برچسب: bill

  • Accell Schools–For-Profit and Online–Hires Bill Bennett as Provost of Its New Classical Academies

    Accell Schools–For-Profit and Online–Hires Bill Bennett as Provost of Its New Classical Academies


    Accell Schools, a network of for-profit online charter schools, announced that Bill Bennett has been hired to serve as Founding Provost of a new chain of online Classical Academies. Bennett will also serve as provost to two brick-and-mortar charter schools, one in Toledo, Ohio, the other in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

    The founder of Accell Schools is Ron Packard, who has played a prominent role in the for-profit, virtual charter school industry for years.

    You may recall Ron Packard. I have written about him in the past. His background is in finance and management consulting. He worked for Goldman Sachs and McKinsey. He was never a teacher or principal, which I suppose makes him an ideal education entrepreneur, unbound by tradition, open to innovation, and alert to profit making opportunities.

    When he was CEO of K12, Inc., the leader in virtual charter schools, he was paid $5 million a year. K12 dealt with numerous lawsuits and controversies in relation to low test scores, low teacher pay, low graduation rates, and other issues. In 2020, K12 Inc. became Stride, which continues to be a leader in the virtual charter industry.

    In 2014, Packard founded Accell as a charter chain. His company bio describes his experience:

    Ron previously founded and was CEO of K12 Inc., where he grew the company from an idea to nearly $1B in revenue, making it one of the largest education companies in the world. Under his leadership, revenue compounded at nearly 80%. Prior to K12, he was CEO of Knowledge Schools and Knowledge Learning Corporation, and Vice President at Knowledge Universe, one of the largest early childhood education providers in the U.S.

    He has also played a pivotal role in investments across the education sector, including LearnNow, Children’s School USA, LeapFrog, TEC, and Children’s Discovery Center. Earlier in his career, Ron worked in mergers and acquisitions at Goldman Sachs and served clients at McKinsey & Company.

    Bill Bennett was U.S. Secretary of Education under President Reagan. He championed vouchers and morality during his tenure.

    Until he became chair of the board of K12, he was known as a skeptic of computers in the classroom.

    He wrote in his book “The Educated Child,”

    “There is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve learning.”

    — from his 1999 book The Educated Child

    Bennett said in a February 2001 Bloomberg interview:

    “From what I’ve observed in schools, we’d be better off unplugging the computers and throwing them out.” 

    He abandoned his skepticism when he joined the K12 company.

    His new role as a “founding provost” of online “classical academies,” calls upon his background as a moralist. His wildly popular “The Book of Virtues” made millions of dollars and established Bennett as the nation’s most moral man.

    But this was a standing he lost years ago when it was revealed that he had a serious gambling habit.

    The New York Times wrote that the “relentless moral crusader” was also a “relentless gambler.” It estimated that in 2003 that he had lost more than $8 million in Las Vegas.

    Mary McNamara wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

    It is just too delicious — the image of the man who wrote not only “The Book of Virtues” but “The Children’s Book of Virtues” pulling into Las Vegas in his comped limo, bags whisked to his comped high-roller’s suite while he heads into the blaring, bleating belly of the beast to spend hours pumping thousands of dollars into the slots.p. Turns out William J. Bennett, who considers passing judgment on the personal lives of our leaders a moral duty and who all but called for President Clinton’s head on a platter in “The Death of Outrage,” is a high-stakes gambler. The pulpit bully who took down the moral predilections of single parents, working mothers, divorced couples and gays in “The Broken Hearth,” the man who, despite rather formidable personal girth, preaches against those “ruled by appetite,” has, according to Newsweek and the Washington Monthly, dropped as much as 8 million bucks in high-stakes gambling over the last 10 years.

    How much fun is that ?

    Bennett’s fall from grace was camera perfect, and no doubt he’ll get big points from the judges for the spin of his attempted recovery. Gambling is legal, he quickly pointed out, at least where he did it. And he never put his family in danger. And it wasn’t $8 million, it was “large sums of money.” Furthermore, he always paid taxes on his winnings and, Atlantic City and Las Vegas being the charitable institutions they are, he pretty much “always broke even.”

    If that weren’t intoxicating enough for his many detractors, within minutes of serving up this layer cake of denial, Bennett made a public vow that his gambling days are over because “this is not the example I want to set.”

    Or as Kenny’ll tell you, you gotta know when to walk away, and know when to run .

    Bennett got into hot water in 2005 when he made a comment on his radio show that was widely denounced by both parties:

    Speaking on his daily radio show, William Bennett, education secretary under Ronald Reagan and drugs czar under the first George Bush, said: “If you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose; you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

    He went on to qualify his comments, which were made in response to a hypothesis that linked the falling crime rate to a rising abortion rate. Aborting black babies, he continued, would be “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down”.

    So, despite these handicaps, now 20 years past, Bill Bennett is making a comeback. Everyone deserves a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Even Bill Bennett.



    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill creating new transfer pilot program between UC and community colleges

    Newsom signs bill creating new transfer pilot program between UC and community colleges


    The Transfer and Reentry Center in Dutton Hall at UC Davis helps transfers get acclimated to their new environment.

    Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

    In a bid to make it easier for California’s community college students to transfer to the University of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation Tuesday to create a new transfer pathway between the two systems.

    The transfer pathway created by Assembly Bill 1291 will start as a pilot program at UCLA, with students getting priority admission if they complete an associate degree for transfer in select majors beginning in the 2026-27 academic year. The specific majors haven’t yet been determined, but UCLA will have to identify at least eight and another four by 2028-29. At least four of the majors will be in a science, technology, engineering or math field.

    The new pathway would expand to at least four additional UC campuses, also in limited majors, by 2028-29.

    The bill doesn’t, however, guarantee students admission to their chosen campus. If a student is not admitted to their preferred campus, the student will be redirected and admitted to another campus.

    Supporters of the legislation say it would help to streamline the state’s complex transfer system since students can already earn an associate degree to get a guaranteed spot in the California State University system.

    “By working together, California’s three world-leading higher education systems are ensuring more students have the freedom to thrive, learn, and succeed,” Newsom said in a statement. “With this new law, the Golden State is streamlining the transfer process, making a four-year degree more affordable for transfer students, and helping students obtain high-paying and fulfilling careers.”

    Newsom signed the bill despite opposition from the statewide student associations representing UC and community college students. In a statement last month urging Newsom to veto the legislation, they said they were dissatisfied because it doesn’t give students a guaranteed spot at the campus of their choice.

