اینترنت

برچسب: Education

  • What Trump’s victory means for education in California

    What Trump’s victory means for education in California


    Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, stand on stage at an Election Night watch party at the Palm Beach Convention Center on Nov. 6, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    This story was updated to include comments from Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    The re-election of Donald Trump is certain to bring a period of conflict, tension and litigation between the White House and California’s political and education leaders whose policies and values the president castigates. It also could potentially have major implications for California schools.

    Trump, whose position on education has focused more on cultural ideology than on policies to improve education, has threatened to cut school funding to states, such as California, with policies that protect transgender students and promote diversity, equity and inclusion in their schools. He also has pledged to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, a move that would impact millions of California families and their children.

    “California will seek to work with the incoming president – but let there be no mistake, we intend to stand with states across our nation to defend our Constitution and uphold the rule of law,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Federalism is the cornerstone of our democracy. It’s the United STATES of America.”

    Newsom, who has been a high-profile adversary to Trump, foreshadowed the coming tensions between the president-elect and the nation’s largest and, by some measures, bluest state in a statement on X, or Twitter, on Oct. 18.

    “Donald Trump just said he will take away $7.9 BILLION in school funding from California’s kids if we don’t do whatever he wants. This man is unhinged and unfit to be President,” wrote Newsom.

     The $7.9 billion represents the total annual federal K-12 funding for California,  about 7% of the total California spending on education in 2024-25, according to state Department of Finance figures. 

    California officials preparing

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said that his team has been preparing for possible litigation to stop many of President Trump’s expected policies, including attacking rights and protections for transgender children and youth, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and ending protections for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

    California has sued the federal government more than 100 times over Trump’s past rules and regulatory rollbacks, according to CalMatters.

    Bruce Fuller, professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley, worries that Trump’s tax cuts to the rich will be paid for by budget cuts in public education. 

    “The president-elect’s commitment to cutting taxes for affluent Americans means there will be no new funding for public schools,” Fuller said. “Watch out for efforts to expand vouchers and tax credits for well-off parents who opt for private schools.”

    Trump proposals often contradict policy

    Michael Kirst, former president of the State Board of Education and chief education advisor to former Governor Jerry Brown, said there is a contradiction between what Trump proposes and federal education policy.

     “He says he wants to turn control back to locals, but his campaign platform and statements indicate a deep interest in getting involved in local decision-making: having parents elect principals, cutting back teacher tenure and instituting merit pay,” Kirst said. “He wants to examine the curriculum of schools for ‘woke’ ideology.”

    The Every Student Succeeds Act, the primary law governing federal education policy, limits federal involvement in education, Kirst said. ESSA bans federal intervention in setting curriculum and federal involvement with teacher evaluations, which will affect Trump’s plan to offer merit pay. 

    “Some of his aides talk about slashing K-12 spending, but who knows what will happen?” Kirst said. Congress could transfer some funding for schools to create incentives for school choice, but that would require changes in school law, he said.

    Student debt relief at risk

    A second Trump administration could have far-reaching consequences for Americans with student debt, said Mike Pierce, the executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, in a statement. 

    “President-elect Trump’s dark vision for millions of American families with student debt is as extreme as it is unpopular—dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, undoing hard-fought protections for student loan borrowers, driving millions into the open arms of predatory for-profit schools and private lenders, and leaving millions drowning in student debt,” Pierce said. “The threat posed by these plans is real and will imperil the financial stability of millions of working families.”

    Deportation promise causing fear

    The Trump proclamation that has evoked the most fear for Californians is his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants en masse. An estimated 1 million California children – about 1 in 10 – have an undocumented immigrant parent. About 165,000 California students are recent immigrants themselves.  In 2016, after Trump’s first election, attendance at schools dropped.

    In a call with reporters last week, Newsom said that Trump’s promise to deport undocumented immigrants would be devastating to California’s economy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

    “No state has more to lose or more to gain in this election in November,” he said.

    Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas told reporters the state would be ready to forcefully protect its immigrant population, which could face major upheaval under Trump’s proposed mass deportation program, according to Politico.

     “We’ll do everything we can to ensure that people feel protected, and they feel welcomed,” he said, though he did not discuss specifics.

    Manuel Rustin, an American History teacher at John Muir High School, an early college magnet program in Pasadena Unified, said his students have expressed concern and angst over what a second Trump presidency might be like, considering the intense anti-immigrant sentiment of his campaign and his promise of mass deportations. 

    “I expect students today will be very quiet, melancholy, confused, and worried like I witnessed them back in 2016,” Rustin said. “My plan: Similar to 2016, I plan to hold space for students to safely express their thoughts, reactions, and questions.”

    Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers, fears that many of the families he works with will be terrified today.

    “What is sad is that today, children will come to Kidango, and some of them will be crying and scared that their parents or a close relative will be taken away from them,” Moore said. “This is what happened in 2016.”

    Teachers in the crosshairs

    A Trump presidency also could have a big impact on how educators teach and on whether they choose to stay in the profession. Trump has claimed teachers have been indoctrinating children with anti-American ideologies. His solution: create a new credentialing agency to certify teachers “who embrace patriotic values and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but to educate them.” 

    He also wants to abolish teacher tenure and to give preference in federal funding to states and school districts that support his efforts to do so. 

    “He will go after teacher associations backing Democrats, with a vengeance,” Fuller predicts.

    California Teachers Association President David Goldberg said that, as a union of 310,000 educators, CTA has the strength to fight for the state’s students, schools and communities.

    “We are prepared to stand up against any attacks on our students, public education, workers’ rights, and our broader communities that may come,” Goldberg said. “We’re committed to fight for the future we all deserve.”





    Source link

  • California education leaders try to reassure students of protections against Trump policies

    California education leaders try to reassure students of protections against Trump policies


    In this Jan. 25, 2017, file photo, protesters rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco in the wake of Donald Trump’s first election as president..

    Credit: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu,file

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    When Alejandra Lopez saw swing states that had gone for Joe Biden in 2020 leaning red for Donald Trump on Tuesday night, it felt like déjà vu.

