اینترنت

برچسب: All

  • 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

  • Community college faculty should all be allowed to work full time

    Community college faculty should all be allowed to work full time


    Students at Fresno City College

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

    When most people think of part-time employment in the public sector, they assume that it (1) could be a steppingstone to a full-time job; (2) pays less than full-time, chiefly because it involves fewer hours of work; (3) is voluntary, and (4) is primarily meant to supplement a family’s income.

    When it comes to California’s 36,000 part-time community college professors, the facts defy all four assumptions.

    Unlike workers in other professions, part-time college instructors, regardless of length of service and/or quality of performance, will not be promoted to full-time unless they are lucky enough to secure an increasingly scarce full-time position teaching on the tenure track. Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”

    Over the last five decades, colleges have gravitated toward part-time instructors for the flexibility of their semester-length agreements with no obligation to rehire, and their lower expense.  For example, while all full-time instructors receive state-paid health insurance, only about 10% (3,742) of the state’s part-timers do.

    Part-time instructor salaries are not pro-rated based on a typical full-time salary; instead, they are a separate scale which amounts to about 50-60% of the full-time instructor rate. To be clear, this doesn’t mean they receive 50-60% of the income of a full-time instructor: California law caps part-time faculty workload at no more than 67% of full-time. This workload cap, when combined with the discounted rate of pay, means that the average California part-time instructor teaching at 60% of full-time receives about $20,000 while the average annual income for full-time instructors is in excess of $100,000 a year. 

    Surveys conducted by the American Federation of Teachers in 2020 and 2022 found that roughly 25% of part-time community college faculty nationwide were below the federal poverty line.

    With no natural transition from part-time to full-time, this two-tier workplace takes on features of a caste system, especially as both full-time and part-time instructors satisfy the same credential requirements, award grades and credits that have the same value, and have the same tuition charged for their courses.

    While California college instructors are represented by faculty unions (primarily the California Federation of Teachers or the California Teachers Association), the priority of those unions would seem to be tenured faculty, as evidenced by the differences in the collectively bargained working conditions. 

    In the case of workload, for example, while part-time instructors are barred from teaching full-time, full-time instructors may elect to teach overtime, often called course overloads, for additional income. Full-time instructors displace part-time jobs whenever they do. In fact, full-timers generally get to choose their courses, including overloads, before part-timers are assigned courses.

    A bill being considered at present in the California Legislature is Assembly Bill 2277.  It would raise the current part-time workload restriction from 67% to 85% of full time, which, in theory, could enable some part-timers to teach more classes and earn more income. But if passed, AB 2277 would hardly solve the problem for part-time instructors.

    To make a more meaningful improvement, AB 2277 could be amended in two ways, neither of which make an impact on the state budget:

    • Remove the artificial workload cap outright, thereby enabling part-time instructors the opportunity to work up to 100% of full time when work is available. 
    • Impose a ban on full-time tenure-track instructors from teaching overtime (overloads).

    One possible source of opposition to these changes could be California’s faculty unions, which are dominated by full-timers. While supportive of earlier attempts at raising the cap to 85% (e.g., AB 897 in 2020, AB 375 in 2021, and AB 1856 in 2022) — neither union has shown a willingness to support elimination of the cap outright or curbing full-time overloads.

    In 2008, AB 591 adjusted the cap from 60% to the current 67%, but the first iteration of that bill proposed outright elimination of the cap (as does our suggested amendment), which was opposed by the CFT (see the April 16, 2007 legislative digest and commentary assembled in a California Part-Time Faculty Association (CPFA) report). 

    Another source of opposition could be those full-time instructors accustomed to teaching overtime/overloads; they could oppose losing that option, which underscores the conflict of interest in a two-tier workplace when more for one tier means less for the other.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged that California “community colleges could not operate without part-time faculty” who “do not receive the same salary or benefits as their full-time colleagues” in his Oct. 8, 2021 veto of AB 375 based on budgetary concerns — the fear that the state’s 36,000 part-time instructors would suddenly qualify for health care. (That fear has since been addressed by a 400% increase in the state’s contribution to the Part-time Faculty Health Insurance Program from an annual $490,000 to $200 million.) In the meantime, part-time faculty continue to be barred from working full time. 

    Faculty unions and lawmakers should take a step toward abolishing California’s faculty involuntary part-time work restriction by allowing them to work full time and protecting their jobs. An amended version of AB 2277 is a no-cost way of doing so.

