برچسب: changes

  • Community outrage leads to changes in Fresno Unified superintendent search

    Community outrage leads to changes in Fresno Unified superintendent search


    Community members attend a listening session on Feb. 21 at Duncan Polytechnical High in Fresno to discuss the search for a new superintendent.

    Credit: Fresno Unified / Flickr

    At a special meeting Wednesday, the Fresno Unified School District board bowed to community pressure and postponed already scheduled interviews of district employees vying for the superintendent job.

    The seven-person board was set to interview internal candidates during a closed session — an initial step in the process to select the next superintendent for the state’s third-largest district — before deciding whether to expand the search to candidates beyond the school district.

    The boardroom was packed, standing-room-only, with parents, students, staff and other community members. An overflow crowd watched the meeting on TV screens on the first and second floors of the district building. 

    Thirty speakers echoed support for one of three positions regarding the search process: that the board’s decision to start with internal candidates first was best, that the board should’ve conducted at least a statewide search from the start, or that the process has been plagued by politics, so far. 

    The meeting displayed a divided school system and raised questions about the school board’s ability to select a leader to guide a district that desperately needs to improve student outcomes.

    Outrage had been mounting among community members since the board’s March 20 closed-session decision on how to proceed with the search, which resulted in dueling board factions. 

    Trustee Claudia Cazares on Wednesday led a 5-2 vote, compelled by community feedback, to postpone the interviews until further deliberation. The “no” votes came from trustees Andy Levine and Veva Islas, who argued that the interviews had been scheduled. 

    Cazares said that “to make it cleaner for us and more transparent, that we take a giant step back and start fresh from the beginning, including additional community input, before we move forward with any interviews.” 

    Pausing gives the board an opportunity to further discuss the search process, correct misconceptions spreading in the community and ensure people are heard, trustee Elizabeth Jonasson Rosas said during the meeting. 

    “It’s ultimately about trust in Fresno Unified,” Jonasson Rosas said. “I want everybody to be absolutely clear about what we’re actually doing.” 

    Even with the board’s decision to change course, the unrelenting public clamor for transparency and the elimination of political agendas will likely shape how the search for superintendent proceeds. 

    “When people talk about misinformation and misrepresentation — when there is no transparency, that is what happens,” said community member Christina Soto. 

    ‘To ensure that FUSD staff are seen and heard first’ 

    On Jan. 22, Superintendent Bob Nelson announced his resignation to start a tenure-track position at Fresno State. During a closed meeting on March 20, the school board, tasked with hiring and firing the superintendent, decided to interview internal candidates first, before deciding how to proceed with the search. 

    Board member Keshia Thomas said she made her decision in order to ensure Fresno Unified staff are “seen and heard first.” 

    “These people have given their lives to the district,” Thomas said, “and they deserve that much.”

    Another reason given for wanting to interview in-house stemmed from the budget implications of launching a national search, which may be unnecessary, in the context of a $30 million deficit the district faces.

    The first phase of the search — eliciting community feedback and creating the job description — cost the district $40,000 in fees from the search firm Leadership Associates. Another phase, whether completed by Leadership Associates or another firm, could cost between $75,000 and $100,000, Thomas said. The second phase has not been determined by the board.

    “We’re shelling out all this money to search firms to do this work,” Thomas said. “And if we don’t have to, we really shouldn’t spend it.” 

    When Nelson was tapped as superintendent in 2017, the board conducted a costly national search that eventually chose an internal candidate. 

    After the departure of Nelson’s predecessor in 2017 and the uncertainty about who’d lead the district in the period until the new superintendent started, the school board implemented a plan for the resignation of the top district leader. The succession plan, formed in the early years of Nelson’s tenure, involved creating the position for and hiring a deputy superintendent who would be prepared to step in; it’s also a quasi-grow-our-own leadership model that ensures continuity during and following the transition of district leaders.

    When Nelson announced his resignation, he told EdSource he’d continue serving as superintendent until July 31, which will trigger the district’s succession plan. The school district confirmed in a media release about Nelson’s resignation that Deputy Superintendent Misty Her would be named interim superintendent. 