    “I was really distraught. Honestly, I really would have never thought I would see him having a second term in office,” said Lopez, who is a second-year political science student at Cal Poly Pomona.

    For Lopez, the stakes were personal. Both of her parents are undocumented immigrants from Mexico who have lived in the U.S. for almost 20 years. Trump has pledged to enact mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

    When Trump won for the first time in 2016, Lopez was 11 years old. She remembers feeling scared that her parents — or even she, a U.S. citizen — would be deported and crying all day in class. Now, she feels more angry.

    “I’m angry that he was elected into office again, that he has promised the same thing again, and that people keep perpetuating it and moving it forward, not recognizing how harmful it can be,” she said. “You look back, and you see that time and time again, he’s just rephrased the same hate that he’s spewed.”

    Many California children and their families, including immigrants, transgender students and Black and Latino students, among others, are feeling similar fear and uncertainty, after the election of a candidate who has threatened to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, and to cut school funding to states that protect transgender students and promote diversity, equity and inclusion in their schools.

    California education leaders and advocates said the fear is palpable and justifiable, but they also urged TK-12 schools, colleges and universities to make sure students and families know about policies to protect their rights, some of which were enacted during the first Trump administration.

    An estimated 1 million California children — about 1 in 10 — have an undocumented immigrant parent, the state estimates. Many more have undocumented family members. About 165,000 California students are recent immigrants themselves.

    “If we thought teaching was hard yesterday, wait for today’s questions like, “Is Trump going to send me back to the gangs?” and “Is he going to deport my mother/father/brother/cousin?” wrote teacher Larry Ferlazzo on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday.

    Xilonin Cruz-González, deputy director of the advocacy organization Californians Together, said schools must reach out now to immigrant families to ensure they feel welcome and safe in school.

    “Even though it feels scary, especially for immigrant families, because of the rhetoric we’ve heard through the election cycle and we anticipate we will continue to hear, it’s important to remember, especially in California, we have legal protections for immigrant students,” Cruz-González said. “We have federal protections that require us to make sure our schools are safe and welcoming for all students. And we have California laws, especially AB 699, that was passed in 2017, that requires school districts to ensure that our immigrant students are welcomed into our public schools.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court established in 1982, in the case Plyler vs. Doe, that all children have a right to a free public education, regardless of their immigration status.

    California’s Assembly Bill 699 was passed in response to the previous Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and the fear it caused among immigrant families in California. The bill instructs schools not to collect information about families’ immigration status unless required by law, and requires schools to pass policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, among other things.

    Lindsey Bird was a newcomer teacher, working with recent immigrant students in 2016 when Trump was first elected. She said she had Syrian refugee students in tears that day.

    “They felt like their humanity was on the ballot, and they lost,” she said.

    Bird now works with Teach Plus California, coaching teachers throughout the state on how best to teach English learners. She said teachers are “heartbroken” for their students after Tuesday’s election and eager to share information with their students about their rights.

    “One teacher told me, ‘I’ll let myself grieve for the remainder of the week, but then I feel like my mama bear mode has been activated because I feel like I have to protect my students,’” Bird said. “So she was asking, ‘How can I protect them? What are my rights? What are their rights?’”

    Megan Stanton-Trehan, a senior attorney at Disability Rights California who represents students with disabilities, said she saw many students with disabilities and students of color struggle during the last Trump presidency.

    “I am really concerned about my clients who have disabilities, who are students of color, who are transgender,” said Stanton-Trehan. “In California, we may have a state that is protecting those students to some degree. We have laws that protect them here that are not dependent upon the way the federal government interprets the law, but that’s a lot of burden to put on the state.”

    She said that the lessons of that first term, however, are in the power of people standing up to such policies.

    “I think it’s definitely more than ever a time to really center those students and their needs and, really, their voices too,” Stanton-Trehan said. “They’re the next generation, and they’re living through this as well. They’re the ones at the forefront. If there’s any silver lining, it’s perhaps how galvanizing this can be for young people to say enough is enough.”

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta has said that his team is preparing to protect immigrants, transgender students and others, with possible litigation against Trump’s expected policies.

    “Fortunately, and unfortunately, we have four years of Trump 1.0 under our belts. We know what to expect, and we won’t be caught flat-footed,” said a Bonta spokesperson. “California’s Legislature has enacted strong protections for the rights of all students in California, and the Department of Justice will ensure those protections are enforced across the state. We are paying attention to what Trump and his advisers have said about their plans for a second administration, and we will be prepared to defend California’s values.”

    U.C. Berkeley political science professor Dan Schnur said Gov. Gavin Newsom has battled Trump before, but faces a new reality with Harris’ loss.

    “Newsom’s challenge is going to be balancing what’s best for him as governor and what’s best for him as a potential presidential candidate,” Schnur said.

    And Trump recognizes, Schnur said, “how much he can benefit politically with his base by beating up on California. The question is how he decides how much of that political benefit can be realized by threats and how much can be realized through follow-up on those threats.”

    Trump’s campaign promise of shutting down the U.S. Department of Education is an example.

    Such a move “is a long, long, long shot,” Schnur said “Even if Republicans do win a House majority, he’s going to have a lot of members here who are reluctant to cast that vote.”

    But Trump’s railing against transgender people and false claims that children receive gender reassignment surgeries at public schools may keep political traction, Schnur said.

    “I think that debate is much more likely to be central to his agenda.”

    LGBTQ+ youth were a major focus of this election season up and down the ballot, according to Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Equality California. 

    Trump attacked transgender women playing sports and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Local school board candidates promoted policies that outed transgender students to their parents, in opposition to a new state law. Anti-bullying policies at local school districts that specifically name LGBTQ youth have become a flash point.

    California already has laws on the books that protect these communities, and Salinas noted that voters supported Proposition 3, which enshrines the right to same-sex marriage.

    “I think being in California does provide a peace of mind,” Salinas said.

    Equality California will be working with other organizations to ensure that there are no gaps in protecting LGBTQ+ youth in California, and that state laws that do support them are implemented. 