    •••

    Alexis Moore taught visual art at colleges and universities for over three decades and served on the executive board of the Pasadena City College Faculty Association of the California Community College Independents (CCCI). 

    Jack Longmate has long served on the Steering Committee of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and taught for over 28 years at Olympic College in Bremerton, Washington, where his ending annual salary was about $20,000 for teaching at 55% of an annual full-time teaching load. 

    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

  • U.S. Navy Restores Almost All of the DEI Banned Books

    U.S. Navy Restores Almost All of the DEI Banned Books


    The U.S. Navy and the other branches of the military were told by order of Trump and Hegseth to remove all books on the subjects of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In practice, this meant elimination of books about race, racism, and sexual orientation.

    These were the search terms used to identify offending titles:

    The 20 official search terms included in the May 9 memo included: affirmative action; allyship; anti-racism; critical race theory; discrimination; diversity in the workplace; diversity, equity, and inclusion; gender affirming care; gender dysphoria; gender expression; gender identity; gender nonconformity; gender transition; transgender military personnel; transgender people; transsexualism; transsexuals; and white privilege.

    Using these identifiers, the Navy took 381 books out of circulation and off its shelves.

    However, a second review restored all but about 20 of the titles.

    In a major reversal, almost all the 381 books that the U.S. Naval Academy removed from the school’s libraries have been returned to the bookshelves after a new review using the Pentagon’s standardized search terms for diversity, equity and inclusion titles found about 20 books that need to be removed pending a future review by a Department of Defense panel, according to a defense official.

    The reversal comes after a May 9 Pentagon memo set Wednesday as the date by which the military services were to submit and remove book titles from the libraries of their military educational institutions that touch on diversity, race, and gender issues using the Pentagon’s specific search terms.

    Prior to the Pentagon memo standardizing search terms, the Navy used its own terms that identified 381 titles, including titles like “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou, “How to Be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi, “Bodies in Doubt” by Elizabeth Reis, and “White Rage” by Carol Anderson.

    Frankly, I have no idea why the list of banned books was pared down from 381 to only 20. The news story doesn’t explain.

    Here is the original list of banned books. Most are about race and racism. The others are about gender and sexuality.

    If the military is strong enough to fight, aren’t they strong enough to read about challenging topics?



    Source link

  • How California can help all schools harness AI, avoid its pitfalls

    How California can help all schools harness AI, avoid its pitfalls


    Participants at the Think Forward: Learning with AI forum in April were asked to share their hopes and fears for the future of AI in an opening exercise.

    CREDIT: Photo by Ray Mares Photography

    In recent months, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) faced a significant setback when the tech provider it contracted to build personalized report cards for students went out of business. This was both a major financial loss for the district and a significant loss for students. The chatbot dust-up underscores a critical issue in our education system: the need for robust, forward-thinking policies and practices to navigate the integration of technology in our schools. Our school systems must be able to not only withstand disruptions but thrive on them.

    As post-pandemic learning gaps widen, school districts everywhere are at an inflection point when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence (AI). AI offers unprecedented opportunities to tackle complex challenges like widening achievement gaps, teacher shortages, and mental health crises among students — but AI systems must also promote equity and access, particularly for historically marginalized communities. There must be policy guardrails to protect student privacy. And there must be high quality training to empower educators. Achieving this vision requires bold leadership and a clear understanding of each stakeholder’s role.

    While AI can be a powerful tool to address long-standing inequities and improve educational outcomes, it requires strategic and collaborative efforts. The call to action is clear: Educators, policymakers, education technology innovators and community leaders must join forces to create resilient, adaptable education systems.

    With a thriving tech sector, including a broad base of AI startups, California is uniquely positioned to lead the country in the use of AI in education. The state Department of Education has already offered early guidance to schools. The Los Angeles County Office of Education’s cross-sector task force developed guidelines to support responsible AI implementation across 80 school districts. Los Angeles’ Da Vinci Academy piloted the use of AI in project-based learning. Lynwood Unified has been a leader in thinking about how AI can be used responsibly to transform district operations and learning systems. These are steps in the right direction, but more is needed.

    A new report that my organization, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), just released, “Wicked Opportunities: Leveraging AI to Transform Education,” presents an action plan for harnessing AI to transform education.

