اینترنت

برچسب: ban

  • Wisconsin: State Superintendent Underly Hails Two Court Decisions Undercutting Trump DEI Ban

    Wisconsin: State Superintendent Underly Hails Two Court Decisions Undercutting Trump DEI Ban


    Jill Underly was recently te-elected as State Superintendent of Schools in Wisconsin. She is an active member of the Netwotk for Public Education and attended its last two meetings. She released the following statement after two courts hacked away at Trump’s threat to withhold funds from schools that taught diversity, equity, and inclusion

    MADISON, Wis. (WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PRESS RELEASE) – State Superintendent Dr. Jill Underly today issued a statement following two federal court rulings that limit the Trump administration’s ability to withhold critical school funding over an unclear certification form and process.

    “Our top priority in Wisconsin is our kids and making sure every student has the support they need to succeed. The past few weeks, school leaders have been scrambling to understand what the impact of the U.S. Department of Education’s order could be for their federal funds, forcing them to take their eye off what matters most.

    “Today, two separate courts reached a similar conclusion: the USDE’s new certification process is likely unlawful and unconstitutionally vague. That is a welcome development for our schools and communities who, working in partnership with parents and families, are best positioned to make decisions for their communities – not Washington, D.C.

    “We are closely reviewing today’s rulings and will continue to stand up for Wisconsin schools, and most importantly, our kids.”



    Source link

  • Federal Judge Partially Blocks Trump DEI Ban

    Federal Judge Partially Blocks Trump DEI Ban


    The Trump administration claims that it wants to reduce federal intervention into the nation’s public and private institutions. But it intervenes forcefully in both public and private sectors to punish anyone with different views. It has threatened to withhold federal funding for research from universities unless the targeted universities allow the federal government to supervise its curriculum, its hiring policies, and its admissions policies. And he threatened to stop the funding of any K12 school that continues DEI programs.

    The Trump regime has created a nanny state.

    From Day 1, Trump made clear that he would ban practices and policies intended to diversity, equity, and inclusion. He threatened to withhold federal funding of schools that ignored his order to eliminate DEI. He has taken complete control of the Kennedy Center, so as to block DEI programming, and he has appointed a woman with no credentials to remove DEI from the Smithsonian museums.

    Who knows how the African American Museum will survive Trump’s DEI purge.

    ABC News reported that a federal district judge has halted the DEI ban, at least in schools associated with one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, the NEA.

    ABC News reported:

    The Trump administration’s attempt to make federal funding to schools conditional on them eliminating any DEI policies erodes the “foundational principles” that separates the United States from totalitarian regimes, a federal judge said on Thursday.

    In an 82-page order, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty partially blocked the Department of Education from enforcing a memo issued earlier this year that directed any institution that receives federal funding to end discrimination on the basis of race or face funding cuts.

    “Ours is a nation deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned,” Judge McCafferty wrote, adding the “right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is…one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”

    “In this case, the court reviews action by the executive branch that threatens to erode these foundational principles,” she wrote.

    The judge stopped short of issuing the nationwide injunction, instead limiting the relief to any entity that employs or contacts with the groups that filed the lawsuit, including the National Education Association and the Center for Black Educator Development.



    Source link

  • What parents and students need to know about LAUSD’s cellphone ban

    What parents and students need to know about LAUSD’s cellphone ban


    Credit: Pexels

    The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) voted 5-2 to develop its new cellphone ban last August — placing the district more than a year ahead of the state’s requirement for districts to limit the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.  Students should expect to have their cellphones off and tucked away starting on Tuesday. 

    District officials hope that keeping students away from their phones will both boost academic performance and support their mental health. 

    “Kids no longer have the opportunity to just be kids,” said school board member Nick Melvoin, who authored the initial resolution, in a statement released by the district. “I’m hoping this resolution will help students not only focus in class, but also give them a chance to interact and engage more with each other — and just be kids.” 

    Here’s what parents and students need to know about what lies ahead. 

    Where will students’ phones be kept?

    It depends on how each campus plans to implement the district policy. 

    In some schools or classrooms, students might simply have to turn off their phones and put them into their backpacks. In other schools, students will have to place their phones into a storage unit, including pouches that are sealed magnetically. 

    Are there any exceptions to the rule?

    Yes, students who need access to their phones for health-based reasons — or because they have an individualized education program or 504 plan — will be able to hold on to their devices. Students who need help with language translation will also be excused from the policy, along with students who have any other local needs. 

    What about cases where there is an emergency? 