    The board has approved succession planning and grow-our-own programs at different levels across the district, said Annarita Howell, the district’s assistant superintendent for human resources. She was one of the district’s staff members and students who supported the board’s initial decision to interview internal candidates.

    “My wondering is why we question that succession planning now (that) you have been supporting for the last 10 years?” Howell asked. 

    Brown Act violations?

    Some board members blame the community outrage on information leaked from a closed session that has been misconstrued by those who accuse the board of a lack of transparency. 

    An update on the March 20 meeting for the search informed the public that the board had decided to interview in-house candidates. Details of the 4-3 decision and how each board member voted was leaked to GV Wire, a digital news site, which Thomas said violates the Brown Act, legislation guaranteeing the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings for bodies such as the school board. 

    “Only people in that room were privy to who thought what,” she said.  Only board members and representatives from the search firm were present at that meeting. 

    According to Bryan Martin, attorney for Fresno Unified, the Brown Act generally requires the board to report out final actions that the board makes in closed session, including reporting how each board member “voted.”  He didn’t consider the 4-3 decision to interview internal candidates as a final action. 

    Thomas confirmed that she was one of the four who chose to interview internal candidates first, a decision she stands by. But the leaked decision created a misconception that the four wanted to only interview and choose the new superintendent from staff. 

    District spokesperson Nikki Henry also said that what was communicated to the public was not what happened, and that the 4-3 decision was never about limiting the search to internal candidates only, but about starting with FUSD employees. 

    “The board has never said that they will only look at internal applicants,” she said. “There’s never been anything from the board that has said they will not go to a statewide or national search for the superintendent.”

    Skepticism of the process, Henry said, likely came because the board was taking the search one step at a time and allowing each step to inform the next step. 

    “The whole process is not going to happen out in the open because that’s not how it’s done,” Thomas said. “That’s not how you do any interviews or hire any person if you’re an HR person.” 

    And the school board is the human resources for the superintendent hiring, she said. 

    In a Tuesday news conference called by board President Susan Wittrup, community leaders, including those in the teachers union as well as city council representatives, called on Fresno Unified board members to conduct the search the “right way,” at least statewide and in an open and transparent way, led by and with community involvement. 

    Wittrup said the school board needed to change course with the way it decided to handle the search, an action that the board has now taken.

    Thomas said Wittrup’s actions have made matters worse.

    “Trustee Wittrup decided to fabricate the truth about what was said and what was requested by a majority of the trustees,” Thomas said about an editorial published in GV Wire that Wittrup wrote as well as other statements she made to the media. 

    Manuel Bonilla, president of the Fresno Teachers Association, said on Tuesday that there needs to be a public discussion about why the original decision was made.

    He said that the explanation that the process be conducted in closed session as an HR process is an excuse. 

    In other places across the country, applications and interviews of those applying for a superintendency are open to the public because of state legislation

    Even individuals not associated with education, such as Darius Assemi, publisher of the online news site GV Wire and CEO of Granville Homes, a real estate development company, which he admitted doesn’t build homes in the Fresno Unified area, joined Tuesday’s event.  

    Assemi said that the community deserves better than a closed-door selection and hiring process. 

    “It should be a transparent, open process so that the public sees what actually takes place,” he told EdSource before the board backpedaled its decision. “Not behind closed doors; not in secrecy.” 

    Many say their voices were unheard

    Another factor creating concern about the search process is related to the 24 listening sessions conducted in February and the search firm’s report on those sessions.

    The search firm’s summary, not even a full two-page document, lists and briefly details key themes deemed necessary for the district’s next leader, including: 

    • An educational background that includes experience as a teacher, an administrator and other roles, and administrative credentials
    • Experience and understanding of the district’s history, culture, complexities and diversity. According to the summary, the community preferred internal candidates and applicants with ties to the Central Valley
    • Effective communication skills and the ability to collaborate and engage with people in the school community
    • A strategic vision supported by data-driven strategies

    Wittrup said Leadership Associates’ report misinformed board members about what the community wanted, and that community members felt their voices went unheard during the listening sessions because they asked for a search beyond district personnel. 

