اینترنت

برچسب: All

  • 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

  • Without funding, 10-year-old plan to improve literacy for all is just a list of good ideas

    Without funding, 10-year-old plan to improve literacy for all is just a list of good ideas


    Credit: Ashley Hopkinson/EdSource

    In 2014, the California State Board of Education adopted the evidence-based and standards-driven English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework (ELA/ELD Framework) — nonbinding guidance that encourages the implementation of a research-informed, comprehensive literacy approach for all students.

    The framework was the first in the nation to integrate two sets of standards: English language arts (grade-level literacy for all students) and English language development (progress in learning English for students from different language backgrounds), with a focus on the needs of English learners.

    Amid ongoing discussions about how to best teach literacy to English learners, it is critically important to both demonstrate the significance of the ELA/ELD Framework and to renew calls to fully fund and implement this crucial guidance.

    We cannot overlook the fact that the framework has never received the necessary funding for district, school and classroom implementation. Lawmakers appropriated $85 million to provide professional learning and support family engagement in mathematics, science and computer science — recognizing the need for support to accompany mathematics and science framework implementation. Without similar funding for English instructional materials, professional development, coaching and support services, the framework will remain nothing more than a collection of good ideas.

    A few districts in the state have taken it upon themselves to focus on professional development and instruction on the tenets of the framework. Norma Carvajal Camacho, assistant superintendent of educational services for the Azusa Unified School District, said it has been transformative for their students: “By integrating primary language instruction and ensuring effective designated and integrated ELD, we have created a more inclusive and dynamic learning environment, resulting in significant improvements in language proficiency and overall achievement for our English learners.”

    Unfortunately, without funding to back its implementation, most districts have not been able to adopt the framework’s powerful strategies for improving literacy for all students. This lack of funding means many districts are not providing the necessary professional development for teachers, not investing in high-quality instructional materials, and not offering sufficient coaching and support services. As a result, the framework’s potential to improve literacy outcomes remains unrealized in most areas.

    The framework should be the cornerstone of any statewide strategy aimed at improving literacy and reading. It centers literacy and seeks to develop fluency, decoding, comprehension and vocabulary. It also takes into account that knowledge about the world, including the aforementioned skills, comes from reading and writing about meaningful and engaging content. 

    Imagine a classroom where the students don’t just learn reading and writing in isolation, but connect these skills with other content areas. An integrated approach promotes learning environments where students can read, write and discuss scientific experiments, historical events, or even create stories based on what they’ve learned in math. This is an approach in which students are also immersed in reading entire books. The framework uplifts this integrated approach to literacy and language instruction, delineating literacy expectations from transitional kindergarten to 12th grade. It emphasizes the five research-based cross-cutting themes that encompass all facets of the “science of reading”:

    • Foundational skills: Acknowledges the significance of phonics (the ability to recognize written letters from spoken language), phonemic awareness (the ability to identify individual sounds), and fluency as essential building blocks of literacy.
    • Meaning making: Encourages critical thinking and comprehension by emphasizing reading, writing, listening, language, motivation and vocabulary development.
    • Language development: Focuses on nurturing oral and written language skills to express information, ideas, perspectives and questions effectively.
    • Effective expression: Promotes various modes of communication, such as writing, discussions and presentations to showcase students’ understanding and knowledge.
    • Content knowledge: Highlights the interconnectedness of content, language and literacy, emphasizing the importance of knowledge about the natural and social world in enhancing text comprehension.

    No single element, on its own, makes for a sound approach to reading or literacy — they interdependently bolster one another. Integrating all of these elements, ensuring a coherent and aligned approach over time, and supporting instruction that is responsive to students’ needs will produce better results for English learners and all students.

    In California, where students speak more than 140 different languages at home, the framework recognizes the value of cultural diversity, multilingualism and biliteracy as assets to be nurtured and celebrated. The framework also includes a call for all educators to ensure English learners are provided with both integrated and designated English language development instruction.

    Without designated instruction for English learners that helps them understand how English works and provides extra practice in speaking and reading, most aspects of learning to read in English become especially challenging. It becomes a struggle to hear and isolate the sounds of English, a challenge to understand the syntax and structure of text, and it becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend and make meaning of vocabulary in a language they haven’t learned.

    Included in the framework is guidance for curriculum and instructional planning that is aligned with the standards for integrated English language development occurring throughout the school day in every subject area for every English learner. Our instruction should be responsive to the linguistic demands English learners are facing throughout the curriculum.

    There are other efforts underway that are aligned to the ELA/ELD Framework. The Literacy Roadmap, for instance, will help educators apply the framework to classroom instruction and navigate the resources and professional development opportunities available to implement effective literacy instruction. The Literacy Standard and Teaching Performance Expectations for Preliminary Multiple Subject and Single Subject Credentials for teacher candidates are also aligned to the ELA/ELD Framework. These efforts are essential for addressing equity and improving outcomes for all students. Both initiatives will require significant efforts to support teachers, parents and administrators to ensure high-quality literacy instruction.