    Some school districts, including Los Angeles Unified, sent messages out to parents prior to or during Election Day, highlighting protections for students and offering mental health support for students experiencing anxiety or fear after the election.

    The union representing teachers in LAUSD, United Teachers Los Angeles, issued a statement saying that “Ensuring that students and their families are informed and safe will always be our top priority. We are committed to ensuring that every LAUSD student, especially BIPOC, immigrant, and LGBTQIA+ students, has access to the education, resources, and support they deserve.”

    Some colleges and universities sent similar messages to students. Santa Monica College sent a message to students before the election to offer counseling and “debriefing” spaces for all students, but particularly for LGBTQ students, undocumented students and “racially minoritized communities.” In a Nov. 6 message, San Francisco State University President Lynn Mahoney encouraged students to seek support from campus counseling services as well as groups including the Dream Resource Center and the Queer & Trans Resource Center.

    Higher education officials in California are well aware they could face legal and funding challenges from the Trump administration on such issues as enrolling undocumented students, free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a rare move Wednesday, the leaders of California’s three public higher education systems shared a joint statement emphasizing that their campuses are welcoming to students and staff from all backgrounds.

    “Following the presidential election results, we understand that there is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety within California’s higher education community,” reads the statement, which was signed by Michael Drake, president of the University of California; Mildred García, chancellor of the California State University; and Sonya Christian, chancellor of California Community Colleges.

    “The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges remain steadfast and committed to our values of diversity and inclusivity,” they added.

    Ju Hong, director of the UCLA Dream Resource Center, said Trump’s call for mass deportation is stoking fear among undocumented students and students who are citizens but have family members who are undocumented.

    Hong said there’s also concern that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program could get terminated by the courts during Trump’s presidency. Hong himself is a DACA recipient. If the program gets terminated, he wouldn’t be able to keep his job and would be at risk of deportation. 

    Hong called on UC leaders, including the system’s board of regents, to support immigrant students and staff, both with public statements of support and by advocating for more funding for programs like the Dream Resource Center.

    “Hopefully they think through what are some creative ways to proactively support immigrant students on and off campus,” Hong said.

    Kevin R. Johnson, professor and former dean of the UC Davis School of Law, said he is concerned that the election of Trump to a second presidency could deter undocumented students from attending public universities, even in California, where they are eligible for in-state tuition and where all three public college and university systems have legal services for undocumented students and family members.

    “I do think that over the next few months, we will see a great deal of fear and consternation in the immigrant community, including the immigrant student community,” Johnson said. “I fear that the general tenor and thrust of President Trump and some others about immigrants can chill undocumented students from attending a public university and be worried that any appearance in public places could lead to their removal.”





    Source link

  • California schools chief pledges to resist cuts in funding if Trump axes U.S. Dept. of Education

    California schools chief pledges to resist cuts in funding if Trump axes U.S. Dept. of Education


    Surrounded by education leaders from around the state, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond reacts to President-elect Donald Trump’s education agenda at a news conference in Sacramento on Nov. 8, 2024.

    Credit: California Department of Education

    California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond vowed on Friday to fight President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, which he said represented a “clear threat to what our students need to have a good education and a great life.”

    “We cannot be caught flatfooted,” Thurmond said, during a news conference.

    Thurmond made his pronouncement in Sacramento on Friday while flanked by legislators and education and labor leaders holding up signs saying “Education Is For Everyone” and “Protect All Students.”

    Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump has vowed to abolish the department, a long-standing and so far unfulfilled pledge made by Republican leaders dating back to former President Ronald Reagan.

    Thurmond said there are concerns that abolishing the department would put at risk some $8 billion that California receives in federal funds for programs serving students with disabilities and those attending low-income schools, both public and private.

    “We will not allow that to happen,” he said. “The law will not allow that to happen.”

    He observed, for example, that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA, guarantees students in special education programs a “free and appropriate education,” and to receive a range of special education services in an individualized education program drawn up for every special education student.

    Thurmond said Trump’s plan to defund the Department of Education would also harm students whose civil rights are violated and investigated through the Office of Civil Rights, including victims of racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, hate and bias toward LGBTQ students.

    “To tear down and abolish an organization that provides protections for our students is a threat to the well-being of our students and our families and of Americans,” Thurmond said.

    It was also not clear what would happen to student financial aid that the department administers, Thurmond said.

    The first line of defense in the fight against Trump’s education plan is the Congress, Thurmond said. He said his department is reaching out to legislators to affirm their commitment to public education — an issue that he says surpasses partisan labels.

    “Let me be clear,” Thurmond said. “This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of continuing to assure that students have access to the resources that they are entitled to under the law. And we will continue to do that, and we will work with the members of Congress to ask them to stand and support our students.”

    But Thurmond said that the California Department of Education is also preparing for a worst-case scenario: large-scale cuts to federal funding. In that case, he said, he is working with the California Legislature on a backup plan.

    “If it comes to it, as a contingency, we are prepared to introduce legislation that would backfill funding for special education programs, Title I programs and programs that are similar in its scope,” Thurmond said. Title I money supplements state and local education funding for low-income students.

    Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, the chair of the Assembly Education Committee, said that the state is prepared to stand up for all the students who are targeted by Trump’s policy proposals and rhetoric. He pointed to the threat of deportations of undocumented immigrants that would hurt large numbers of children of immigrants, as well as threats to other student populations.

    “It is the job of every teacher, every school board member, every principal, every elected representative in the state of California who believes in public education, it is time for us to stand up to protect all of these kids,” he said. “When we are facing a bully who is targeting our most vulnerable students, we all need to stand up.”

    “We need to get ready now for what is going to start on Jan. 20,” Muratsuchi said, referring to Trump’s second inauguration.

    In 2017, California enshrined into state law some federal laws or court decisions to protect the education rights of immigrant students, said Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez, deputy director of Californians Together, a statewide coalition that advocates for immigrants and multilingual learners.