    Whether students can access their devices during emergencies has been one of the larger concerns of parents and other community members.

    In short, if there is an emergency, students will be granted access to their devices if staff members decide it is safe for them to have them. 

    But, if a student asks to use their cellphone because they believe there is a potential threat, they won’t immediately be able to do so. Instead, the school will have to complete a threat assessment and develop a safety plan; depending on what they find, students may be granted access. 

    Can my child have devices other than cellphones? 

    No. The ban also applies to other devices that “provide similar smartphone functionality,” according to a district presentation. These devices include earbuds, smartwatches and smart glasses. 

    Will phones have to be tucked away all day — or just when learning is taking place?

    Yes, cellphones and similar devices will have to be tucked off and away throughout the school day, including during lunch and any other breaks. 

    Students will be allowed to use their phones on campus before and after school hours, however. 

    What are the ramifications for students if they don’t comply?

    Verbal reminders and referrals to a counselor or other campus designee would be given to students who are seen with a device. School administrators could also contact a student’s parent or guardian. 

    Will individual campuses be able to tweak things as they see fit? 

    Local School Leadership Councils throughout the district — composed of school personnel, parents, students and community members — will work to determine how best to implement the policy at their sites. 

    LAUSD’s policy requires each school to hold a Local School Leadership Council meeting while the cellphone policies are being implemented. 





    Source link

  • Students easily subvert LAUSD phone ban

    Students easily subvert LAUSD phone ban


    Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    Let’s be honest: many of us don’t use our Yondr pouches. 

    In the age of social media and being chronically online, smartphones have become extensions of our bodies and Los Angeles Unified’s attempt to minimize classroom distractions through the Yondr phone ban has sparked considerable debate.

    While the intention behind locking away devices is commendable, the execution has been less than effective, calling into question the practicality of such measures. 

    We’ve all seen them, the gray and green pouches with magnetic locks. The Yondr pouches, designed to lock students’ phones during school hours, have faced significant challenges. Despite their widespread adoption, many students have found ways to bypass the system.

    Students have hacked the pouches, purchased their own magnets, banged them against tables, used fake phones or have simply avoided using them altogether. Not only does this undermine the policy’s effectiveness, but it also highlights a glaring oversight in anticipating student ingenuity. 

    LAUSD spent no small amount on this program, allocating around seven million dollars for equipment to enforce the policy, with about 80% of eligible middle and high schools opting for Yondr pouches. 

    Funds that could have gone to hiring new teachers, improving facilities or enhancing school meals were blown on pouches that many students don’t even use. 

    Of course, restricting device usage can lead to improved student engagement and academic performance. Studies have shown that banning mobile phones enhanced student performance among low-achieving students without negatively impacting high-achievers. Schools have also reported a decrease in cyberbullying incidents and more frequent face-to-face interactions among students. 

    While the benefits of reducing distractions is clear, the practicality of such bans remains questionable. 

    The effectiveness of the pouches relies heavily on constant administrative enforcement and student integrity. Overpowering cell phone addictions, student opposition to the phone ban and the inability of administrators to constantly breathe down our necks have diminished compliance with the policy. 

    Investing in education staff, infrastructure and student welfare programs might have yielded more tangible benefits than attempting to enforce a policy that students are adept at undermining. 

    Banning phones is not inherently flawed. In fact, it aims to foster a more focused and interactive learning environment. However, the district’s Yondr approach has been unrealistic and financially imprudent. 

    A more practical strategy, such as creating phone-free zones in classrooms and study areas while allowing usage during lunch or passing periods, would be a more feasible solution. Though no system is perfect, a more flexible structure can reduce the temptation to sneak phones out during class. 

    Technology is inescapable. Rather than waging an unwinnable war against phones, LAUSD should lead the way in creating a more balanced approach, one that truly prepares students for success in the real world.

    •••

    This commentary was originally published in the Mirror, Van Nuys High School’s student-run journalism publication.

    Abigail Kim is a 10th grader at Los Angeles Unified’s Van Nuys High School and is a staff writer for The Mirror’s opinion section.

    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

  • Federal investigation targets California ban on parental notification policies 

    Federal investigation targets California ban on parental notification policies 


    The LGBTQ+ community rallies in solidarity, opposing the Social Studies Alive! ban in Temecula Valley Unified in June 2023.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Jennifer Vietz’s transgender daughter came out to a teacher and friends at her school’s Gay Straight Alliance group. 

    “If my daughter didn’t get the kind of support that she did,” Vietz said, “she wouldn’t be here now.” 