    Here’s what California could do next:

    1. Think big about how AI can transform education. Leaders in the space must have a clear vision for the future of education before technology can help realize that vision. The state should consider fostering partnerships between educators, policymakers, Silicon Valley ed-tech developers, and community leaders to rethink and redesign schools and education systems for a world where generative artificial intelligence is ubiquitous. 
    2. Help districts use AI strategically. Districts face an overwhelming number of AI-enabled tools and “solutions,” and risk spreading limited resources on a random assortment of disconnected products. California’s educational county offices can play a role in helping districts identify priorities and streamline funds to proven AI-enabled tools and strategies designed to solve specific problems. 
    3. Allocate funds to support and test AI initiatives, particularly in low-income and historically marginalized communities. CRPE’s research with the Rand Corp. shows that school districts with more advantaged populations are ahead in training their teachers on AI. Funding and evidence-building initiatives are needed to close, rather than widen, existing learning gaps. 
    4. Provide detailed, actionable implementation strategies to help districts navigate AI adoption effectively. Our report suggests California and other states should be “dogged about implementation,” ensuring schools get technical assistance and research partnerships to support them as they try various approaches. 
    5. Make sure there are effective state policy guardrails. It’s essential for California to provide ongoing policy guidance and rules so that every district need not go it alone. Legislation under consideration in Sacramento calls for policies to be in place by January 2026. While we are glad to see policy attention, protections for kids cannot wait that long. A better approach would be to begin piloting policies immediately and revising them as needed. 

    California, a leader in technological innovation, must ensure that its education systems are future-ready. By embracing these strategies, California can lead the nation in transforming education through AI. The LAUSD incident serves as a stark reminder of what happens when systems are unprepared for technological integration. Let’s use this moment as a catalyst for change, ensuring that our schools are equipped to harness the positive potential of AI for the benefit of all students.

    •••

    Robin Lake is director of the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) which is housed at Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College.

    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

  • Let’s ensure ‘Recess for All’ law really does apply to all

    Let’s ensure ‘Recess for All’ law really does apply to all


    Recess at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland.

    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    When one of our sons (then a third grader) lost recess privileges for a week last school year, he came home cranky and irritable. As he put it, “Recess is the only time I can actually really play with my friends without so many rules.” Research in education, psychology, physiology, and brain science consistently points to recess as a vital part of the school day. There’s a reason most kids claim recess is their favorite subject in school.

    As students across California return to their classrooms, they will step back into healthier learning environments thanks to the landmark Senate Bill 291, known as Recess for All, which requires elementary schools — for the first time in the state’s history — to provide students with at least 30 minutes of daily recess, while also prohibiting withholding recess as punishment.

    The law is a response to the growing concerns about inactivity and the mental health crisis among our youth — challenges exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As public-school parents and professors who study recess and school health, we applaud the effort to not only increase students’ opportunities for school-based play but also to help address the traumas and social isolation our children faced during the pandemic.

    Now we must ensure that schools implement these changes so all children have the access to recess they need and deserve.

    Unfortunately, many still see recess as simply fun and games. This view — a vestige of the No Child Left Behind era, which ramped up school testing and created disincentives for developmental activities like recess, arts, music, and civics — had led some localities to reduce or eliminate regular breaks for children. This was a major issue post-pandemic when concerns about learning loss were pitted against the healing power of play in school. Research supports the importance of taking recess breaks from traditional academic subjects like math and reading; stepping away from classroom learning to move and play can help improve students’ test scores.

    Why is recess so essential for California’s more than 3 million public school students? The play, teamwork, socialization, leadership and self-regulation that happen at recess are critical for child and youth development. Recess is the only unstructured time in the school day when students can acquire and practice these skills. Young children learn a tremendous amount through organized and imaginative play — how to create and follow rules, be inclusive, make good decisions and collaborate.

    The physical activity that occurs at recess is important for many reasons, including helping students to get their wiggles out. But brain science tells us there is more to it than just wiggles. Physical activity and social connection at recess help students regulate their behaviors and emotions. Supporting these executive functions improves students’ abilities to concentrate and learn throughout the school day. 

    Providing students with daily recess can help students deal with trauma. With the distress and isolation they experienced through remote learning, coupled with the escalating mental health concerns, we need low-cost solutions to reach as many students as possible. Research shows that people under stress act reactively, and they behave poorly as a result. Recess allows students time to practice their executive functioning skills, which can help them cope better with stress and reduce anxiety. 