    The bill’s author, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, said in a statement that it will help to “tackle a long-standing goal in California: to simplify and streamline the transfer paths” for community college students. “This bill gets UC into the game with universal transfer pathways and will increase economic opportunity and prosperity for all Californians to help our state economy thrive,” he added.

    Currently, UC lacks a systemwide transfer guarantee for community college students. There are separate transfer admission guarantees at six of the system’s nine undergraduate campuses — each of them except UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego. But those separate guarantees each have different requirements for admission. And students who are also interested in transferring to Cal State have to simultaneously deal with that system’s own distinct requirements.

    Earlier this year, McCarty authored another bill, Assembly Bill 1749, that would have gone further than the more recent legislation by requiring UC to admit all eligible students who complete any associate degree for transfer, like the California State University system already does.

    UC opposed that bill, arguing that it would be a disservice to students in certain STEM majors because they would enter UC underprepared for some upper-division courses. UC officials then negotiated the details of AB 1291 with the governor’s office, McCarty and other key lawmakers.

    “I am proud that 27 percent of University of California undergraduates begin their educational journey at a California Community College and go on to thrive on our campuses,” Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, said in a statement. “The University is committed to attracting and supporting transfer students, and we look forward to continuing to partner with transfer advocates such as Governor Newsom, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, and others in the state legislature on streamlining the transfer process.”





    Source link

  • Bill to provide descendants of slavery preference in college admissions moves forward

    Bill to provide descendants of slavery preference in college admissions moves forward


    UCLA campus in Westwood on Nov. 18, 2023.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • Assembly Bill 7, which would allow colleges and universities to give preference to students who are descendants of slavery, cleared the Senate Education Committee.
    • Affirmative action is not permitted at the state or federal level, but proponents say being a descendant of a slave isn’t a proxy for race.
    • Experts doubt the bill will become law and anticipate legal challenges. 

    A bill that would give California colleges and universities an option to provide preference in admissions to descendants of slavery has cleared the state’s Senate Education Committee with a 5-2 vote after being passed in the Assembly with overwhelming support. But as the bill moves to the Judiciary Committee, even its proponents say they are pessimistic that it will become law at a time of increasing scrutiny over measures suggesting racial preferences.

    Assembly Bill 7, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, is the first statewide measure of its kind to address the harms of slavery, said UCLA education professor Tyrone Howard, and it has been backed by nearly two dozen organizations, including the California Federation of Teachers and the University of California Student Association. 

    “Disparities in admissions persist and reflect deeply rooted structural inequalities, including the afterlives of slavery. In addition, California had a long history of legacy admissions, up until last year, that favored students who came from wealthy and well-connected family situations,” Bryan said at Wednesday’s hearing. “[AB 7] empowers universities with the option, not a mandate, to acknowledge and respond to this historical context when evaluating applicants.” 

    Lance Christensen, the vice president of Government Affairs & Education Policy at the California Policy Center, said he doesn’t see the need for such a measure in California — and felt the bill “looks to be an underhanded approach at racial preferences.” 

    “I think we’re getting close to the place where we should stop race-baiting a lot of our bills. If California truly is a terrible or bad actor in the issue of slavery, we should do everything we can to fix and address those issues,” Christensen said. “And there are places where we were really not good to a lot of Black people, Asians, Native Americans and other disparate people. This is not one of those places where I think that we should focus our time and attention.” 

    Organizations such as the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation also previously expressed concerns about AB 7 leading “to de facto racial preferences without facilitating any meaningful changes to ameliorate structural problems at the K-12 level, including declines in academic performance and the persistent achievement gaps among different demographic groups.”

    Neither state nor federal law allows a student’s race to be a factor in admissions, and affirmative action continues to be barred in California under Proposition 209, which 57.2% of voters opted to keep in place in 2020. 

    But supporters of the bill said at Wednesday’s hearing that descendants are not a “proxy for race” and “could look like anybody in this room,” noting that Indigenous people also have histories of being enslaved. Meanwhile, not all Black Americans have ancestors who were slaves. 

    The bill did not receive any formal opposition at Wednesday’s hearing. 

    “We have seen reparations for different communities, and we’ve seen the benefits,” said Senate Education Committee Chair Sasha Renée Pérez, noting reparations measures following Japanese internment during World War II. “Unfortunately, we have not seen the same type of investments placed towards those that are descendants of slavery and Black Americans across the country.” 

    Proving lineage 

    AB 7 is unique because it specifically pertains to students who are descendants of slavery, Howard said. But, even if the bill passes, qualifying for any preference in admissions could be difficult, and Christensen added that ancestral records are often “incomplete or scattered at best,” which could lead to logistical issues. 

    “Admissions reviewers have a lot to already digest when they’re going through the process of admissions as it is — when you think about transcripts and grades and coursework and extracurricular activities,” Howard said. “And so now, to add to that, you’ve got to prove lineage. That might prove to be a bit challenging.” 

    Any preference in admissions would apply to students who can show a clear lineage to someone who was subjected to American chattel slavery before 1900, according to the bill analysis

    In order to receive preference, students will also have to meet at least one other criteria, which includes having an ancestor who was emancipated, acquiring freedom through abolition measures, being a fugitive from bondage, considered contraband or “rendered military or civic service while subject to legal restrictions based on ancestry historically associated with slavery.” 

    When it comes to affirmative action, there “is this misnomer that somehow a large number of unqualified and unprepared … Black students are getting these opportunities solely because of the fact of their race or ethnicity,” Howard added. “This would be one variable that would attempt to at least give some consideration.”

    Potential challenges

    Despite its support at Wednesday’s committee hearing, many experts are wary that the bill will not become law in the first place. 

    “As progressive as we are, I don’t know that we have the appetite as a state to go so far as to say, ‘Yes, we acknowledge that there are descendants in this state who are harmed by the legacy of slavery — and therefore we’re going to try to take redress by turning when it comes to college admissions,’” Howard said. 

    Howard pointed out that even if AB 7 is successful, the language in the bill requires that colleges and universities ensure any changes in the admissions process are in compliance with federal laws. 

    Given the current political climate, “Federal guidelines are not going to allow something that gives anything that resembles an advantage or an opportunity to one group of others to fly,” Howard said. “I just think that all the attacks we’ve seen on DEI, anything that’s seen in that way, I think would be dead on arrival.” 