    “I have heard overwhelmingly from parents and constituents across this city that their voice was not captured,” Wittrup said. “That would be a travesty if we used misinformation to make these decisions.” 

    Community member Soto said she invested at least five hours in attending various listening sessions, just to have that information “disregarded and misrepresented.” 

    “Communities stated that we wanted someone that was familiar with the Valley,” she said. She was one of at least 10 people who spoke at Wednesday’s meeting in support of a search not limited to internal applicants. “I’m sure there are many people across the state and maybe the nation who have Central Valley roots who would be qualified to be superintendent.” 

    Community members at board meetings, including Wednesday’s, and through conversations with trustees have recommended a national or statewide search as well as a districtwide search committee to interview candidates. 

    Board member Cazares said in an April 2 Facebook post that she had originally asked board leadership for a community committee to assist in the search. Cazares was named as one of the four who wanted to start with the internal search. She could not be reached to confirm. 

    “I hope that board president (Trustee Wittrup) would reconsider my recommendation,” Cazares said in her social media post. 

    Board member Valerie F. Davis, also named as one of the four who chose to start with the internal search but couldn’t be reached to confirm, said she has hired three superintendents, in which the board “always” had community members as part of the search committee. 

    The original board decision, Bonilla said, eroded the community’s trust because the closed-door decision came without community input. He added that now, after an outpouring from frustrated community members, the board is deciding to “take steps in the right direction.”

    What else complicated the process? 

    Wittrup is the sole board member who publicly challenged the board’s original decision. In the weeks before Tuesday’s news conference and Wednesday’s board meeting, Wittrup was the first of nearly 400 people to sign Break the Cycle of Failure at Fresno Unified, an online petition about the decision to start with internal candidates. She also penned an opinion piece about the matter. 

    “It’s the only way I know,” Wittrup said about the appropriateness of her actions to write an op-ed and host a news conference to challenge the board’s decision. 

    Board member Levine, though he’s remained quiet about the March 20 closed-session discussion, shared his position last week via Facebook and with EdSource. He supported inviting both internal and external candidates to apply and said that a process to consider all candidates at once sets up the board’s pick for success. The community would know the decision is based on a competitive and rigorous process. 

    He said he didn’t see the need to attend Tuesday’s new conference because the board must figure out how to move forward as a unit.  

    “We need to figure out, as a board, how to come together to get there, hopefully,” he said.

    So what happens next? 

    It’s still unclear how the process will proceed, even after the board met in closed session for about an hour Wednesday night. 

    Whether community members want the board to maintain its direction to interview internal candidates first, to redo the entire process or to eliminate political influence, “we can’t do stuff behind closed doors,” said community member Gloria Hernandez. 

    “We need to proceed in this process in the most transparent way,” Roosevelt High teacher Marisa Rodriguez said, “so that we can gain the trust of our community.”





    Source link

  • What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

    What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges


    FERMIN LEAL/EDSOURCE TODAY

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    The guidance for math placement at community colleges has changed since this article was written. For more current information, visit this article.

    If you’re a student at one of California’s community colleges and you plan to study a STEM field, you’ll typically have to pass calculus first before diving into many of the other required classes in physics, engineering, computer science, biology or chemistry. 

    A decade ago, you might have started college by taking algebra, trigonometry or precalculus class — or even a remedial class like prealgebra — before getting to calculus. But a body of research has suggested that having to complete a string of prerequisites before enrolling in calculus wasn’t working for many students and that too many never made it to calculus. That finding was bolstered by evidence showing that Black, Latino and Pell Grant students were overrepresented in community colleges’ remedial courses. 

    Two recent California laws try to address this problem. Assembly Bill 705 allows most students to skip all sorts of remedial classes in favor of full credit courses that can transfer to a four-year college; AB 1705 additionally requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.