    In the wake of Trump’s attacks on immigrants, Cruz-Gonzalez said it is important to remind school staff of those protections so that students and families will continue to feel safe and protected when they attend school.

    “It’s not enough to know that we have laws on the books,” Cruz-Gonzalez said. “We have to work together in coalition and ensure our superintendents, our school board members and our teachers know what to do to protect these rights.”

    The right to public education is the “cornerstone of democracy,” said Chinua Rhodes, school board member at Sacramento City Unified School District.

    “This is not just a political battle, it is a moral one,” Rhodes said. “Our schools should not abandon the most needy.”

    Louis Freedberg contributed to this report.





    Source link

  • Bay Area district settles suit alleging inequitable education practices

    Bay Area district settles suit alleging inequitable education practices


    Black students and English learners were disproportionately placed in special education in Pittsburg Unified, according to a lawsuit recently settled.

    Alison Yin/EdSource

    A Bay Area school district has settled a lawsuit claiming that Black students and English learners were denied a proper education and were disproportionately suspended, expelled or funneled into special education classrooms offering poor instruction.

    Pittsburg Unified School District in Contra Costa County reached the settlement on Oct. 23 in a suit filed in 2021 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

    As part of the agreement, the district agreed to hire two independent consultants to help address the issues raised in the case — the district’s disciplinary practices, special education placement and literacy education for students with disabilities, especially English learners. 

    “This is an excellent settlement that is an important step in the right direction for Pittsburg Unified,” said Linnea Nelson, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “It seeks to dismantle past practices that have marginalized students, particularly Black students, English learners and disabled students.”

    The case

    The lawsuit claimed that the district illegally denied meaningful instruction to Black students, students with disabilities and English learners; that special education teachers were not trained to teach disabled students grade-level standards, and that general education teachers were not trained to differentiate their instruction for disabled students.

    According to the complaint, one plaintiff, special education teacher Michell Redfoot, claimed that the district dissuaded teachers from holding special education students to the same standards as general education students. Another plaintiff, Mark S., an English learner with autism, spent his school days doing arts and crafts and watching Disney movies, instead of learning to read and write.

    Pittsburg Unified meted out discipline, including suspensions and expulsions, to disabled students and Black students at disproportionate rates, the complaint stated. The district had one of the largest disparities between Black and white students in the state for days of instruction missed due to disruption or defiance, according to the suit. It also claimed that Black students were transported to psychiatric wards at three times the rate of other students. 

    Jessica Black says her daughter, who has since graduated from high school, is still traumatized from an incident when she was in the sixth grade and the school called police, strapped her to a gurney and transported her to a psychiatric ward.

    “The fact that the state sanctions this level of violence — that we pay for with tax dollars — is egregious,” Black said.

    After the approval of the settlement at a meeting on Oct. 23, Pittsburg Unified board President Heliodoro Moreno read a statement on behalf of the board, stating that district practices affecting Black students, English learners and disabled students were not consistent with a district that views itself as a champion of equity and inclusivity. 

    “For instance, Black/African American students have and continue to have suspensions at a disproportionate rate than their peers,” according to the statement. “Our system requires consistent courage, honest dialogue, and continuous growth to interrupt practices that lead to disproportionate outcomes for our scholars, especially for some of our African American scholars and scholars receiving special education services.”

    The settlement

    Superintendent Janet Schulze said the district had been working to address issues even before the suit was filed and that the settlement process will ultimately improve the district in the long run.

    “The settlement agreement is focused on areas where we still have work to do, and I see it as a positive outcome of a hard process,” Schulze said in a statement to EdSource.

    The district agreed to hire two independent experts who will create a plan to address the issues.

    One expert, Mildred Browne, will address how the district disciplines students and places students into special education, while the other, Linda Cavazos, will address the district’s early literacy program for special education students with an emphasis on English learners.

    The district had previously been working with Browne and recognized the importance of retaining her.

    “It will allow us to continue and deepen the work we have been doing and were already doing when we were served with the lawsuit,” Schulze stated in an email to EdSource.

    Under the agreement, working with the district, Browne and Cavazos will create a plan by next May, and then, through 2028-29, monitor the district’s progress in implementing their recommendations. They will submit reports twice a year that will be publicly presented to the board.

    The district had previously come under scrutiny for its special education practices. The 2021 suit alleges that the district failed to implement recommendations to improve special education evaluations made in 2016 by Frances Stetson, another consultant. 

    According to Stetson’s report, “the positives to report are few and the concerns are many.” It noted that the district fell below the state requirement that disabled students spend at least 80% of their day in a general education classroom — a concern echoed in the 2021 suit.

    Nelson, the ACLU attorney, is hopeful that the district will address the issues this time because the settlement agreement is legally binding with accountability measures. 

    She added that the district has already taken important steps demonstrating good faith, such as eliminating “willful defiance” as a reason for suspension, ahead of a statewide requirement.

    Pittsburg Unified was flagged by the California Department of Education for having significant “disproportionality“, which happens when students of a certain race or ethnicity in a district are three times more likely to be identified as having a disability, receiving discipline or being placed in special education for three years in a row.

    Black students at Pittsburg Unified were more likely to be identified as having an emotional disability or other health impairment. But Schulze said the district is no longer flagged for significant disproportionality.

    Malhar Shah, an ACLU attorney who previously worked on the case as an attorney for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, said the settlement could create a program that is a model for other districts.

    Literacy is a hot-button topic in education right now, but Shah said that literacy instruction in California doesn’t always address the individual needs of a student. For instance, plaintiff Mark S. has unique needs as both an English learner and a student with autism. Teachers in California need training on how to best support all students with evidence-based literacy instruction, Shah said.

    However, Black, one of the parent plaintiffs in the suit, is not optimistic that the settlement will result in the serious change that students like her daughter would have needed. Her daughter’s time at Pittsburg Unified was marked by fighting to get her daughter the social-emotional support and tutoring she needed, Black said. But even under the threat of litigation, her daughter’s education didn’t improve. She said she lost faith in the district and the state of California.