    Importantly, Recess for All is an anti-racist and equitable policy. It has the potential to close the gap in access to recess that exists in California and across the country.

    Students of color and those in low-income areas routinely have less recess time than students in wealthier and whiter areas. Additionally, children of color are disproportionately more likely to be disciplined in school. By abolishing the practice of withholding recess, schools can create restorative practices that support appropriate behavior, rather than punishing students by forcing them to sit out and miss essential growth time. 

    Recess for All is vitally important for California’s youth. As California public school parents, we plan to speak directly to our principals, PTAs and school boards to show our educators how much we value school-based opportunities for play and socialization. We encourage other parents to do the same. Schools respond to the issues most important to parents and their communities. Talk to your school administrators about their plans for ensuring kids get the newly mandated 30 minutes of recess a day. Our children, and our communities, will be healthier for it.

    •••

    Rebecca A. London, Ph.D., is professor of sociology and faculty director of Campus + Community at the University of California Santa Cruz. She is author of the book “Rethinking Recess: Creating Safe and Inclusive Playtime for All Children in School” (Harvard Education Press, 2019).

    Hannah R. Thompson, Ph.D., MPH, is assistant research professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health. She works with school districts to study the impact of improved school-based physical activity and nutrition opportunities on student health.

    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

  • What will it take to implement the English Learner Roadmap in all California schools?

    What will it take to implement the English Learner Roadmap in all California schools?


    Children complete a grammar worksheet in Spanish at a dual-language immersion program in a Glendale elementary school.

    Credit: Lillian Mongeau/EdSource

    California published a guide for how districts should serve English learners seven years ago. It’s called the English Learner Roadmap Policy, and it’s largely seen as groundbreaking.

    But many districts still haven’t used that road map to change their practices, advocates say.

    “It’s not systemic across the state,” said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser to Californians Together, a coalition of organizations that advocates for English learners. “You can go to school districts and ask teachers, ‘Have you ever heard of the road map?’ And they look at you like you’re from Mars. They’ve never heard of it.”

    Lawmakers are now pushing to fully implement the road map, by passing Assembly Bill 2074, introduced by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, and David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista. If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bill will require the California Department of Education to create a state implementation plan for the English Learner Roadmap with goals and a system to monitor whether those goals are met. 

    The department will have to first convene an advisory committee, made up of district and county offices of education, teachers, parents of English learners and nonprofit organizations with experience implementing the English Learner Roadmap Policy. The department will have to submit the final implementation plan to the Legislature by Nov. 1, 2026, and begin reporting on which districts, county offices of education and charter schools are implementing the plan by Jan. 1, 2027.

    A lack of funding changed the scope of the bill. An earlier version would have also created three positions in the state Department of Education to develop, plan and then support districts to implement the English Learner Roadmap Policy. However, those positions were cut from the bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee due to costs. A separate bill that would have created a grant program to implement the road map, Assembly Bill 2071, failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee, because there was no money allocated in the budget.

    You can go to school districts and ask teachers, ‘Have you ever heard of the road map?’ And they look at you like you’re from Mars. They’ve never heard of it.

    Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser, Californians Together

    The California English Learner Roadmap Policy was first approved by the California State Board of Education in 2017 as a guide for school districts, county offices of education and charter schools to better support English learners. 

    For many, the road map represented a pivotal change in the state’s approach to teaching English learners. It was adopted just months after voters passed Proposition 58 in 2016, which eliminated restrictions on bilingual education put in place by Proposition 227 in 1998. In stark contrast to the English-only policies in place under Proposition 227, the road map emphasizes the importance of bilingual education and bilingualism and of recognizing the assets of students who speak other languages, in addition to emphasizing teaching that “fosters high levels of English proficiency.”

    Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL, a nonprofit organization that trains teachers and district leaders and promotes bilingual education, called the English Learner Roadmap a “comprehensive, visionary, research-based policy.”

    “It’s aspirational. It’s very much written for a future state, when California can center the student population that is so much at the core of who we are as a state and yet has this history of being treated as an afterthought or a box at the end of a curriculum,” said Hurwitz. “And nonetheless the state needs an implementation plan. Things don’t get done unless we have methodical plans.”