    AB 1705 has sparked fervent opposition from some math educators, who worry that less-prepared students who skip traditional prerequisites will fail in calculus and abandon plans to study STEM. They’ve also voiced concern that students who want to take courses like trigonometry and precalculus will no longer be able to do so because the classes will be dropped by colleges. 

    But defenders say AB 1705, which math departments have until fall 2025 to implement, will prevent students from getting detoured or derailed by long course sequences.

    They note that colleges are swapping out the old prerequisite-heavy model of calculus for new calculus courses with extra support for students who need to learn concepts from algebra and trigonometry as they go. Colleges are also investing in tutoring. In addition, colleges have two years to develop revamped precalculus courses. 

    This guide seeks to answer some of the most common questions about what the law means for STEM students and how colleges plan to implement it. 

    What’s the problem AB 1705 is trying to solve?

    Community colleges regularly used to place students deemed to be underprepared in remedial classes that can’t be transferred to a four-year university. That started to change after AB 705 took effect in 2018. The Public Policy Institute of California found that between fall 2018 and 2022, the share of students starting in transfer-level math rose, as did the percentage of first-time math students completing such a course in one term.   

    Still, racial equity gaps persisted, with white students completing courses at higher rates than Black and Latino students. Advocates also worried that some community colleges were not implementing AB 705 correctly.  

    AB 1705 builds on AB 705. As a result of its passage, the state education code now requires U.S. high school graduates to begin community college in courses that meet a requirement of their intended major, though there is an exception if a college can prove a prerequisite course would benefit students. Colleges also have to provide extra help to students who want or need it, such as tutoring or concurrent support courses. 

    “Students should be aware that they have the right to access calculus and, if they want support while they’re in that course, that they’re entitled to get support,” said Jetaun Stevens, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit law firm Public Advocates.

    What guidance has the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office provided colleges on implementing the law?

    All STEM students must be given the option to take STEM calculus starting on July 1, 2025, according to California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office guidance

    Only students who either had a high school GPA of 2.6 or less, or who did not pass high school trigonometry, precalculus or calculus with at least a C have the option to take preparatory courses for calculus. Traditionally, that would include courses like precalculus. 

    To comply with the law, the chancellor’s office says colleges can drop or redesign existing preparatory courses like precalculus. If they want to continue offering an existing preparatory course, they’ll need to get the chancellor’s office approval. Colleges must show a student is deemed “highly unlikely to succeed” in STEM calculus without the prep course and meet additional criteria.

    What’s the evidence in favor of overhauling the traditional STEM math prerequisites?

    Supporters of AB 1705 often point to studies that tracked how much better STEM students performed when they enrolled directly in calculus.

    RP Group, a nonprofit that conducts research on behalf of the California community college system, reported that students who started in STEM calculus completed the course in two years at higher rates than students who entered a preparatory course for calculus instead and then later tackled calculus, regardless of students’ high school math preparation. 

    Controlling for multiple factors, RP Group also reported that the probability of completing a first STEM calculus course was lower for students who started in a prerequisite as opposed to students who went straight into calculus.  

    AB 1705’s proponents also highlight Cuyamaca College as an early adopter. A brief by the California Acceleration Project, one of AB 1705’s backers, reports that 69% of Cuyamaca students who had not studied precalculus and also enrolled in a two-unit support course completed STEM calculus in one term, compared with 30% of students who completed precalculus and then calculus in two terms. Cuyamaca observed improved calculus rates across races; gaps between students of different races were also smaller.

    What are math professors’ concerns about AB 1705?

    Many math educators said they’re worried about STEM majors with the least math experience — such as students whose highest high school math course was algebra — enrolling directly into calculus. They fear that students will fail those courses at high rates, then drop out of their major or college altogether.

    “I feel like the state might just be giving up on those students, to be honest,” Rena Weiss, a math professor at Moorpark College said. “They’re wanting to be a STEM major, and they’re going to get put right into Calculus 1. I just can’t imagine a situation where that student would be successful.”

    Professors are also concerned about students who have been out of school for a long time. Students older than the age of traditional college-goers make up a large portion of the students at California’s community colleges.