    Ultimately, Black pulled her daughter out of Pittsburg Unified and sent her to St. Paul, Minnesota, to live with family members. She thrived in the school system there, graduating from high school early. A teacher at Pittsburg Unified told her daughter that welding or manual labor were her only career options. Black is proud that her daughter is currently studying to be a registered nurse.

    She said educators in Minnesota “stopped, paused and listened” to her daughter, and “considered what she needed.”

    The case against Pittsburg Unified also named the state of California as a defendant, claiming that, by not intervening, the state failed to protect students’ fundamental right to an education. The state settled its part of the case separately this summer.

    Shah said the state previously took a “hands-off approach,” relying on school districts to monitor themselves when data showed that certain racial or ethnic groups were disproportionately harmed by school practices.

    The state agreed in a settlement to monitor districts much more closely by reviewing individual student files, observing classrooms and conducting interviews. 

    Malhar said this is important because there are plenty of problems in school districts that don’t “pop up on paper.”





    Source link

  • Shortage of teachers and classrooms slows expansion of arts education in Los Angeles and beyond

    Shortage of teachers and classrooms slows expansion of arts education in Los Angeles and beyond


    EdSource file photo courtesy of Oakland School for the Arts

    Raising the curtain on California’s landmark arts education initiative, funded by voter approval of Proposition 28 two years ago, has been a highly complex endeavor marked by a lack of arts educators, classroom space and free time in school schedules, according to a new report.

    These challenges are among the key issues schools must address to make Proposition 28’s ambitious vision of arts education a reality, according to a new report studying the impact of the groundbreaking statewide initiative on schools in the Los Angeles area. Passed by voters in 2022 by a wide margin, the measure sets aside roughly $1 billion a year toward TK-12 arts education programs statewide.

    “Given the historic nature of this investment in arts education, all eyes are on California and our schools, and so we want to make sure that we get it right,” said Ricky Abilez, director of policy and advocacy at Arts for LA, the arts advocacy organization that commissioned the report. “I also know that there are a lot of really tough challenges that schools are facing on the ground.”

    Accountability is among the most critical issues in building trust with families, according to this analysis, which focuses on 10 Los Angeles school districts. The report recommends creating a statewide oversight and advisory committee of administrators, teachers, families and community partners to make sure that arts education funds are properly spent. It also calls for subsidizing teacher credential programs to combat the teacher shortage.

    “We hear these resounding calls for transparency from our community members, but many district arts leaders also share those same interests and concerns,” said Lindsey Kunisaki, the Laura Zucker fellow for policy and research, who wrote the report. “They wanted to make sure that they’re putting their best foot forward with Prop 28 implementation, but they also had questions about their peers and neighboring districts and wanted to make sure that ultimately everyone is doing their best work and using these funds responsibly.”

    The need to build bridges between schools, communities and families is part of what drives that recommendation. Roughly 66% of respondents to the survey were uncertain whether Proposition 28 was being implemented in their school, according to the report.

    “One of the central insights of the report is the link between confidence in Prop 28’s success and public involvement,” said Kunisaki, a research and evaluation specialist at the UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture’s visual and performing arts education program. “Respondents expressed less skepticism when they believed their communities were actively involved.”

    Arts education in schools can help foster a sense of social connection that has frayed in the wake of the pandemic, many experts suggest. The rub is that many community members express passion for arts education (89%) but have not yet gotten involved with their schools for a variety of reasons. Only 20% of respondents have been actively involved. 

    Districts with vibrant arts advisory councils make it easy to participate, Kunisaki notes, but other paths also exist.

    “If it isn’t clear how to get involved,” said Kunisaki, “then even just showing up at a school board meeting, getting to know the school site leaders, principals, that could be a great way to start the conversation.”

    Proposition 28 represents an attempt to bring arts education back into California schools after many decades of budget cuts eliminated many such programs. Before this influx of funding, only 11% of California schools offered comprehensive arts education, research suggests. Wealthier schools were far more likely to be able to fundraise enough to foot the bill for arts education.

    Spearheaded by former Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Austin Beutner, the measure is an attempt to give all students access to the arts, which has long been associated with everything from higher test scores to greater social-emotional learning.

    All the money must go to arts education, but that is very broadly defined. The disciplines include, but are not limited to, dance, media arts, music, theater and such visual arts as folk art, painting, sculpture, photography and animation. Film and video pursuits are also encouraged, from script writing to costume design. Each school community is invited to design the program to meet the needs of its students.

    The report also notes that some districts are falling behind others. While some districts quickly launched new arts ed programs, from music to dance, others are still in the planning phase, according to the report. Districts with preexisting arts councils and strategic arts plans have the upper hand. Proposition 28 funds are allocated based on enrollment, so larger schools get more money. Also, schools with more low-income students receive extra money.

    Uncertainty and confusion about the rules, heightened by a lack of clarity from the California Department of Education (CDE) on spending, have significantly complicated this process, the report suggests. 

    “One of the recommendations that I heard was basically for CDE to take more of a central leadership role,” said Kunisaki, “especially when it comes to oversight and accountability.”

    The long-standing teacher shortage also remains a critical obstacle. In 2022-23, California schools employed about 11,113 full-time arts teachers, primarily teaching music and visual arts. Another new Proposition 28 report, commissioned by the Hewlett Foundation’s Performing Arts Program and conducted by SRI Education, concluded that California must increase the arts teacher workforce by roughly 5,457 teachers to meet the new demand. Many experts estimate a much higher number.

    The need for greater transparency in the rollout of Proposition 28 is another key concern. At the core of Proposition 28 is the rule that funds are designed to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding, which means that you can’t use the new money to pay for old programs. Nevertheless, there have been reports of districts using the funds to pay for existing programs. Amid these allegations, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond issued a letter reminding superintendents of the law’s requirements.

    One potential fix, the study suggests, would be a statewide oversight committee charged with monitoring the rollout and settling disputes on key issues. 

    “There’s a real need for CDE to step in here, to create a more formal advisory and oversight committee, and most importantly, to include practitioners,” said Kunisaki.