    Shaun Harper, a USC professor of education, public policy and business, said he supports the measure and other efforts to secure reparations. 

    But, if passed, he anticipates it would face serious legal challenges, including from those who believe it violates Prop. 209 or contradicts the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action. 

    “At best … it does some acknowledgment of the wrongs that have been done to enslaved Africans here in the United States,” Harper said. “Ultimately, if it doesn’t happen, or it stalls, once again, Black folks have been set up to expect some amends for the wrongdoing, and we’re going to be left once again disappointed.”





    Source link

  • Randi Weingarten: Trump’s Big Bad Bill Is Good for His Billionaire Buddies

    Randi Weingarten: Trump’s Big Bad Bill Is Good for His Billionaire Buddies


    The American Federation of Teachers released a statement by its President Randi Weingarten:

    Contact:
    Andrew Crook
    607-280-6603
    acrook@aft.org

    AFT’s Weingarten on Senate’s Big, Ugly Betrayal of America’s Working Families

    As we prepare to celebrate our independence, the promise of the American dream, of freedom and prosperity for all, is now further out of reach.’

    WASHINGTON—AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement after the Senate passed President Trump’s billionaire tax scam:

    “This is a big, ugly, obscene betrayal of American working families that was rammed through the Senate in the dead of night to satisfy a president determined to hand tax cuts to his billionaire friends.

    “These are tax cuts paid for by ravaging the future: kicking millions off healthcare, closing rural hospitals, taking food from children, stunting job growth, hurting the climate, defunding schools and ballooning the debt. It will siphon money away from public schools through vouchers—which harm student achievement and go mostly to well-off families with kids already in private schools. It’s the biggest redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in decades—far worse, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, than the version passed by the House.

    “But if you only listened to those who voted yes, you wouldn’t have heard anything like that. You would’ve heard bad faith attempts to rewrite basic laws of accounting so they could assert that the bill won’t grow the deficit. You would’ve heard false claims about what it will do to healthcare and public schools and public services, which are the backbone of our nation.

    “The reality is that the American people have rejected, in poll after poll, this bill’s brazen deception. As it travels back to the House and presumably to the president’s desk, we will continue to sound the alarm and let those who voted for it know they have wounded the very people who voted them into office. But it is also incumbent on us to fight forward for an alternative: for working-class tax cuts and for full funding of K-12 and higher education as engines of opportunity and democracy.

    “Sadly, as we prepare to celebrate our independence, the promise of the American dream, of freedom and prosperity for all, is now further out of reach.”

     ###


    The AFT represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.



    Source link

  • David Dayen: What Else Is Included in the Big Ugly Budget Bill?

    David Dayen: What Else Is Included in the Big Ugly Budget Bill?


    Since this is a mostly education blog, I have covered the budget debate by focusing on what the GOP is doing to maim public schools and enrich private (especially religious schools). In the past, Republicans were strong supporters of public schools. But the billionaires came along and brought their checkbooks with them.

    The rest of the Ugly bill is devastating to people who struggle to get by. Deep cuts to Medicaid, which will force the closure of many rural hospitals. Cuts to anything that protects the environment or helps phase out our reliance on fossil fuels. Well, at least Senator Schumer managed to change the name of the bill, new name not yet determined.

    One Republican vote could have sunk the bill. But Senator Murkowski got a mess of pottage.

    David Dayen writes in The American Prospect:

    Welcome to “Trump’s Beautiful Disaster,” a pop-up newsletter about the Republican tax and spending bill, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in a generation. Sign up for the newsletter to get it in your in-box.

    By the thinnest of margins, the U.S. Senate completed work on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Tuesday morning, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn’t take quite as much food away from Alaskans.

    The new text, now 887 pages, was released at 11:20 a.m. ET. The finishing touches of it, which included handwritten additions to the text, played out live on C-SPAN, with scenes of the parliamentarian and a host of staff members from both parties huddled together.

    At the very end, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer knocked out the name “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” with a parliamentary maneuver, on the grounds that it was ridiculous (which is hard to argue). It’s unclear what this bill is even called now, but that hardly matters. The final bill passed 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.

    Murkowski was able to secure a waiver from cost-sharing provisions that would for the first time force states to pay for part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In order to get that past the Senate parliamentarian, ten states with the highest payment error rates had to be eligible for the five-year waiver, including big states like New York and Florida, and several blue states as well. 

    The expanded SNAP waivers mean that in the short-term only certain states with average or even below-average payment error rates will have to pay into their SNAP program; already, the language provided that states with the lowest error rates wouldn’t have to pay. “The Republicans have rewarded states that have the highest error rates in the country… just to help Alaska, which has the highest error rate,” thundered Sen. Amy Klobuchar (R-MN), offering an amendment to “strike this fiscal insanity” from the bill. The amendment failed along party lines.

    The new provision weakens the government savings for the bill at a time when the House Freedom Caucus is calling the Senate version a betrayal of a promise to link spending cuts to tax cuts. But those House hardliners will ultimately have to decide whether to defy Donald Trump and reject the hard-fought Senate package, which only managed 50 votes, or to cave to their president.

    In addition, Murkowski got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages and whaling captains inserted into the bill. Medicaid provisions that would have boosted the federal share of the program for Alaska didn’t get through the parliamentarian; even a handwritten attempt to help out Alaska on Medicaid was thrown out at the last minute. But Murkowski still made off with a decent haul, which was obviously enough for her to vote yes.

    All Republicans except for Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted for the bill. Tillis and Collins are in the two most threatened seats among Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections; Tillis decided to retire rather than face voters while passing this bill. Paul, a libertarian, rejected the price tag and the increase in the nation’s debt limit that is folded into the bill.

    Other deficit hawks in the Senate caved without even getting a vote to deepen the Medicaid cuts. That could be the trajectory in the House with Freedom Caucus holdouts. But the House also has problems with their handful of moderates concerned about the spending slashes in the bill.

    The bill was clinched with a “wraparound” amendment that made several changes, including the elimination of a proposed tax on solar and wind energy production that would have made it impossible to build new renewable energy projects. The new changes now also grandfather in tax credits to solar and wind projects that start construction less than a year after enactment of the bill. Even those projects would have to be placed in service by 2027. The “foreign entities of concern” provision was also tweaked to make it easier for projects that use a modicum of components from China to qualify for tax credits.