    “To be dropped right into calculus, that’s a pretty significant heavy lift for many of those students,” said Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.

    Some faculty members also question the RP Group’s research. Both the statewide Academic Senate for the community college system and the academic senates of at least two colleges — Modesto Junior College and San Joaquin Delta College — have passed resolutions calling for a “comprehensive audit” of the data. The CSU Math Council, a forum for the chairs of the university system’s math and statistics departments, also passed a resolution calling for a peer review of research used to back AB 1705. 

    Can STEM students still take calculus prerequisite courses before taking calculus?

    Yes, in some cases, at least until 2027. 

    Students at several colleges will have the option to take reshaped, so-called “innovative preparatory courses,” which may include content from college algebra, trigonometry and precalculus.

    Since the chancellor’s office has not specified what those preparatory courses should include, there is likely to be a lot of variation across the system. At Modesto Junior College, faculty are developing a class that will include curriculum from all three traditional prerequisite courses, said Tina Akers-Porter, a math professor at the college.

    Weiss said Moorpark College’s redesigned precalculus course will follow a flipped model, in which students watch lecture videos and complete exercises at home, apply the material to activities in class and then practice the same concepts again after class. Streamlining is another approach; Ohlone College math professor Andy Bloom said colleagues are removing content from an existing precalculus course that students won’t need for their first calculus class.

    Colleges have until July 2027 to test out the newly revamped preparatory courses. Then, the chancellor’s office will assess the courses again to see if they meet student performance benchmarks.

    Weiss said she and her colleagues “decided that it was really important to have a precalculus option for students who need it.” 

    Beyond the new innovative preparatory courses, it’s unclear how many colleges will continue to offer prerequisite calculus classes for STEM majors. 

    Tim Melvin, a math professor at Santa Rosa Junior College, is hoping that students can still enroll in calculus prerequisites to get more prepared, even if they have to sign a form acknowledging that the courses aren’t required. “We want to give students more options,” he said. “No requirements, but options.”

    Brill-Wynkoop said the faculty association is in talks with some legislators and may push for additional legislation that would clarify that colleges can still give STEM majors the option of taking prerequisite classes, without requiring them. The association opposed AB 1705 when it was originally proposed.

    Chancellor’s office officials, however, would likely oppose such an effort. John Hetts, an executive vice chancellor for the office, said in an email that arguments in favor of giving students a choice are often used “to persuade students to take a slower path or to allow students to self-select into a slower path,” despite the potential for negative consequences.

    What are corequisite courses and how are colleges planning to implement them?

    Chancellor’s office guidance now says colleges should offer a corequisite course alongside and linked to the calculus class. The corequisite is an additional course of at most two units designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus. 

    The idea is that with extra course time, instructors can see where students are struggling and offer extra help. 

    Colleges including Chaffey College and Sierra College, for example, now plan to link together corequisite and calculus courses explicitly. Students would sign up for a corequisite scheduled immediately before or after their calculus course. The two courses would feel to students like a longer, continuous course — one that gives their professors time to review or introduce skills students might have missed. 

    Melvin, at Santa Rosa, said his department is developing a seven-unit calculus class with corequisite support for next fall, which will take up more than half of a given student’s course load. 

    “But for students that maybe need precalculus and a little algebra help, we definitely think it’s going to be effective,” Melvin said.

    How are some early calculus corequisite courses going so far?

    There are mixed opinions at colleges that already allow STEM students who have not taken precalculus to enroll in calculus courses with a corequisite.

    Southwestern College math professors Kimberly Eclar and Karen Cliffe said that in fall 2023, the campus opened a calculus course with a two-unit support course for students who had not taken precalculus, offering students additional tutoring and non-credit refresher material, too. They were troubled by the results: Of the students who had not taken precalculus, less than 5% passed the class in its first semester.

    Some students who do pass calculus without having taken precalculus at college turn out to have learned precalculus while attending high school outside the U.S., Eclar and Cliffe added.

    Ohlone College is also allowing students who haven’t taken precalculus to enroll directly in calculus with corequisite courses. 