    “That’s administrators at the district level, at the school site level, teachers, parents and guardians, families, students and community partners, because we know how important community involvement is.” 

    CDE has provided guidance in FAQs and webinars to help districts navigate the rules. Thurmond has also established a new task force to clarify the issues facing the field. It remains unclear whether the task force will provide the depth of oversight that many experts suggest is needed.

    “The California Department of Education commends the districts represented in this report who have approached Prop 28 implementation with urgency, care, and a commitment to expanding all students’ access to arts education,” said Elizabeth Sanders, spokesperson for the department. “Especially as California’s local educational agencies are still in the beginning of this implementation process, CDE will continue to provide guidance and technical assistance to support effective and robust implementation.”

    Beutner, the former LAUSD Superintendent who authored Proposition 28, is also calling on the department to hold districts accountable for how they spend the money. 

    “CDE needs to provide more leadership on the proper implementation of Prop 28,” said Beutner. “They’re understaffed to handle the implementation of a new law like this, but some of the confusion and misinterpretation that is happening is because CDE hasn’t been on top of this. CDE should be pursuing public enforcement action now against school districts that are alleged to have violated the law.”





    Source link

  • A new path for supporting Black students in higher education

    A new path for supporting Black students in higher education


    National University President Mark D. Milliron, right,,congratulates a graduating student at the university’s 2023 commencement.

    Courtesy: National University

    In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision to end race-conscious college admissions, the predicted impact has become a troubling reality. Many selective universities are reporting significant decreases in Black student enrollment this fall. This latest development continues a broader trend of declining Black postsecondary enrollment, which since 2010 has fallen at all U.S. colleges by nearly 30%.

    These dire enrollment reports are emerging now as a growing number of states are eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and services — and just four years after a nationwide reckoning on racial injustice. Whether colleges have become even more exclusive or if Black students are turning away from higher education, the results are the same: Our nation’s colleges and universities are becoming less diverse — and yet another barrier has been erected on the road toward increasing the number of Americans able to go to and graduate from college.

    Despite bleak national trend lines, the state of California has just enacted a creative policy solution that will shine a spotlight on institutions that excel in educating and serving Black students. Senate Bill 1348, also known as the “Designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Act,” creates a state-level designation (BSI) to recognize the state’s public and independent colleges and universities where at least 10% or 1,500 students are Black.

    The BSI designation is not just about enrollment numbers. It requires institutions to commit to providing essential services and resources to foster Black students’ academic success and meet their basic needs. For this reason, this proposal is a sound and logical policy prescription for California, which has the country’s fifth-largest population of Black people. It’s also a legislative innovation that other state and national policymakers should consider as American higher education is struggling to close completion and equity gaps and college demographics continue to grow more diverse.

    The BSI concept draws inspiration from the success of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) — postsecondary institutions established before 1965 with the principal mission of educating African or Black Americans. Today, the nation’s 107 HBCUs have an impressive track record. They have graduated 40% of the nation’s Black engineers, 50% of America’s black lawyers and 80% of Black judges. Perhaps more than any other institution in this country, HBCUs have helped create economic and social mobility for millions of Black Americans. 

    However, most HBCUs are at least 75 years old — the majority were established in the 19th century — and are rarely found outside the South. For newer colleges and universities outside the South that serve diverse populations, a BSI designation would strengthen institutions and communities in multiple ways. It would offer a state seal of approval to institutions that are committed to serving Black students and willing to hold themselves accountable for the results. It also would help policymakers identify colleges and universities to receive targeted financial support and other resources. 

    This shift is particularly relevant given the changing demographics of today’s college students. Nontraditional, working and military students are fast becoming the norm. A third of today’s undergraduates are 25 or older. A quarter of them are raising children. About 40% of full-time students — and three-quarters of part-time students — are working while they’re in school. Because so many students are older, working full-time or raising families, it’s essential that institutions adapt to this new reality by offering flexible schedules, stackable credentials and comprehensive support services. 

    The BSI designation could be a valuable tool for states beyond California. In states with substantial Black populations but few or no HBCUs (California has just one HBCU, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science), it could help increase college access, improve completion rates and build a more skilled and educated workforce to fuel economic growth.

    California’s proposal to recognize Black-serving institutions is a necessary — and long overdue — step toward acknowledging their critical role in reversing the decline in Black student enrollment and increasing access to higher education for historically underserved communities. Just as HBCUs have broadened access to education, California’s Black-serving institutions bill will reward colleges and universities statewide that are doing the vital work of serving the underserved students our economy and society need. 

    By investing in institutions committed to supporting Black students and other underserved groups, states can help foster stronger, more inclusive colleges and universities. Ensuring that more Black learners are on track to access and complete higher education will help California and other states produce the talented and inclusive workforce they need to compete in today’s fast-changing economy.

    •••

    Mark D. Milliron, Ph.D, is president, National University, a nonprofit private university based in San Diego with campuses across California as well as online. Thomas Stewart, Ph.D, is executive vice president and co-chair of the Social Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Council, National University.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Maybe we should get rid of the U.S. Department of Education

    Maybe we should get rid of the U.S. Department of Education


    Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

    In 1994, I was the press secretary for the U.S. Department of Education when Republicans took over Congress and threatened to shut us down. My then boss, Secretary Dick Riley, would joke in almost every speech he gave that each morning his wife would open the newspaper and say, “Hey! looks like they’re trying to fire you again!” He regularly talked about it because it quickly became clear to us that people deeply believed in the Education Department’s mission and that the threats against us were bad politics.

    I was thinking of this when I watched Donald Trump’s 10-point plan for education.  I was struck by its contradictory nature of wanting to dismantle federal involvement in schools, while simultaneously trying to dictate curriculum and impose ideological policies. The department was established in 1979 to ensure resources were being spent on our nation’s poorest children.

    Now, three decades after my time at the department, the same battle is resurfacing with a new twist. At its heart, what Trump’s really proposing is a hollowing out of the department’s founding mission — not a true decentralization of power to states, but a reimagining of federal oversight as a tool for ideological control instead of a protection for our nation’s most vulnerable.  