    Our students and teachers need and deserve a significant investment to fully realize the potential of the ELA/ELD Framework. Doing so is necessary for improving literacy outcomes for California’s 1.1 million English learners and all of California’s students. We are ready to work with policymakers to prioritize funding and support its full implementation.

    •••

    Martha Hernandez is executive director of Californians Together, a statewide advocacy coalition seeking to better educate English learners by improving California’s schools and promoting equitable educational policy.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • All California students should be empowered to be ready for UC and CSU admission

    All California students should be empowered to be ready for UC and CSU admission


    Making Waves Academy, a charter school in Richmond, tries to instill a college-pursuing attitude while leaving room for kids to enter a career after graduation if they wish.

    Courtesy: Making Waves Academy

    There is a troubling trend in California that makes affordable and quality higher education — which is meant to be a public good — not even an option for most students, particularly Black and Latino students. It’s the inequity of students completing the “A-G” courses required for admission to the University of California and California State University systems. More than half of all students, and over two-thirds of Black and Latino students, did not meet these requirements — too often because the courses were not offered or the students didn’t know they were needed. This means they are ineligible for admission into California’s public universities.

    As CEO of a grade 5-12 charter school in Richmond, I believe the A-G requirements should be seen as an asset rather than an obstacle for California schools. The requirements are transparent and attainable. They help prepare students academically, support eligibility for California’s public universities, and open up a variety of opportunities for students’ future career pathways. Ultimately, this helps alleviate inequities in education, the workforce and the economy.

    At our school, our goal is that 100% of our students are ready for college while also embracing, supporting and celebrating students who want to pursue early post-secondary career options. Within the Class of 2024, 95% of our graduates are pursuing higher education, and within that group, 71% are planning to attend University of California or California State Universities campuses. Among our 1,000 or so fifth through 12th graders, 99% are students of color, and 85% are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Here is how school and district leaders can build a culture around supporting students in meeting the A-G requirements.

    Align your curriculum to the A-G requirements

    Students don’t know what they don’t know. And they don’t always know there are specific course requirements to be eligible to attend public universities. It is our responsibility as school leaders and systems to align our curriculum to the A-G requirements and remove that burden on individual students.

    The good news is that this is not a very heavy lift. In California, students are already required to take a variation of core academic subjects listed within the A-G requirements, such as English, history, science and math. Making sure students are taking a lab science class, a third year of a world language, or a math up to Algebra II are small but meaningful adjustments to their course schedules that would help more students meet the A-G requirements, thus meeting eligibility requirements for UC and CSU campuses. 

    Get creative to track individual students

    For every college and career counselor in California, there are 464 students. It’s no wonder 56% of California students experience barriers to meeting the requirements. Instead of relying solely on counselors, make the most of advisory period. Advisory period teachers can reinforce college readiness and help track individual students’ progress on the A-G requirements. Our advisory teachers track the same cohort of students from ninth through 12th grade. With this support, students can also practice their agency by being actively involved in mapping out their courses and paying attention to their post-graduation plans, which serves them well whether they ultimately pursue college or not.

    Be inclusive of non-college-going students

    It is important to note that a culture that embraces the A-G requirements and college readiness and a culture that embraces a continuum of college and career options can and should live side by side. It is a both/and approach not an either/or approach. Allow for both. When you align to the A-G requirements, you ensure that students meet the “floor” for college eligibility. Build further understanding with students on the continuum of attainable pathways. For example, the A-G requirements can also align with career technical education, which integrates core academic courses with technical and occupational ones. This way, students can explore career interests and still remain eligible for college. Knowing the range of options available means students can choose what’s best for them.

    Communicate early and often with parents and families 

    California has some of the world’s best and most affordable opportunities for higher education. Tragically, many students and families don’t know these opportunities are attainable. The importance of the A-G requirements and information around college affordability must be communicated to students and families early and often. Ideally, regular updates and information sessions start with students and families in middle school. For example, we set clear expectations with students and families at fifth grade orientation. We talk to them about the A-G requirements being built into our curriculum and about our school culture around college readiness. Time and time again, we see ecstatic students and families when they realize college is accessible and attainable.

    It’s our responsibility as school leaders or school systems to provide the necessary courses and support to bridge the inequities between high school to college and careers. The logistical challenges are surely outweighed by the opportunities: more racial representation in higher education, an increase in economic mobility for students from low-income backgrounds, and a more diverse and educated workforce.