    The bill still phases out solar and wind tax credits rather quickly, and will damage energy production that is needed to keep up with soaring demand. But it’s dialed down from apocalyptic to, well, nearly apocalyptic. And this is going to be another source of anger to the Freedom Caucus, which wanted a much quicker phase-out of the energy tax credits.

    The wraparound amendment also doubled the size of the rural hospital fund to $50 billion. The Senate leadership’s initial offer on this fund was $15 billion. Overnight the Senate rejected an amendment from Collins that would have raised the rural hospital fund to $50 billion. Even at that size—which will be parceled out for $10 billion a year for five years—it hardly makes up for nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts, which are permanent. The hospital system is expected to buckle as a result of this legislation, if it passes.

    Some taxes, including a tax on third-party “litigation finance,” were removed in the final bill. But an expanded tax break for real estate investment trusts, which was in the House version, snuck into the Senate bill at the last minute.

    The state AI regulation ban was left out of the final text after a 99-1 rejection of it in an amendment overnight.

    The action now shifts to the House, where in addition to Freedom Caucus members concerned about cost, several moderates, including Reps. David Valadao (R-CA) and Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), have balked at the deep spending cuts to Medicaid and other programs.



    Source link

  • Jan Resseger: Trump’s Ugly Budget Bill Defunds Public Schools


    Jan Resseger is a social justice warrior who fights for the underdog. She describes here how Trump’s budget enacts the fever dreams of evangelicals and billionaires. He would change federal aid from its historic purpose–equitable funding–and turn it into school choice, diverting funds from the poorest children to those with ample resources. Since 1965–for 70 years–federal education funding for public schools has enjoyed bipartisan support. Trump ends it.

    She writes:

    Earlier this week, Education Week‘s Mark Lieberman released a concise and readable analysis of the likely impact for public education of two pieces of federal funding legislation: the “Big, Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill currently being debated in the U.S. Senate to shape public school funding beginning right now in FY 2025, and also President Trump’s proposed FY 2026 federal budget for public schooling in the fiscal year that begins October 1st.

    Trump’s  FY 2026 budget proposal saves Head Start.

    Lieberman shares one important piece of positive news about Trump’s treatment of Head Start in next year’s federal budget: “Some programs survived the cut—including Head Start.” In early May, the Associated Press‘s Moriah Balingit reported: “The Trump administration apparently has backed away from a proposal to eliminate funding for Head Start… Backers of the six-decade-old program, which educates more than half a million children from low-income and homeless families, had been fretting after a leaked Trump administration proposal suggested defunding it… But the budget summary… did not mention Head Start. On a call with reporters, an administration official said there would be ‘no changes’ to it.”

    Federal funding for U.S. public schools looks bleak.

    Lieberman’s assessment of federal public education funding is not so encouraging.  Overall, “The administration is aiming to eliminate roughly $7 billion in funding for K-12 schools in its budget for fiscal 2026, which starts Oct. 1. Several key programs will be maintained at today’s funding level, without an increase: “Flat funding amounts to a de-facto cut given inflation. The administration is proposing to maintain current funding levels for key programs like Title I-A for low-income students ($18.4 billion), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B for special education ($14.2 billion) and Perkins grants for K-12 and postsecondary career and technical education ($1.4 billion).”

    What has been historically a key purpose of federal public education funding—to compensate for vast inequity in the states’ capacity and the states’ willingness to fund public education—is being compromised.  Lieberman explains that much of federal funding, “is currently geared toward supporting special student populations including English learners, migrants, students experiencing homelessness, Native students, and students in rural schools. Longstanding federal programs that support training for the educator workforce; preparing students for postsecondary education; reinforcing key instructional areas like literacy, civics, and the arts… would disappear. A new K-12 grant program would offer a smaller pool of funds to states and let them decide whether and how to invest in those areas. And for the first time, all federal funding for special education would flow to states through a single funding stream…. Experts view Trump’s budget as part of an effort to roll back a half-century of effort by the federal government to help make educational opportunities more consistent and equitable from state to state and district to district.”

    The “Educational Choice for Children Act,” an alarming federal school voucher bill, is hidden inside the “Big Beautiful” bill.

    Lieberman worries about the enormous tuition tax credit voucher plan embedded deep in the weeds of the “Big, Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill now being considered in the U. S. Senate: “Separate from the federal budget process, Congress is currently advancing a massive package of tax changes, including a proposal for a new tax-credit scholarship program that fuels up to $10 billion a year in federal subsidies for private K-12 education. Annual spending on that program could approach the amount the Trump administration is proposing to cut from elsewhere in the education budget.”  The voucher proposal is called the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).

    In a separate analysis of the “Big, Beautiful” bill as the House passed it in late May, Lieberman describes this proposed ECCA tuition-tax-credit voucher program: “House lawmakers narrowly approved a sweeping legislative package with $5 billion in annual tax credits that fuel scholarships and related expenses at K-12 private schools. The federal subsidies would come in the form of dollar-for-dollar tax credits for individuals and corporations that donate to largely unregulated state-level organizations that give out scholarship funds for parents to spend on private educational options of their choosing. Any student—even in states that have resisted expanding private school choice—from a family earning less than 300 percent of the area median gross income would be eligible to benefit from a scholarship paid for with a federally refunded donation.”

    Lieberman adds: “No other federal tax credit is as generous. The Internal Revenue Service doesn’t currently supply tax credits worth the full donation amount for any cause, as the private school choice scholarship credit would do. The federal government currently offers tax credits on donations for disaster relief, houses of worship, veterans’ assistance groups, and children’s hospitals at roughly 37 percent of the donated amount.  A $10,000 donation to those causes would yield a tax credit of $3,700.  By contrast, under the proposed legislation, if a taxpayer donates $10,000 to a scholarship (voucher)-granting organization, the IRS would give them a tax credit of $10,000.”

    The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy’s Carl Davis explains that because these federal school vouchers are primarily a tax shelter, they might appeal to wealthy people who are not even supporters of school privatization: “The tax plan…  includes a provision granting extraordinarily generous treatment to nonprofits that give out vouchers for free or reduced tuition at private K-12 schools. While the bill significantly cuts charitable giving incentives overall, nonprofits that commit to focusing solely on supporting private K-12 schools would be spared from those cuts and see their donors’ tax incentive almost triple relative to what they receive today. On top of that, the bill goes out of its way to provide school voucher donors who contribute corporate stock with an extra layer of tax subsidy that works as a lucrative tax shelter. Essentially, the bill allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying capital gains tax as a reward for funneling public funds to private schools.” “We estimate the bill would reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next 10 years as currently drafted, or by $67 billion over the next ten years if it is extended beyond its four-year expiration date… As currently drafted, the bill would facilitate $2.2 billion in federal and state capital gains tax avoidance over the next 10 years.”