    But here’s the paradox: Without a Department of Education and federal resources, there’s less leverage to enforce his ideological agenda. As a result, we may be in a bizarre quandary of having to choose between these two opposite visions. Given the choice between a Department of Education that no longer champions equity and no department at all, perhaps it’s time to consider the latter.

    The plan, as I understand it, is to move higher ed funding (Pell Grants and student loans) and education research to other agencies while providing equity-driven K-12 federal funds as block grants to be spent however states want.

    In California, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) ensures that schools serving students with the greatest needs — low-income students, English learners and foster youth — receive additional resources. With LCFF, we’ve built a system that both works and meets this moment (though we may also need to codify our clear commitment to special education). As someone who has spent decades in education policy, I don’t say this lightly — in fact, it breaks my heart. But this moment calls for different thinking.  The U.S. Department of Education has been a force for good in countless lives. But it should not stand if it’s dictated by ideological agendas. Quality education for all children must remain our North Star in California, because when we center our most vulnerable students, we all succeed.

    •••

    Rick Miller is the CEO of CORE Districts, a collaboration of nine large California urban districts. He previously served as press secretary for the U.S. Department of Education and as deputy state superintendent at the California Department of Education.

    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

  • Trump nominee for education secretary would come backed with detailed policy agenda

    Trump nominee for education secretary would come backed with detailed policy agenda


    Linda McMahon, former administrator of Small Business Administration, speaking during the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee.

    Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of a close ally and the co-chair of his transition team indicates that education could be a major priority of his administration, even though it did not feature prominently in the 2024 presidential campaign.

    Linda McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, is a leading financial backer Trump has been close to for decades. She is also chair of the board of the little known America First Policy Institute, sometimes referred to as a “shadow transition operation” or “White House in waiting.”

    The institute has issued a detailed education policy agenda that is likely to serve as a guide for McMahon, and the Trump administration in general, should she be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

    For those reading the political tea leaves, it was notable that in nominating McMahon, Trump did not explicitly charge her with shutting down the U.S. Department of Education, and that the agenda of the America First Policy Institute does not call for it either. Instead, Trump called on her “to spearhead efforts to send education back to the states” an expansive and undefined charge, especially because by law education is already mostly a state and local function.

    Regardless of the fate of the department, the contrast between President Joe Biden’s and Trump’s education agendas — and between McMahon and current Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona — could not be wider. 

    Cardona is a lifelong educator, becoming secretary after a career as a teacher, principal, district administrator, and state commissioner of education. McMahon spent most of her career building the WWE, founded with her husband, Vince McMahon. 

    Cardona’s net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine to be $1 million, most of it tied up in his principal residence, retirement savings, and a 529 college savings account for his children. By contrast, Forbes places McMahon and her husband’s net worth at $2.5 billion. 

    The only thing they seem to have in common is that they are both from Connecticut. 

    But even though McMahon has a slim resume regarding education, she is not entirely an education neophyte. She studied to become a French teacher in college. She has been a trustee of Sacred Heart College, a Catholic college in Fairfield, Connecticut, for years. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education in 2009, although she left after a year to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and again in 2012 — both times unsuccessfully.  

    McMahon is more of a traditional conservative Republican than several of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees. In some ways, she is more similar to Betsy DeVos, another billionaire, who was Trump’s first secretary of education. But unlike DeVos, she has had experience in government, as head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.   

    In 2019, she left that post, not under a cloud or fleeing vitriol from Trump like many others in his administration, to head the America First PAC, which raised funds for Trump’s re-election bid in 2020. 

    On the explosive issue of “school choice,” publicly, at least, she has mostly called for expanding charter schools, rather than taxpayer-funded vouchers. “I am an advocate for choice through charter schools,” she declared in her 2010 campaign for Senate. 

    She also has some bipartisan instincts, even getting support from the Democratic senators she had previously run against, when they had to approve her nomination to head the Small Business Administration. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called her “a person of serious accomplishment and ability,” and Sen. Chris Murphy described her as a “talented and experienced businessperson.”

    As SBA administrator, she drew high praise from some Democrats for increasing loans to women-owned businesses, and for making the agency more efficient, including from then-Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneur Committee.

    Another sign of her bipartisan inclinations came in a September commentary in The Hill newspaper, when she argued for a radical revision of the Pell Grant, the main form of federal student financial aid. 

    While most Pell grants go to full-time students, McMahon argued that the grant should also be available to students enrolled in “high-quality, shorter-term, industry-aligned education programs that could lead to immediate employment in well-paying jobs.” 

    To that end, she endorsed a bill known as the Workforce Pell Act, sponsored by lawmakers usually on far opposite sides of the political aisle — Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., Bobby Scott, D-Va. 

    Arguably one of her key qualifications is that she and Trump have a positive relationship. Unlike many who served in his first administration and left reviled by their former boss, when she stepped down as SBA administrator, Trump praised her as a “superstar.” “Just so smooth,” he said. “She’s been one of our all-time favorites.”

    But her most important credential may well be her role as chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute, which she helped start.

    Its 150-person staff includes well-known Trump staffers like Kellyanne Conway and its executive director, Chad Wolf, the former secretary of homeland security. Pam Bondi, the head of the institute’s legal arm, was just nominated by Trump to be attorney general in place of Matt Gaetz, who withdrew his nomination.

    Like Project 2025, the conservative blueprint issued by the Heritage Foundation, which Trump has disavowed and says he had no role in crafting, the America First Policy Institute has also drawn up a similar detailed policy framework, including one on education. Yet the institute has not done much to publicize its proposals, which Trump has reportedly appreciated.  

    The institute draws a sharp contrast between its “America First” polices and what it calls “America Last” policies championed by Democrats.

    “America Last” policies, it argues, “prioritize radical ideologies and failing public schools.” These include promoting “transgenderism” and “radical ideologies over core subjects,” while fighting “school choice expansion,” and parent notification policies regarding curriculum and gender identification. 