    “I’m not seeing this huge underperformance of my students this semester compared to last semester,” said Bloom, who has presented about STEM calculus support at an RP Group conference.

    Bloom said that though some students have dropped the course, there are also positive indicators, including that the average score on the first test of the semester exceeded last year’s average. 

    What other changes are math departments planning alongside AB 1705?  

    Professors said their campuses are experimenting with technology (like guiding students on how to use AI or using homework software that gauges students’ math skills as they answer questions) and different approaches to testing (like allowing students to retake tests or to choose which questions to answer). Others said they’re aiming to create smaller class sizes, use embedded tutors and tailor calculus courses to meet the needs of life sciences students. 





    Source link

  • Educators divided on impact of changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

    Educators divided on impact of changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xemfay2L1N4

    The California community colleges will soon implement changes to STEM math placement in which more students will be enrolled directly in calculus without first taking a longer sequence of lower-level courses such as precalculus and trigonometry.

    On Tuesday, during an EdSource roundtable, “A new law aims to expand access to STEM. What troubles some educators?” panelists discussed both the potential upsides and their concerns as Assembly Bill 1705 — the 2022 law requiring the changes — is implemented.

    Defenders of the law have argued that its intent is to ensure students can progress more quickly toward transferring to four-year colleges by avoiding long sequences of pre-requisite courses, but some math educators have said they fear more students might fail calculus if they do not first enroll in the preparatory courses.

    Tina Akers-Porter is one such math professor at Modesto Junior College. During Tuesday’s roundtable, she shared concerns she has heard from other math professors statewide. The concerns have centered less on the law as intended and more on the implementation guidance from the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which she said “don’t exactly match up well with the law” and are “very strict.”

    Akers-Porter pointed out that in order for a precalculus course to continue being offered at a community college, at least 50% of students enrolled in such preparatory classes must be successful in the class. By contrast, just 15% of students directly enrolled in calculus without first taking preparatory courses must successfully pass the class.

    Such guidance leads to “one size fits all,” an approach she said “is definitely not in the name of equity.”

    John Hetts, executive vice chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Data, Evidence and Analytics Office at the Chancellor’s Office, discussed some of the research he said the implementation guidance is based on.

    “At heart, what [the guidelines] are is based on a really substantial set of research across not just California, but across the country, that suggests that the way that we place students into our courses in community colleges vastly underestimated their capacity,” Hetts said.

    The implementation guidance includes the offering of support courses, called corequisites, which students will be able to take concurrently with calculus. The additional courses of at most two units are designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus.

    Hetts referred to research that showed corequisites being more effective than prerequisites and that having students repeat courses previously taken does not help them “and, in many cases, makes them less likely to complete the subsequent course.”

    Some students, such as panelist Alicia Szutowicz-Fitzpatrick, expressed concerns about the amount of additional time that corequisites might require. As student senate president and a disabled student programs and services peer mentor, Szutowicz-Fitzpatrick said she is worried about how the changes made to STEM math placement will impact financial aid, students’ time and unit loads.

    “We’re also worried about the education itself; a lot of support classes are not as supportive as they could be, and it’s just more work,” she said, highlighting a particular concern about how the changes would impact students with disabilities and nontraditional students.

    Prior to 2018, community colleges regularly placed students in remedial classes if they were deemed underprepared. Evidence showed an overrepresentation of Black, Latino and Pell Grant students in such courses, most of which could not be transferred to a four-year university.

    Assembly Bill 705 was signed into law in 2017 — with a confusingly similar number as the 2022 AB 1705 legislation — with the intention of reducing inequities by placing more students in transfer-level courses.

    But racial inequities persisted, leading to the passage of Assembly Bill 1705. This bill, intended to build on AB 705, in part requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.

    Tammi Marshall, dean of math, science and engineering at Cuyamaca College, highlighted that since the fall of 2023, her campus has offered calculus plus support for students who have not taken preparatory classes such as precalculus.

    “We have seen extreme success,” Marshall said, noting that the previous model of enrolling students in preparatory courses resulted in less than 30% of their students passing calculus in one year.

