اینترنت

برچسب: All

  • All students can excel in advanced mathematics

    All students can excel in advanced mathematics


    Students in Rebecca Pariso’s seventh-grade math class designed and created piñatas with specific volume and surface area constraints.

    Courtesy: Rebecca Pariso

    Last year, my seventh-grade class created at-scale drawings of cost-efficient cabins for an outdoor education camp. Using three-dimensional figures and proportional reasoning, my students designed and created piñatas with specific volume and surface area constraints. We completed many challenging test questions, such as: If eight and a half cups of flour are needed for five and three-quarter cups of sugar, how much sugar is needed for one cup of flour?

    Such problems require higher-level thinking skills and a lot of grit. The number of students in my classroom who did not meet the standard on the state test was the lowest in nine years. The number of proficient students doubled compared with last year’s seventh-grade class. 

    Contrary to what you might expect, I was not teaching an honors math class. Instead, my students were a diverse group wholly representative of our student population. In my district, 89% of students are Hispanic or Latino, 24% are multilingual learners, and 81% are socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The accomplishments of the students in my class are a testament to what happens when our educational system becomes inclusive. 

    Take Luciana, for example. She walked into my classroom with bangs covering her eyes and an oversize sweatshirt covering the rest of her face. She was used to not being seen by people, but I saw her potential in mathematics. At first, Luciana talked to no one and hid in the back of the classroom while she did the math. By the end of the year, her bangs were parted down the middle and her hands were outside her oversize sweatshirt. It was incredible to see Luciana’s transformation. She had raised her score two band levels and was considered proficient in seventh-grade mathematics. 

    Math is the most tracked subject in the United States. (Tracking is the practice of placing students in different classes or levels based on perceived ability.) Historically, specific student groups, predominantly Black, Latino, and low-income students, have been underrepresented in advanced math courses like honors classes. On the other hand, students from more affluent backgrounds, mainly white and Asian students, tend to be overrepresented in these programs. This can be attributed to many educational inequities, including school funding disparities, which affect the availability and quality of advanced math courses in schools serving low-income communities. Research shows that these schools often need more resources, experienced teachers and challenging curricula that promote success in these advanced courses. 

    This setup doesn’t serve anyone. My students are just as capable as any other students, honors or otherwise, of succeeding in a math class rich in project-based learning and rigorous problem-solving. Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that separating students based on skills and abilities widens the achievement gap between minority students like Luciana, low-performing students, and students of low socioeconomic status. Luciana and every other student in California deserve to be in a class rich in high-quality math instruction, where they can connect their learning to their school and community, conduct open-ended inquiry, and engage in reflective learning. 

    In 2020, I was one of 20 educators to serve on a committee with the California Department of Education to help with the revision of the math framework. As a result, I have come to see that a paradigm shift must occur in how we define an inclusive math classroom. California Common Core State Standards challenge us to go deeper than just recall and procedural fluency, and my students’ achievements reflect a broader truth: All children, regardless of background, can excel when given the opportunity to engage in meaningful, high-quality math instruction. 

    By creating a learning environment emphasizing problem-solving, collaboration, and high expectations, I enabled my students to rise to the challenge — proving that diversity and background is not a barrier but an asset. Our educational system must stop limiting students based on preconceived notions and instead embrace inclusive teaching methods that unlock every student’s potential. Every child deserves the chance to succeed, and my class proves that they can do so with the right approach.

    •••

    Rebecca Pariso is a seventh-grade math teacher at EO Green Junior High School in Oxnard and a Teach Plus California Senior Policy Fellow.

    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 must do more to ensure college is worth it for all students

    We must do more to ensure college is worth it for all students


    Credit: People Images / iStock

    The national rhetoric regarding the value of attending a college or university has reached a fever pitch. Being “better off” goes well beyond politics and the price of milk and eggs or an understanding of how tariffs work. Let’s face it: Education provides opportunity, and making higher education work for everyone must be a priority if we are to be a thriving, civilized society. 

    Let’s start with the current disruptive notion that poses the discomfiting question: Is a college degree worth it?

    Many of us working in postsecondary education felt that question didn’t go far enough in looking for the opportunity to improve in new and better ways when the stakes are higher than ever.  

    So, we took that question on as a challenge and expanded it to ask: What is college worth, and how do we measure and improve its value, especially for low- and moderate-income learners? Answers to such questions should prove fruitful, especially given that a new Gallup survey reports Californians overwhelmingly value postsecondary degrees or credentials, particularly because of their career-related benefits. Yet, we know that many are hesitant to enroll in college or university because of the perceived unaffordability of earning a credential or degree.

    This led our organizations to explore what kind of return on investment higher education institutions — part of a stale, antiquated system that does not always deliver on its promise of economic mobility and equity — provide to their learners. The ensuing report produced more nuanced data to inform continuing conversations on the value of postsecondary education, which, frankly, helps learners and their families make decisions on where they want to make a higher education investment from a value and return-on-investment perspective.

    Our first step was to look at the value that California institutions offer their low- and moderate-income learners. We also wanted to know if certain college programs or credentials made a difference.

    After all, learners who choose a postsecondary education should end up better off for it, right? 

    The good news we found was, yes, most students were better off for the most part. The troubling news, though, was that for some students, it was not always, and sometimes, never. 

    We’ve also learned that sometimes a student’s college major can matter just as much for an economic return-on-investment — if not more — than the institution itself. Some programs provide a strong return, but some offer none whatsoever, even leaving some degree or credential graduates making less than a high school graduate.