    The Brookings Brown Center on Education Policy’s Jon Valant warns that the vouchers are so deeply buried in the “Big, Beautiful” bill that lots of people would not be aware of the plan’s existence until after it is passed: “The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) continues to move, quietly, towards becoming one of America’s costliest, most significant federal education programs. Now part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, ECCA would create a federal tax-credit scholarship program that’s unprecedented in scope and scale.  It has flown under the radar, though, and remains confusing to many observers…  ECCA’s stealthiness is partly due to the confusing nature of tax-credit scholarship programs. These programs move money in circuitous ways to avoid the legal and political hurdles that confront vouchers.”

    Valant explains how tax-credit vouchers work: “Tax-credit scholarship programs like ECCA aren’t quite private school voucher programs, but they’re first cousins. In a voucher program, a government gives money (a voucher) to a family, which the family can use to pay for private school tuition or other approved expenses. With a tax-credit scholarship, it’s not that simple. Governments offer tax credits to individual scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). These SGOs then distribute funds… to families.”

    Valant creates a scenario that shows how this tax credit program could help the wealthy and leave out poorer families. A rich donor, Billy, donates $2 million in stock to an SGO: “Billy’s acquaintance, Fred, lives in the same town as Billy, which is one of the wealthiest areas in the United States. In fact, Fred set up the SGO, looking to capture ECCA funds within their shared community… Like Billy, Fred doesn’t particularly care about K-12 public education… It might seem that Fred’s SGO couldn’t distribute funds to families in their ultra-wealthy area, since ECCA has income restrictions for scholarship recipients. That’s not the case. ECCA restricts eligibility to households with an income not greater than 300% their area’s median income. In Fred and Billy’s town, with its soaring household incomes, even multimillionaire families with $500,000 in annual income are eligible… So, Fred is looking to give scholarship money to some wealthy families in his hometown.”

    Valant summarizes the result if the “Big, Beautiful” bill is enacted: “This bill would introduce the most significant and costliest new federal education program in decades. It has virtually no quality-control measures, transparency provisions, protections against discrimination, or evidence to suggest that it is likely to improve educational outcomes. It’s very likely to redirect funds from poor (and rural) areas to wealthy areas.”



    Source link

  • Six Nobel Laureates in Economics Denounce Trump Budget Bill

    Six Nobel Laureates in Economics Denounce Trump Budget Bill


    The Economic Policy Institute issued an open letter to the American people, written and co-signed by six economists who won the Nobel Prize.

    They wrote:

    As economists who have devoted our careers to researching how economies can grow and how the benefits of this growth can be translated into broadly shared prosperity and security, we have grave concerns about the budget reconciliation bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 22, 2025.

    The most acute and immediate damage stemming from this bill would be felt by the millions of American families losing key safety net protections like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The Medicaid cuts constitute a sad step backward in the nation’s commitment to providing access to health care for all. Proponents of the House bill often claim that these Medicaid cuts can be achieved simply by imposing work reporting requirements on healthy, working-age adults. But healthy, working-age adults are by definition not heavy consumers of health spending, so achieving the budgeted Medicaid cuts will obviously harm others as well.

    Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for low-income Americans, but this includes paying out-of-pocket health costs for low-income retired Medicare recipients and providing nursing home and in-home care services for elderly Americans. Medicaid also covers 41% of all births in the United States, including over 50% of all births in Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Work reporting requirements will obviously yield no savings from these Medicaid functions.

    Besides providing affordable health care to families, Medicaid is also crucial to state budgets and hospital systems throughout the country—particularly in rural areas. In 2023, the federal government sent $615 billion to state governments to cover Medicaid spending; this federal contribution accounted for over 75% of total state Medicaid spending in more than 19 states. Rural hospitals in states that accepted the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act were 62% less likely to close than rural hospitals in non-expansion states.

    In addition to Medicaid, the House bill also significantly cuts SNAP. These steep cuts to the social safety net are being undertaken to defray the staggering cost of the tax cuts included in the House bill, including the hidden cost of preserving the large corporate income tax cutpassed in the 2017 tax law. But even these sharp spending cuts will pay for far less than half of the tax cuts (not even including the cost of maintaining the corporate income tax cuts of the 2017 law).

    U.S. structural deficits are already too high, with real debt service payments approaching their historic highs in the past year. The House bill layers $3.8 trillion in additional tax cuts ($5.3 trillion if all provisions are made permanent) on top of these existing fiscal gaps—and these tax cuts are overwhelmingly tilted toward the highest-income households. Even with the safety net cuts, the House bill leads to public debt rising by over $3 trillion in coming years (and over $5 trillion over the next decade if provisions are made permanent rather than phasing out). The higher debt and deficits will put noticeable upward pressure on both inflation and interest rates in coming years.

    The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households(if some of the fiscal cost is absorbed in future bills with extremely high and broad tariffs, the share of households seeing absolute losses will increase rapidly).

    The United States has a number of pressing economic challenges to address, many of which require a greater level of state capacity to navigate—capacity that will be eroded by large tax cuts. The House bill addresses none of the nation’s key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them. The Senate should refuse to pass this bill and start over from scratch on the budget.

    Daron Acemoglu
    MIT Economics

    Peter Diamond
    MIT Economics

    Oliver Hart
    Harvard University

    Simon Johnson
    MIT Sloan School of Management

    Paul Krugman
    Graduate Center, City University of New York

    Joseph Stiglitz
    Columbia University



    Source link

  • English learner advocates in California oppose ‘science of reading’ bill

    English learner advocates in California oppose ‘science of reading’ bill


    First grade teacher Sandra Morales listens to a student read sentences aloud at Frank Sparkes Elementary School in Winton.

    Credit: Zaidee Stavely / EdSource

    Two prominent California advocacy organizations for English learners are firmly opposing a new state bill that would mandate that reading instruction be aligned with the “science of reading,” saying it could hurt students learning English as a second language. 

    Assembly Bill 2222, authored by Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, would require schools to teach children how to read using textbooks and teacher training grounded in research, which shows that children must learn what sounds letters make and how to sound out words, in addition to vocabulary and understanding, learning how to read fluently without halting, and how to write.