    She’s grateful for the school’s and teachers’ support of her daughter, and is aware that not every student has the same support from their family. 

    “They should be able to come out in a way that’s safe — or not come out — and still have a trusted adult that they can talk to,” Vietz said. “If they don’t trust their families, they need to have another trusted adult that they can talk to and (have) that speech protected.” 

    Vietz is one of many parents and advocates who have expressed concern for the welfare of LGBTQ+ students since the Trump administration announced an investigation into the California Department of Education over a state law, California Assembly Bill 1955, which bans schools from implementing parental notification policies. 

    The investigation, announced Thursday, includes claims by the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office that schools that implement AB 1955 violate the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) and that the California Department of Education has enabled practices that “may be violating FERPA to socially transition children at school while hiding minors’ ‘gender identity’ from parents.” If the state is found to be violating FERPA, it could lose federal funding, the announcement said.

    “LGBTQ+ youth and their families deserve to have sensitive conversations on their own terms and in a way that ensures students feel safe and supported at school,” said Tony Hoang, the executive director of Equality California, a nonprofit organization focused on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, in a media release.

    But several school board members support and applaud the Trump administration’s efforts. 

    “I will not waver in opposing initiatives that undermine the parents’ God-given rights and prioritize social-political agendas over the well-being of our children,” said Joseph Komrosky, a member and former president of the Temecula Valley Unified school board. “To that end, it is great to see our president fight from the top down to vindicate our efforts at the local level.”

    In 2023, parental notification policies that require school officials to notify parents if their children show signs of being transgender started to gain traction in various parts of the state. Chino Valley Unified, Temecula Valley Unified, Murrieta Valley Unified and Orange Unified were among the California school boards that adopted such measures. 

    “I remain steadfast in my commitment to empowering parents and protecting the innocence of children as a (Temecula Valley Unified School District) school board trustee,” said Komrosky. “The fight against woke policies continues, as we have seen our parental notification policies challenged by special interest groups and state officials, such as Gov. Newsom’s support of AB 1955.” 

    When Temecula Valley Unified’s parental notification policy first went into effect, many students were left concerned, and many teachers were left confused, according to Edgar Diaz, the president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union. 

    “It’s just been confusing over time, as we had a board approve something like this, without bringing employee voice into it, and then the state bringing a new law, and now … this investigation from the federal side,” Diaz said. “It just brings a lot of unknowns when you have different layers of government trying to add their own flavor to it.” 

    He added that the school board is currently in talks with the educators association and Temecula Classified Employees Chapter 538, which represents classified employees, about bringing a parental notification policy back under another name. 

    Jennifer Wiersma, a member of Temecula Valley Unified’s school board who supported the district’s parental notification policy, said, however, that the district has been working with unions on policies that are “nebulous” and that “don’t include parents as the focal point but instead mention sensitive topics and neutral classrooms.” 

    Those who oppose parental notification policies, including allies of LGBTQ+ students, have argued that revealing a student’s gender identity to their parents can be detrimental to their well-being.

    “We respect our justice system and follow laws in California. We wish we could say the same for the Trump/Musk administration,” said David Goldberg, the president of the California Teachers Association, in a statement to EdSource. “In California, we also provide safe and supportive learning environments for all students, and educators were proud to support the SAFETY Act (AB 1955) to protect all students’ rights to a safe and supportive learning environment.” 

    Equality California, which partnered with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus to pass AB 1955, also doubled down on its commitment to transgender students. 

    “California’s laws don’t keep parents in the dark — they simply prevent extremist school boards from passing policies that target transgender youth and intrude into the parent-child relationship,” Hoang said.  

    Theo Burns, a professor of clinical education at the University of Southern California, says it’s critical for students to open up to their parents on their own terms. 

    He said that sometimes, reactions from parents are negative. But other times, parents might just be exhibiting a more immediate reaction, which can include misunderstanding, shock and denial. 

    “A child might think, ‘Oh gosh, you know what, my parents are really against me coming out as transgender,’” Burns said, “when in reality, the parent might just be not against it, but having to kind of sit with initial reaction before they come to a place of advocacy.” 

    Burns also said revealing transgender students can be associated with heightened mental health symptoms, like anxiety and depression, and can negatively impact their attendance at school. 

    “When we, as … a culture that values young people’s experiences, when we allow individuals to disclose who they are and what they want us to know in ways that feel safe and supportive,” Burns said, “it … not only benefits the individual, but also benefits community norms and values that those individuals are embedded into.”





    Source link