    For example, we found that almost all programs (97%) offered at public institutions in California show their graduates being able to earn back the costs of obtaining a degree or credential within only five years. Essentially, these graduates earn enough of an “additional income” because of their college degree to make their college program worth it.

    And, also impressive, nearly half of public college programs (48%) allow this within one year’s time. Programs at private nonprofit colleges in California generally take students longer, as only 7% enable graduates to recoup their costs within 12 months. And worrisomely, for-profit colleges show their graduates struggling to recoup their college costs, and nearly a fifth of their programs (17%) show no economic return whatsoever.

    This work is not a denouncement of any specific program or desired area of study, but rather an opportunity for further research to understand why and how these institutions and college programs produce these outcomes and where there may be policy and practical implications.

    A simple example of such a practical change may be for institutions to provide a clearer picture to students before they enroll of how much a specific program will cost — and provide information on how much former students typically earn. Another may be more geared toward college administrators to ensure that they are equipping students with the right skills — and necessary credentials — to pursue and succeed in careers within the geographic region where the institution is located.   

    Institutional leaders and elected officials must lean into discussions that are happening right now about the value of a college education and how it ties to learners’ futures and where improvements can happen.

    While more questions must be answered — and more research will follow — one thing has become abundantly clear: Our higher education system can no longer be enabled by a “this is the way we do things” mentality in places where it is not working.

    Postsecondary attainment must be tied to value, economic mobility and equity, as this is essential to creating a higher education system that drives a robust, inclusive economy that works for all Californians. 

    •••

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley is president and CEO of College Futures Foundation, whose mission is based on a belief in the power of postsecondary opportunity.

    Michael Itzkowitz is founder and president of the HEA Group, a research and consulting agency focused on college access, value, and economic mobility.

    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.

    EdSource receives funding from many foundations, including The College Futures Foundation. EdSource maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage. 





    Source link

  • Did Musk and DOGE Save Any Money at All?

    Did Musk and DOGE Save Any Money at All?


    In an investigative report, The New York Times demonstrated that Elon Musk failed to deliver on his claim that he could cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Not only did he fall short, but his efforts were so reckless that they might cost money instead of saving it.

    Having launched his so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (which is not a department at all and was never authorized by Congress), Musk and his then-partner Vivek Ramaswamy promised to cut $2 trillion. Their goal dropped to $1 trillion, and Vivek left the team to run for Governor in Ohio.

    Some of DOGE’s claims turned out be be inflated (one alleged saving of $8 billion turned out to be a saving of only $8 million.

    Musk eventually reduced his saving claim to only $150 billion.

    Since DOGE began, thousands of federal employees have been fired. Some have been rehired after courts decided their firing was illegal. Some have been fired, rehired, and fired again. Some career employees have taken buyout offers. Tens of thousands of federal employees have been laid off, without regard to their experience. There was no time for DOGE workers to evaluate each person they ousted, nor did DOGE have the competence to judge its victims.

    The New York Times concluded that DOGE’s activities may actually save nothing at all. Firing workers is expensive when you do it the wrong way, the DOGE way.

    Elizabeth Williamson of The New York Times wrote:

    President Trump and Elon Musk promised taxpayers big savings, maybe even a “DOGE dividend” check in their mailboxes, when the Department of Government Efficiency was let loose on the federal government. Now, as he prepares to step back from his presidential assignment to cut bureaucratic fat, Mr. Musk has said without providing details that DOGE is likely to save taxpayers only $150 billion.

    That is about 15 percent of the $1 trillion he pledged to save, less than 8 percent of the $2 trillion in savings he had originally promised and a fraction of the nearly $7 trillion the federal government spent in the 2024 fiscal year.

    The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that studies the federal work force, has used budget figures to produce a rough estimate that firings, re-hirings, lost productivity and paid leave of thousands of workers will cost upward of $135 billion this fiscal year. At the Internal Revenue Service, a DOGE-driven exodus of 22,000 employees would cost about $8.5 billion in revenue in 2026 alone, according to figures from the Budget Lab at Yale University. The total number of departures is expected to be as many as 32,000.

    Neither of these estimates includes the cost to taxpayers of defending DOGE’s moves in court. Of about 200 lawsuits and appeals related to Mr. Trump’s agenda, at least 30 implicate the department.

    The errors and obfuscations underlying DOGE’s claims of savings are well documented. Less known are the costs Mr. Musk incurred by taking what Mr. Trump called a “hatchet” to government and the resulting firings, agency lockouts and building seizures that mostly wound up in court.

    “Not only is Musk vastly overinflating the money he has saved, he is not accounting for the exponentially larger waste that he is creating,” said Max Stier, the chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service. “He’s inflicted these costs on the American people, who will pay them for many years to come.”

    Mr. Stier and other experts on the federal work force said it did not have to be this way. Federal law and previous government shutdowns offered Mr. Musk a legal playbook for reducing the federal work force, a goal that most Americans support. But Mr. Musk chose similar lightning-speed, blunt-force methods he used to drastically cut Twitter’s work force after he acquired the company in 2022.

    “The law is clear,” said Jeri Buchholz, who over three decades in public service handled hiring and firing at seven federal agencies, including NASA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. “They can do all the things they are currently doing, but they can’t do them the way they’re doing them. They can either start over and do it right, or they can be in court for forever.”



    Source link