    The bill also states that curriculum must adhere to research that “emphasizes the pivotal role of oral language and home language development” for students learning English as a second language. Research shows that English learners need to practice speaking and listening in English and learn more vocabulary to understand the words they are learning to sound out. Students also benefit from learning to read in their home language, and from teachers pointing out the similarities and differences between their home language and English — for example, how different consonants or vowels make the same or different sounds in each language.

    But representatives from Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), which have both written letters opposing the bill, said they are concerned the bill could hurt English learners, who represent more than one-fourth of students in kindergarten through third grade.

    They said they believe the bill would dismantle or weaken the state’s progress toward improving literacy instruction. Advocates pointed to the $1 million the state has put toward a “literacy road map” to guide districts to implement evidence-based reading strategies, and the new literacy standards passed by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, to prepare new teachers to teach reading based on research.

    They argue that California should instead make sure districts are fully implementing the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework.

    “AB 2222, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, in my opinion, is attempting to illegally dismantle what we currently have in place, that is evidence-based and has a comprehensive literacy approach,” said Edgar Lampkin, chief executive officer of CABE. “It’s trying to mandate a magic bullet that does not exist and attempts to be one-size-fits-all.”

    The framework, which was adopted in 2014, encourages explicit instruction in foundational skills and oral language development instruction for English learners.

    “The challenge is the professional development of our teachers to implement them, and the implementation is sporadic,” said Barbara Flores, professor emerita from CSU San Bernardino and past president of CABE. “We have districts that are doing a very good job. We have others that need help to do it, but they know they need help.”

    Representatives from the two advocacy organizations opposing the bill also said it does not sufficiently spell out how to help students who are learning to read in more than one language.

    “Biliteracy is nowhere,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. “And what about students that are in dual-language immersion programs? What about translanguaging and bridging?” Translanguaging and bridging refer to the practices of helping students learn the differences and similarities between two languages and transferring knowledge they have in one language to another.

    The bill’s sponsors and author say the progress the state has made is admirable, but more needs to be done, because only 43% of California third graders were reading and writing on grade level in 2023, based on the state’s standardized test. Among those classified as English learners, only 16% met the standards for reading and writing. Once students are reading and writing in English at grade level, they are usually reclassified as fluent, and 73% of third graders who were once English learners and are now fluent in English were reading and writing at grade level in 2023.

    Assemblywoman Rubio said she made sure to include the needs of English learners, sometimes referred to as ELs, in the bill. 

    “As a former EL myself, I understand the complex challenges for these children and would only introduce bills that are grounded in research and data that points to positive outcomes for ELs,” she wrote in an email to EdSource.

    “Specifically, AB 2222 requires an emphasis on the pivotal role of oral language and home language development, particularly for ELs, and instruction in English language development specifically designed for limited-English-proficient students to develop their listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. As an educator, I know how critical it is that both current and pre-service teachers are trained and empowered to support ELs in the classroom.”

    Rubio said she has spoken with representatives of Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education about their concerns.

    “I have offered for them to help me draft a piece of legislation moving forward which will help every child in California, especially our ELs. Thus far, they have refused, noting a philosophical difference,” Rubio said.

    The organizations that sponsored the bill, Decoding Dyslexia California, EdVoice, and Families in Schools, said the bill does not dismantle, but rather strengthens and builds upon the new literacy standards and the ELA/ELD framework. In addition, they said the bill does not advocate for a “one-size-fits-all” approach to teaching reading and rather requires districts to focus on English learners’ needs and assets. 

    “While we acknowledge that there’s confusion out there, I think when you read the actual bill, it’s far from reversing course on the good policy and progress we’ve made recently. If anything, this bolsters and supports it,” said Lori DePole, co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia California.

    The concerns from English learner advocates about a push for “science of reading” curriculum are not new. But DePole said when crafting the bill, the sponsoring organizations looked to agreements hashed out in a joint statement by advocates for English learners, including Californians Together, and proponents of curriculum based on the “science of reading.”

    Hernandez said Californians Together is not backtracking on those agreements.

    “Because we oppose this bill does not mean that we are against the five components of literacy, which includes foundational skills,” said Hernandez. “Do teachers need professional learning? Absolutely. Do they need instructional materials that are based on a comprehensive research-based literacy approach? Yes.”

    However, she said she is concerned about implementation. She pointed out that the joint statement also makes clear that sometimes schools implement practices under the name of the science of reading that do not align with the research, like focusing on phonics for an extended amount of time and leaving out other skills that students need, like English language development, practicing writing or reading stories aloud.

    The sponsors said “any characterizations of AB 2222 being just about phonics are misleading and inaccurate.”

    “It is important to clarify that the science of reading is a lot more than just phonics,” reads a statement from the three sponsoring organizations. “It includes explicit and systematic instruction in phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary and oral language development, fluency, comprehension, and writing that can be differentiated to meet the needs and assets of all students, including ELs,” referring to English learners.

    Particularly concerning to opponents of the bill is one particular phrase saying that curriculum based on the science of reading “does not rely on any model for teaching word reading based on meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues, including a three-cueing approach.”

    DePole said the language is there to ensure that teachers do not continue to use controversial methods such as “three-cueing,” which teaches students to use pictures and context to guess what a word is, rather than sounding it out.

    But English learner advocates said students learning English need pictures to help them learn the meaning of words they are sounding out. In addition, they said the way the bill is written leaves too much open to interpretation and could end up discouraging teachers from teaching vocabulary and grammar.

    “Any word that appears in a sentence or a collection of words or a stream of language has syntax. So if you’re not teaching syntax, or if you’re banning the teaching of syntax, you’re banning the teaching of vocabulary and grammar, right? So this provision contradicts everything that appears in the ELA/ELD framework,” said Jill Kerper Mora, associate professor emerita from the School of Teacher Education at San Diego State University, and a member of CABE.

    Hernandez said the problems with three-cueing should be addressed through training “so teachers understand the why,” rather than through a state mandate.

    “We agree that we need a comprehensive approach, which includes foundational literacy skills,” Hernandez said. “But we just don’t think that this is the approach.”





    Source link

  • Bill would expand nursing bachelor’s degrees to California community colleges

    Bill would expand nursing bachelor’s degrees to California community colleges


    Credit: Riverside City College / RCC.edu

    Community college leaders will once again attempt to offer bachelor’s degrees in nursing, renewing a fight with the state’s universities over whether expanding to the two-year sector eases California’s nurses shortage or increases competition.