    “The intention was always thinking about students and their success, but we were not supporting students,” said Marshall. “The number of students that would have started in pre-algebra class and ever completed calculus was single digits.”

    Since enrolling them directly in calculus, she said, 70% of their students pass calculus in one year.

    Panelist Doug Yegge has similarly worked to implement the guidance on AB 1705 at Chaffey College, where he is a math professor.

    “I’m not saying that there aren’t drawbacks to the way that the law is being implemented. But my view, and the view of Chaffey, is, until the law is modified, here we are,” said Yegge. “How are we going to implement this at our own schools to try to give our students the best chance at success?”

    Yegge’s approach to the changes on STEM math placement has been to build a cohort model among students so that educators are “not only encouraging, but requiring collaboration and active learning.”

    At Chaffey, all math professors assigned to teach calculus-support courses are also required to meet every other Friday for two to three hours to collectively develop content and activities.

    Panelist Rena Weiss has also worked to implement support courses at Moorpark College but found that the classes didn’t quickly fill when they were not mandated for students. In response, her department removed the support courses and opted instead to focus on tutoring​, a decision that seems to be proving successful for their students.

    They also opted to develop an “innovative pre-calculus course replacement​” which is allowed by AB 1705 and will be implemented by the Fall of 2025. They intend for the replacement ​classes to be smaller in size, allow sufficient time for active learning, provide videos that students can watch at home, and to continue working in small groups alongside their peers. ​The course will be evaluated after an experimental two years.

    “We are​ really worried that​ if the same methodology for validating a prerequisite to calculus 1 is applied to this experimental course, that all of this great work that we’re doing​ might be for nothing because we are only given two years to produce results and then that will be evaluated​,” Weiss said.

    Although she noted that many of the resources used in the experimental course will be applied toward a calculus corequisite course, she echoed the concern expressed by most of the panelists about the strict AB 1705 implementation guidance set by the Chancellor’s Office.

    This story was updated to note that Moorpark’s future replacement course, not their current structure, will be up for evaluation two years after it is implemented in Fall of 2025.





    Source link

  • How will changes in federal policy impact California education? Stay up to date here

    How will changes in federal policy impact California education? Stay up to date here


    Despite Congress working through a spending deal to maintain federal grant funding for Head Start over the next six months, staff members at Head Start are starting to fear for the program’s future and the potential impacts on the Bay Area’s preschoolers from disadvantaged backgrounds, the East Bay Times reported. 

    So far, there aren’t any signs that Head Start will face cuts. But Melanee Cottrill, the executive director of Head Start California told the East Bay Times that “the broad, overarching challenge is all the uncertainty.” 

    “Even in areas as relatively close-knit and compact as the Bay Area, every program is a little different to meet the needs of the community — whatever those are — in the places where they are,” Cottrill told the Times. “Regardless of what kind of organization you are, losing any chunk of your funding would be a challenge.”

    Funding approved on March 14 isn’t enough to help Head Start employees keep up with cost of living increases. And earlier this month, a Head Start program run by the Santa Clara County’s Office of Education had to hand out pink slips. 

    Meanwhile, in February alone, roughly 3,650 children in Contra Costa County received subsidized preschool. 

    Contra Costa County’s Employment and Human Services Department director, Marla Stuart, told the Times said several actions taken by the federal government — including threats to reject grants that support Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — have already impacted the program. 

    She also pointed to Project 2025 and claims that Head Start’s federal office is “fraught with scandal and abuse” and should be cut. 

    “I don’t take the ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ approach,” said Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia at a board meeting, according to the Times. “We’re not going to know until the end, but if we want to advocate to say, ‘here’s the impact of these cuts,’ no one is stopping me from talking about that.”

    Several legal experts, according to the Times, have said that grant money for Head Start isn’t in jeopardy, unless the program is specifically cut. 

    “I’ve got lists of where possible funding impacts can occur, and I think we have a responsibility to talk about that,” Gioia said, according to the Times. “We’re not creating fear, we’re talking about reality.”

    EdSource staff





    Source link