    •••

    Alton B. Nelson Jr. is the CEO of Making Waves Academy in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • San Francisco schools must avoid state takeover at all costs, education veteran warns

    San Francisco schools must avoid state takeover at all costs, education veteran warns


    A sign in support of public school is seen outside a home next to Sutro Elementary School in San Francisco on Oct. 9, 2024. The school is among the 11 schools previously proposed for closure within San Francisco Unified School District amid decline in enrollment and budgetary woes.

    Credit: Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    San Francisco must do everything it can to avert a state takeover of its schools.   

    That’s the stark message brought by Carl A. Cohn, the only outside educator to be brought in to help the team of city administrators set up by Mayor London Breed to help the school district overcome multiple crises, including a looming budget shortage, declining enrollment, and the departure of its superintendent, the second in two years. 

     “I remain a huge fan of local control,” said Cohn, a revered figure in education circles in California and nationally. “I fundamentally believe that if historically underserved students are going to be rescued, it is going to be by locals, not by state government or higher levels of authority.” 

    Carl A. Cohn

    The challenges facing the 48,000-student district are being experienced to some degree by many others around the state. Just across the San Francisco Bay, Oakland Unified and West Contra Costa Unified, which includes Richmond, are grappling with comparable challenges. 

    San Francisco’s, however, seem especially acute. 

    “I think the loss of federal pandemic relief funds, coupled with declining enrollments will make things difficult for most districts, but San Francisco is probably ahead of the curve on this,” he said. 

    There’s little that Cohn, who projects calm and reassurance but can also be disarmingly direct, has not seen in his 50 years in an array of roles in public education.  

    He was superintendent of the San Diego and Long Beach school districts, the second- and third-largest in California after Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD). His 10-year tenure at Long Beach was especially noteworthy for fostering academic excellence and accountability, resulting in the district winning the prestigious Broad Prize For Urban Education.

    He was appointed to the State Board of Education by then Gov. Jerry Brown, who later recruited him to lead a new state agency, the California Collaborative for Education Excellence. 

    He has been brought in to deal with various trouble spots over the years. He co-chaired a commission of the National Academy of Sciences to look into whether District of Columbia schools had exaggerated their academic results under the leadership of Michelle Rhee, then arguably the best-known, and most controversial, school superintendent in the nation. 

    He was the court-appointed monitor overseeing a consent decree to improve special education in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Currently, he is co-leading an initiative with Harvard professor Jennifer Cheatham to prepare school superintendents to cope with the political polarization roiling school districts across the country.   

    He has also been a mentor to generations of school superintendents, and trained many of them as a professor at Claremont Graduate University,  and at the University of Southern California before that. 

    Cohn has never had to close schools himself and says that San Francisco must do everything it can to find alternatives to doing so. That is similar to a mindset Breed appears also to have embraced, and was a major reason behind the resignation of Superintendent Matt Wayne last week.

    For now, at least, school closure plans are on hold. “The challenge with closing schools from a symbolic point of view is that it can be seen as the beginning of the death of a community,” Cohn says.  

    “There are multiple ways to cut a school district budget,” he says. “And if you have to, there are ways to do it so it is not a huge negative.”   

    He recalls being sent to Inglewood Unified a dozen years ago by then-State Board President Michael Kirst to take stock of the deep financial hole the Southern California district was in.

    He found a lackadaisical attitude among school officials about the prospect of a state administrator with the power to overrule local decisionmaking. “They seemed to think the takeover wasn’t such a big deal, that after the bailout they would get their authority back,” he says. “And here we are, 12 years later, with the district nowhere near having an elected school board with any authority.”

    The district is still overseen by an administrator appointed by the county.

    Cohn has yet to meet Breed, but two weeks ago he came from Palm Springs, where he is based, to meet with the mayor’s School Stabilization Team made up of top San Francisco officials, co-led by Maria Su, the longtime head of the city’s Department of Children, Youth and Their Families. In an unexpected move last week, the school board appointed Su to be the new superintendent, at least until June 2026. 

    He points out that, unlike other large urban districts in California, the city of San Francisco commendably contributes funding to its schools, which means it has a more direct stake in their functioning.  

    What is essential is strict oversight over how the district spends its money, he says. He recalls the first day he was given a tour of the administration offices at Long Beach Unified as a 31-year-old educator in the district.

    On the second floor was a tiny office with a sign on the door reading “Position Control” right next to the budget office.  He was told it was the most powerful office in the district — one that determined what staff could be hired at a school.  “Even if you were the superintendent you could not get a position filled unless Position Control said it was in the current budget.”

    In addition, each year the district’s research office issued what was called a “quota bulletin,” which decreed how many employees a school qualified for based on its enrollment. Its edicts, he says, were “treated as a sacred document that had been handed down from Mt. Sinai.” 