    The bill, authored by state Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, would allow 15 yet-to-be-selected community college districts that already provide associate degrees in nursing to offer bachelor’s degrees in the field. 

    While California State University has yet to take a position on Roth’s bill, it’s clear the system has a stake in whether community colleges are allowed to serve students who may otherwise attend CSU or private school programs.

    The majority of bachelor’s and advanced nursing degree programs are taught by independent and private colleges, which hold about 51% of the market. Statewide, there are 48 bachelor’s degree nursing programs.  At least 17 Cal State campuses and six University of California campuses offer a bachelor’s or master’s nursing program within their systems. 

    Enrollment in bachelor’s nursing programs has also increased statewide, with much of the growth in the private sector. In 2021, 9,179 new students entered these programs — nearly 2,500 more than the previous year, according to a 2023 state nursing board report conducted by UC San Francisco. Meanwhile, fewer students are enrolling in associate degree nursing programs, which are mostly at public community colleges. 

    “The workforce need has only grown,” said Kaylie Schmidt, a spokesperson with the Community College League of California, a nonprofit organization advocating in favor of the bill, SB 895. “We have nursing shortages like we’ve never seen before, and many of our districts are in communities that have workforce shortages.” 

    Schmidt said in some areas of the state, nursing students will leave their smaller communities that are in desperate need of health care professionals and migrate to other regions that offer them an opportunity to pursue the bachelor’s nursing degree. 

    Some estimates show that California is facing a shortage of about 36,000 licensed nurses — a need that is expected to grow “substantially by 2030,” said Andra Hoffman, a trustee for the Los Angeles Community College District. “This tremendous gap continues to widen as current nursing baccalaureate degree programs have demand greater than their enrollment capacity,” she said. 

    This isn’t the first time the community colleges have pushed the Legislature to approve offering nursing baccalaureate degrees. Ten years ago, the state’s community colleges began offering bachelor’s degrees in certain programs and at specific colleges to address unmet workforce needs. Back then, community college leaders warned that nursing shortages would continue if California didn’t allow the community colleges to offer nursing degrees. The state approved the pilot community college bachelor’s degree program but excluded nursing because state law bars the colleges from offering programs already offered by the universities.

    SB 895, which would change that law, is expected to be heard by the Senate Education Committee on April 10.

    Rehman Attar, Cal State’s director of health care and workforce development, said CSU has not taken a formal position on the bill but welcomes the Legislature to fix the problems like clinical placements and faculty shortages in nursing education within all three systems. 

    Registered nurses are not legally required to have a bachelor’s degree to practice. But a growing number of employers and health facilities require registered nurses to have, or be in pursuit of, a bachelor’s degree. A 2010 Institute of Medicine report recommended that the proportion of registered nurses with bachelor’s degrees increase to 80% by 2020. Meanwhile, in California, a 2021 Health Impact report found more than 54% of the state’s hospitals preferred hiring nurses with bachelor’s degrees. 

    A common misconception is that increasing the capacity of BSN-trained nurses at CSU would solve the nursing shortage, Attar said. 

    Instead, the problem is much larger than that, he said. Solving it means increasing more capacity for students to get clinical training and hiring more faculty to teach the courses for the community colleges and the universities. 

    “That’s a big limiting factor and a bottleneck for us to increase capacity,” Attar said.

    Both associate degree and bachelor’s degree nursing programs require practical experience, or clinical education, in health care settings. But many health care facilities have a limited number of spots available to offer that experience to students. Creating new nursing programs would only add more students competing for that limited space. Attar said some universities outside of the CSU system also pay or incentivize for clinical placement spots for their students. Getting students into clinical training is an additional challenge all colleges face. Attar said CSU doesn’t pay or incentivize health care facilities for clinical placement spots because the practice isn’t equitable or fair for all students.  

    Schmidt said the bill would use clinical space already offered to these community college districts. Would that mean students within a single community college are facing greater competition against each other for clinicals? Schmidt said it would be on the community college to determine how it wants to use the clinical space it has between students earning an associate degree and a bachelor’s degree.

    A separate bill authored by Roth, SB 1042, plans to address the clinical placement problem by requiring health facilities to work with public and private nursing programs to attempt to make the necessary number of placements available to them to meet the schools’ demand. 

    Statewide, there has been growth in nursing programs offering bachelor’s degrees. According to a 2023 report from the California Board of Registered Nursing, the number of bachelor’s programs in the state increased from 43 in 2020 to 48 in 2021. However, that 20% growth in programs took place in the private sector. 

    Alex Graves, vice president of government relations for the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, said the organization has not taken a formal position on SB 895, but they do have concerns about it exacerbating the challenge of finding faculty for bachelor’s nursing programs. 

    “The reality is if there are additional courses that are going to be required for community colleges to offer BSN programs, it will likely mean there will be additional faculty demands coming for those programs,” he said. “That will just make it all the more difficult for all of us to find those folks to fill those positions in our programs.” 

    Encouraging qualified nurses to teach in both associate and bachelor’s degree programs has been challenging for nearly all programs because colleges and universities can’t compete with the salaries nurses make working in health care settings. 

    Although faculty vacancy rates have fluctuated over the years, in 2022, the state nursing board reported a 12.1% faculty vacancy rate — the highest it had been in 10 years. Many colleges have compensated by hiring more part-time nursing faculty, but that hasn’t diminished their need for more faculty overall. The board found nearly 70% of nursing programs reported faculty working “overloaded” schedules, of which 94% reported paying their faculty extra for the additional work. 

    “We’re fortunate enough that we have doctoral programs that focus on creating nurse educators,” Rehman said, speaking for the CSU system. “But again, that pipeline gets restricted at the associate’s and bachelor’s degree level, so if we’re not able to increase that pipeline of students to become nurses, it restricts us in terms of producing nursing faculty, as well.” 

    Rehman called it a “domino effect.” 

    “When we’re able to address these core fundamental nursing issues of clinical placement — and just starting with that — that’s going to start alleviating some of the pains that we find with faculty,” he said.  

    Addressing the constraints on clinical placements and the shortage of nursing faculty are the best ways to get more nurses into the profession, Graves said.

    Instead, Graves said there are better examples of collaboration between community college and university nursing programs that provide a clear path for students to achieve their bachelor’s without compounding the faculty and clinical placement challenges. Those examples are in concurrent enrollment or associate degree to bachelor’s nursing degree programs.  

