school site changed the electronic device policy, and she has worn her phone watch to school every day for the last five years: Parental engagement and advocacy works.

    ●●●

    Amira K.S. Barger is an adjunct professor at California State University, East Bay and works on diversity, equity and inclusion and communications at a consulting firm.

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





    Source link

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fall 2022 Enrollment Data

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

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

    What is not known about legacy admissions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





    Source link

  • Nearly all school parcel taxes pass, but mixed results for school bonds in March election

    Nearly all school parcel taxes pass, but mixed results for school bonds in March election


    The March 5 primary proved to be a good day for passing school parcel taxes, but not so good for school construction bonds.

    With fewer than 1% of votes statewide remaining to be counted, it appears likely voters in 10 of 11 districts approved parcel taxes. Although a small sample size, the 91% passage rate beats the historic 65% pass rate for primary elections, according to Michael Coleman, who publishes election results at CaliforniaCityFinance.com (see note below). The sole defeat was the Petaluma Joint Union High School District’s eight-year proposed tax at $89 per parcel.

    Voters in 24 of 40 school districts passed school facilities bonds: 60% compared with the historic 73% primary election approval rate. And the winners include two tiny school districts in Sonoma County that looked like they would be defeated on election night but picked up enough mail-in or provisional votes to eke out a win.

    It takes a 55% majority vote to pass a bond, and in Fort Ross School District, two votes made the difference for the $2.1 million bond; the 158 to 126 vote was 55.6% to 44.3%.  Supporters of the $13 million bond in the Harmony Union School District picked up 6 percentage points since election night to end with 56.3% of the vote.

    School districts can choose the March primary or November general election for a parcel tax or school bond. Most traditionally choose November, when more voters cast votes. But others gamble on the primary election, when there’s less competition, with fewer state bond issues and many initiatives competing for dollars on the ballot.

    The most recent proposal for a state school construction bond, which would have provided matching funding for local school bonds, was also on the statewide primary ballot in March 2020, and it lost — the first in decades to lose. But it coincided with the emergence of the Covid pandemic, adding an edge of anxiety for voters. It also had the misfortune of coincidentally being designated Proposition 13, which likely caused confusion among voters with the 1978 anti-tax initiative that substantially restricted property tax increases and required a two-thirds voter majority to pass new taxes, including parcel taxes. (Voters lowered that threshold for school facilities bonds to 55% with Proposition 39 in 2000.)

    The Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s aides are negotiating whether to place a school facilities bond proposal on the November ballot. With student enrollment declining statewide, most of the money would be designated for renovations and repairs, not new construction.

    Brianna Garcia, vice president of School Services of California, a school consulting company, doubted that the lower-than-average passage rate for bonds would predict the outcome in November for local and state bond proposals. Many more districts will place bonds before voters, and the passage rate will revert to the norm for November elections, which is over 80%, she said.

    While agreeing with Garcia, Eric Bonniksen, superintendent of Placerville Elementary School District in El Dorado County, cautioned that people struggling financially “are looking at every avenue to fit within their budgets, including school bonds.”  A drop in interest rates, even if not large, which economists are forecasting, “may make people feel better about the economic outlook,” he said

    Voters, Bonniksen said, want to see something visible, like remodeling a building, reconstructing a field or painting a school. “If a bond only fixes sewer and electrical lines, they will question, ‘What did you do for this money?’” he said.

    Voters passed about $3 billion worth of projects, not including interest, generally paid over 30 years at rates of $15 per $100,000 of assessed property value in Sunnyvale to $60 per $100,000 of assessed property value in Benicia, Hayward, Culver City and Desert Sands unified districts. The largest bonds approved are for $675 million in Desert Sands, $550 million in Hayward, and $358 million in Culver City.

    The largest bond that failed was for $517 million in Tamalpais Union High School District in Marin County; as of March 22, it was 1.25 percentage points shy of 55%. Opponents, led by the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, questioned the scale of the work and said the money would disproportionately go to Tamalpais High, with not enough to two other high schools. The district last approved a construction bond two decades ago.

    Parcel taxes

    Only about 1 in 8 school districts, primarily in the Bay Area and districts with wealthier families in the Los Angeles area, have passed one. Parcel taxes are one of the few sources of funding for districts to supplement state or local funding. Because Proposition 13 bans tax increases based on a property’s value, parcel taxes must be a uniform amount per property, regardless of whether it’s a cottage, a 10-bedroom house, or an apartment building.

    Courts have ruled, however, that parcel taxes can be assessed by the square footage, and three of the 11 on the ballot (54 cents per square foot per year in Berkeley Unified, 55 cents in Albany Unified, and 58.5 cents in Alameda) passed. School boards in high-cost Bay Area districts argue that parcel taxes are critical because state funding under the Local Control Funding Formula doesn’t take regional costs into consideration.

    The approved parcel taxes range from $75 per year for eight years in Martinez Unified to a $768 per year extension of an existing parcel tax, with an annual cost of living adjustment, in Davis Joint Unified.

    Note: Updated data indicated that parcel taxes in Manhattan Beach Unified and Petaluma City Elementary School District, along with bond proposals in Fort Ross and Harmony Union school districts picked up enough support to pass.





    Source link