    The Legislature has twice created grant programs for districts to get help implementing the English Learner Roadmap Policy. In 2020, the California Department of Education (CDE) awarded $10 million to two grantees, Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education, each of which worked with other organizations, county offices of education and school districts. In 2023, the department awarded another $10 million to four county offices of education, in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

    These programs, however, were optional, and not all districts participated in the training or assistance.

    “We feel it’s really necessary for CDE to be very vocal and in the center of stating how important the English Learner Roadmap is, and how important it is to implement,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. “When CDE says the road map is a priority, it begins to filter down to the districts. But we’re not really hearing that it’s that important from CDE.”

    Graciela García-Torres, director of multilingual education for the Sacramento County Office of Education, said the English Learner Roadmap brings her hope, as a former English learner herself and as a parent.

    “As a parent, I also see that it supports me in my endeavor to have children that grow up bilingually, knowing their culture and language is just as beautiful and important as English,” García-Torres said.

    García-Torres said the Sacramento County Office of Education has worked hard to help districts implement the road map, but a state implementation plan and more funding are needed.

    “I’m afraid that without another grant or an implementation plan, it may go back to being pretty words on the page,” García-Torres said. 

    Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County superintendent of schools, said the English Learner Roadmap has made a big difference in some districts.

    “Some of the things I’ve seen changing is the philosophy around English language learners and really moving from this deficit mentality, of ‘these are children who can’t speak English,’ to really celebrating the fact that they’re speaking multiple languages,” said Duardo.

    She said having clear goals and requiring districts to report how they’re implementing the plan will be crucial, so that the state can see where districts are struggling and how CDE can help them.

    “There are always going to people who feel like this is one more thing that you’re placing on us and it doesn’t come with funding attached to it,” said Duardo. “Districts are struggling. They don’t have their extra pandemic dollars, they didn’t have a very big COLA, and just finding the resources to implement anything can be a challenge.”

    Megan Hopkins, professor and chair of UC San Diego’s department of education studies, said many states struggle with implementation of guidance around English learners. She said a statewide plan for implementing the road map is needed, in part because many teachers and administrators don’t think English learner education applies to them.

    “English learners are often sort of viewed as separate from, or an add-on, to core instructional programs. I think what happens is people are like, ‘Oh, that’s nice, but it’s not related to what I do over here in math education,’ when in fact it is,” said Hopkins.

    Aleyda Barrera-Cruz, executive director for multilingual learner services at the San Mateo-Foster City School District, south of San Francisco, said she has attended professional development sessions on the English Learner Roadmap Policy with EL RISE!, the coalition led by Californians Together, and read through every guidance document they’ve written about the road map.

    “Where it gets tricky is sometimes things are written in a way that are not very implementation friendly. They’re written in a very theoretical way like, ‘These are the recommendations,’ so we as districts have to decide what that would look like in our district. There’s a lot of room for interpretation,” Barrera-Cruz said.

    She said principals and teachers sometimes interpret the guidelines in different ways at different schools. She would like to see CDE make it very clear how to do things like teaching English language development (teaching English to children who do not know the language), including examples of lesson plans and videos of best practices in the classroom.

    “I’m working with a very diverse group of educators. Some have learned this in their teaching credential program; some have not,” Barrera-Cruz said.

    Elodia Ortega-Lampkin, superintendent of Woodland Joint Unified School District, near Sacramento, said superintendents and school board members need training to understand why the English Learner Roadmap is needed.

    “People watch what you value and the message you send,” Ortega-Lampkin said. “It’s very hard for a principal to do this on their own without the district support. It’s got to come down from the top, including the board.”

    She said Woodland Joint Unified required all administrators and teachers to attend training about the English Learner Roadmap. They also have to use the road map when writing their mandatory annual school plans for student achievement.

    “It was not an option. It was an expectation. If we have English learners in Woodland and we’re serious about helping them succeed, we need to use a framework that is research-based and provides support for districts. Instead of piecemealing, it’s all in one to help guide those conversations in our schools,” Ortega-Lampkin said.

    Before training with the English Learner Roadmap, Ortega-Lampkin said not everyone understood how to teach English language development, often referred to as ELD. 

     “It was hard to get everyone to buy in and teach ELD. We don’t have that anymore. It’s not a discussion. People just know that ELD needs to happen. I think it’s helped change the mindset and build a better understanding,” Ortega-Lampkin said.





    Source link