    Partnerships

    The number of associate degree programs partnering with bachelor’s degree nursing programs has also increased. Private universities and some Cal State campuses have formal concurrent enrollment nursing programs with community colleges that allow students to earn both degrees simultaneously. The state nursing board reported such partnerships have increased over the last 10 years from 50.8% in 2012 to nearly 60% in 2021.

    CSU has more than 10 such partnerships across its campuses and wants to add more. 

    “These ADN to BSN pathways have been really helpful,” Rehman said. “We’ve been able to streamline our curriculum with the community colleges to really reduce the time to graduation. … We’re also having coordination with our clinical placements.”

    The partnerships could be an alternative to allowing community colleges to offer the bachelor’s degree directly. 

    That collaboration with the community colleges creates better clinical placement schedules to get students in and out of the program more quickly. Traditionally, it can take a nursing student up to six years to complete their bachelor’s degree. However, the associate-to-bachelor’s nursing partnerships reduce that time to three to four years, allowing more students to graduate, Rehman said. 

    “It’s a win-win, and we’re always looking to grow it,” he said. “We’re going to continue to keep on trying to grow it and make it more accessible to all of our community college partners.” 





    Source link

  • English learners, too, would benefit from fixing how we teach reading in California; this bill is a good start

    English learners, too, would benefit from fixing how we teach reading in California; this bill is a good start


    Credit: Allison Shelley / American Education

    Imagine a cross-country road trip using outdated maps. What are the chances you’ll take the best routes or even get to your destination?

    This is what’s happening in California classrooms. Teachers receive outdated tools to teach reading; consequently far too few students become motivated, competent readers and writers.

    Our most disadvantaged students pay the steepest price. Only 2 in 10 low-income Black students in third grade are at least on grade level in English language arts. The same is true for 3 in 10 low-income Latino students, 2 in 10 English learners, and 2 in 10 students with disabilities. Overall, only 4 in 10 California third graders read on grade level.

     Many factors, in and out of school, influence reading achievement. Schools cannot affect what they cannot control. But they can control how reading is taught. AB 2222, introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, seeks to update how schools teach reading. It would require that instructional reading materials, teacher preparation reading courses, and in-service teacher professional development all adhere to reading research, which the bill refers to as the “science of reading.”

    English learner advocacy organizations opposing AB 2222 — the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), Californians Together and, most recently, the Center for Equity for English Learners at Loyola Marymount University — have voiced extreme objections to the bill with no hint of attempting to find workable solutions.

    This is unfortunate. Because California’s teacher preparation programs provide insufficient attention to teaching reading to English learners, a concerted effort is necessary to address this and other policy shortcomings affecting these students. 

    Yet when Assemblymember Rubio, formerly an English learner and a teacher, called upon CABE and Californians Together to help draft legislation to serve every child in California, including English learners, the groups refused, citing a “philosophical difference.”

    Philosophies aside, existing research could help teachers of English learners do a better job. Why would self-described advocates for these students walk away from developing solutions, choosing instead to deprive teachers and teacher educators of research knowledge to help students attain higher literacy levels? Whose interests are served? Certainly not students’.

    Vague, misleading language and misinformation plague the field, most perniciously about the “science of reading.” The term is cited repeatedly in the bill but poorly defined.

    Moreover, opponents of the bill are fond of labeling science of reading as one-size-fits-all, rigid, or a “magic pill.” It is none of these. Nor does it “isolate” phonics.

    Anyone who knows anything about reading research over the past half-century knows these characterizations are simply wrong.

    Many districts have indeed implemented poor practices such as excessive phonics instruction and insufficient attention to language, comprehension, vocabulary and knowledge development, all in the name of “science of reading.” This can’t be blamed on reading science. The culprit is misinformation, which opponents of the bill perpetuate.

    I’ll try to clarify.

    The science of reading — just as the science of anything — is a body of knowledge that informs how students develop reading skills and how we can most effectively teach reading (and writing) in different languages to monolingual or multilingual students. This science, based on decades of research from different disciplines and different student populations worldwide, shows that:

    • While a first language is typically acquired naturally by being around people who speak it, written language (literacy) must generally be taught, learned and practiced. This is true for a first, second or later language.
    • Literacy is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without foundational skills connecting the sounds of the language with the letters representing those sounds, what is typically called “phonics” or “decoding.”
    • The best way to help children acquire foundational literacy skills is through direct, explicit and systematic instruction to help them develop accurate and automatic word reading skills. The practice known as “three-cueing,” where students are taught to recognize words using some combination of “semantic,” “syntactic” and “grapho-phonic” cues, is far less effective for most students, including English learners: It’s insufficiently explicit about how the sounds of the language are represented in print.
    • Some students will require a great deal of explicit instruction; others will require much less. Instruction building on individual students’ strengths and addressing their needs is necessary.
    • As they develop these foundational skills, and throughout their schooling, students need instruction and other experiences to develop oral language, vocabulary, knowledge and other skills. Accurate and automatic foundational literacy skills merge with these other skills, leading to skilled fluent reading and comprehension, both of which must be supported and improved as students progress through school.
    • Although all this is true for students in general, some require additional considerations. For example, English learners in English-only programs (as most of these students are) must receive additional instruction in English language development, e.g., vocabulary, as they’re learning to read in English. English learners fortunate enough to be in long-term bilingual programs, continuing through middle and high school, can become speakers and readers of two languages — English and their home language.

    Unfortunately, AB 2222 undermines its own cause by failing to articulate clearly what science of reading actually signifies. With some improvements, the bill could acknowledge what we know from research that is relevant to meeting the needs of English learners:

    • How to help English learners having difficulty with beginning and early reading get on track, either in Spanish or English;
    • How to help older English learners make better progress in their reading achievement by providing comprehensive advanced literacy instruction; and;
    • How long-term bilingual education can pay dividends in terms of bilingualism, biliteracy and generally enhanced English language achievement.

    It is difficult to pack all this into a piece of legislation clearly and precisely. But try we must if we’re serious about improving reading achievement rather than winning the latest reading wars skirmish.

    We should get past the squabbling, turf protection and unhelpful language and instead do the right thing for all students. AB 2222’s introduction is an important step forward on the road to universal literacy in California. We must get it on the right track and take it across the finish line.

    •••

    Claude Goldenberg is Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Education, emeritus, in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and a former first grade and junior high teacher.

    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