    A similar parsimonious ethos is in place in parochial schools. “What is notable about these schools is that they are not over resourced,” said Cohn, who advises the California Catholic Conference on its schools. “You won’t find an assistant principal, a counselor, a reading specialist unless the school has the enrollment to support it.”

    “My impression is that these types of controls were not present in the San Francisco school system,” he says. “It’s important for spending to be based on actual enrollment and not on wishful spending.” 

    He says it would be important to bring all key parties together — the mayor’s stabilization team, incoming Superintendent Su and her deputy, board representatives, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, a state-sponsored oversight agency — and put them all in the same room to have a “candid conversation.” 

    “Getting a handle on what exactly they need to do to retain local control seems like a real important value,” he said. 

    One thing schools can have no impact on is declining birthrates, Cohn points out. So other strategies to attract and retain students will be needed. 

    He notes that San Francisco has many private, parochial and charter groups — more than most communities. He suggests conducting focus groups with people who are opting out of more traditional public schools to find out more precisely “what it is that those schools are offering that San Francisco isn’t.” 

    That could suggest strategies that San Francisco could offer — from more child care to innovative magnet schools — to support families and to encourage them to enroll their children in district schools. 

    San Francisco schools are especially vulnerable to being taken over by the state. In recent years, when the state bails out a district financially, authority to appoint an administrator has been delegated to the county offices of education. But because San Francisco is both a city and a county, it would be subject to, in Cohn’s words,”an old-fashioned state administrator.”

    With Mayor Breed up for reelection in two weeks, and with four of seven school board seats also on the ballot, the district faces many unknowns.

    Regardless of what happens on Election Day, Cohn says a fundamental issue the district has to address is “what kinds of resources a school gets based on its enrollment so that future spending doesn’t spiral out of control because someone thinks ‘I need this’ or “I need that.’”





    Source link

  • Trump Plans to Revise U.S. History in the Smithsonian and All Other Federal Sites

    Trump Plans to Revise U.S. History in the Smithsonian and All Other Federal Sites


    On March 27, Trump issued an executive order authorizing the cleansing of the Smithsonian Museums and other federal sites of anything that detracts from American greatness and patriotism.

    Trump makes clear that he doesn’t want anything displayed that implies that racism exists. He specifically targets the 21 museums of Smithsonian Institute. He wants all exhibits to remind the public of America’s greatness. Any exhibits that don’t, he says, should be removed.

    The executive order says, in part:

    It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.  Museums in our Nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.

    The executive order assigns to Vice-President JD Vance the job of cleansing the Smithsonian museums and all federal parks and cultural institutions of all derogatory content about our history. In doing this, Vance will be assisted by one Lindsey Halligan, Esq.

    Who is Lindsey Halligan, the woman who will determine which parts of the nation’s story should be told? If you open the link, you will see that she is a beautiful woman with long blond hair. But that’s not all.

    The Washington Post explained:

    The first question is: What is improper ideology, exactly?

    The second: Who is Lindsey Halligan, Esq.?

    We have her on the phone, actually. She’s calling from the White House.

    “I would say that improper ideology would be weaponizing history,” Halligan says. “We don’t need to overemphasize the negative to teach people that certain aspects of our nation’s history may have been bad.” That overemphasis “just makes us grow further and further apart.”

    As for the second question: Halligan, 35, is a Trump attorney who seems to have tasked herself as a sort of commissioner — or expurgator, according to critics — of a premier cultural institution.

    After moving to D.C. just before the inauguration to continue working for Trump as a special assistant and senior associate staff secretary, Halligan visited local cultural institutions, including the Smithsonian museums of Natural History, American History and American Art. She didn’t like everything she saw. Some exhibits, in her view, did not reflect the America she knows and loves.

    “And so I talked to the president about it,” Halligan says, “and suggested an executive order, and he gave me his blessing, and here we are.”

    Here we are: A former Fox News host is leading the Pentagon. A vaccine skeptic is running the Department of Health and Human Services. A former professional wrestling executive is head of the Department of Education.

    And Lindsey Halligan, Esq., could turn a major cultural institution upside down.

    How did she arrive at this point? Halligan grew up in Broomfield, Colorado, and went to a private Catholic high school, Holy Family, where she excelled at softball and basketball. Her parents worked in the audiology industry. Halligan’s sister, Gavin, a family-law attorney in Colorado, ran for a state House seat as a Republican in 2016 in a blue district and lost.

    Halligan attended Regis University, a Jesuit university in Denver, where she studied politics and broadcast journalism. She was always interested in history, she says — particularly the Civil War and the westward expansion of the country.

    She competed in the Miss Colorado USA pageant, making the semifinals in 2009 and earning third runner-up in 2010, according to photos and records of the events. This was back when Trump co-owned the organization that puts on the Miss Universe pageant, for which Miss Colorado USA is a preliminary event.



    Source link

  • 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