    The institute calls for reinstating Trump’s 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic civic education” and removing critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion from what it alleges are requirements for federal grants.

    And instead of supporting “leftist teachers unions” and teacher tenure, it advocates for “reduced union influence, and increasing flexibility in hiring and firing.”

    For these and other reasons, it is to be expected that key education groups would oppose McMahon’s nomination. 

    “Rather than working to strengthen public schools, expand learning opportunities for students, and support educators, McMahon’s only mission is to eliminate the Department of Education and take away taxpayer dollars from public schools,” said President Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the U.S.

    But for conservatives like Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, McMahon is an unknown quantity when it comes to education, and he made a pitch for approaching her nomination with an open mind. “I’m looking forward to learning more about her views and approach to the role in the weeks to come,” he said. “I’d avoid gross assumptions based on biography. Those seeking reflexive celebration or condemnation should look elsewhere. “

    Controversy has already surfaced about her nomination. Media reports point to an October lawsuit in Maryland alleging McMahon and her husband failed to stop a prominent WWE ringside announcer in the 1980s and 1990s from sexually abusing 12- and 13-year-olds known as “ring boys” who were hired to do errands in preparation for wrestling matches.

    What is still an open question is whether Trump will move to eliminate the Department of Education, or how aggressively he will do so. His administration may decide that it is more important to keep the department intact for any number of reasons, including transforming its influential Office of Civil Rights into a weapon to impose his education agenda onto states or schools.

    And it is possible that McMahon will continue to voice her praise for teachers, and for public schools, including charter schools. “We have a very good system of public and private schools,” she said in an interview a decade ago. “I’ve watched some masterful teachers who are innovative and who are reaching kids who are below grade level in many of the subjects.  To see how they get turned around is heartwarming and astounding.”





    Source link

  • For a true meritocracy, education must not be one-size-fits-all

    For a true meritocracy, education must not be one-size-fits-all


    A student in Oakland’s Skyline High School Education and Community Health Pathway sculpts a clay model of the endocrine system.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    It’s time to balance out our lopsided education system. Millions of parents and students have long struggled with our one-size-fits-all model, which primarily teaches to, tests for and celebrates students as theorists, not practitioners.

    Our current system acts as a gatekeeper to the middle class by doling out opportunity based on grades and test scores in a traditional classroom setting, but rarely recognizes competencies and interests beyond standardized exams and essays.

    Fifty years ago, students could opt into publicly funded trade schools and apprenticeships or enroll in practice-based classes like home economics and shop in traditional academic schools, which taught skills that led to well-paying jobs in carpentry, culinary arts and other trades. But over time, public funding for such programs dried up. The share of federal spending on vocational instruction as part of elementary and secondary education dropped from roughly 30% in 1970 to just 7.5% in 2022. Even as elementary and secondary education spending ballooned from $5.8 billion a year to $96 billion during this period, the vocational component grew only from $1.8 billion to $7.2 billion.

    Most publicly funded instruction now happens at desks, with grading based on written exams, essays and problem sets rather than demonstrations and hands-on learning. Some students are more prepared than others to succeed in such a system, exacerbating existing inequalities. 

    Research by the Economic Policy Institute found that social class, as defined by parental income, education and job, is the leading predictor for a student’s school readiness: Kindergartners from the highest social class possess more theory-based skills and perform an entire standard deviation higher on math and reading tests than kindergartners from the lowest social class. The gaps are particularly high for Black and Hispanic students, who are more likely than white children to live in poverty. When some students inevitably falter, the system tells them they are failures and offers trade schools and technical colleges as second-tier alternatives they often must pay for themselves.

    It didn’t have to be this way. The United States originally based its system on a German/Prussian model, which prioritized efficiency by tracking students into “academic” or “vocational” tracks at age 10. In that model, still in place in Germany today, students are expected to know what they want to do by adolescence, and many simply end up in the same track as their parents. 

    The United States, hoping to advance a true meritocracy, did not want a system that limited intergenerational mobility in this way, and over the 20th century we adopted a liberal arts approach that was supposed to prioritize economic and social mobility. But in a myopic attempt to get rid of tracking, we inadvertently eliminated vocational education and simply tracked all our students into the academic model. The result? The worst of both worlds for less traditional students who struggle in a sink-or-swim academic system.

    Student outcomes now depend a lot on parents’ backgrounds, just like in Germany.

    There is another possibility. Consider Finland, which in the 1970s switched from the German model to one that teaches a combination of academic and technical subjects until age 16, when students choose a track. The vocational path for students interested in highly -skilled trades includes carpentry and culinary arts, but it also offers applied sciences, health care, and social services, which in the United States would require attending traditional academic universities. 

    Finland’s vocational path is highly competitive and includes matriculation at rigorous polytechnic universities with high-level training in subjects like business, engineering and nursing and quality instructors with connections to actual companies — not an alternative education. With a system that celebrates the value of highly skilled thinkers and workers, Finland recently ranked first out of 143 countries on the World Happiness Report for the seventh consecutive year, and as of 2021, its income inequality is eighth lowest among 37 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the United States ranks 23 on the World Happiness Report, and its income inequality is down at 33, beating only Turkey, Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica).

    Of course, the United States is not Finland, and we cannot simply adopt its system. (Though before you discount Finland because of its smaller or more homogeneous population, consider that its size and composition are comparable to many U.S. states, and much of U.S. education policy is decided at the state level.) What we can do is stop deciding who is educated, intelligent and successful based on only one type of student. Instead, we should recognize the value of all students, and offer more mainstream career and technical opportunities across K-12 education. 

    States and the federal government should fund more career and technical education, including apprenticeships, hands-on learning courses and training and recruitment for vocational teachers. They should work with employers, schools, training organizations and other groups to tie education to the workforce needs of their region. 

    Everyone should be given the opportunity to pursue a traditional academic education, but they should also be able to pursue an equally rigorous vocational one, equipped with public resources and support. Only then will the middle class truly be open to all.

    •••

    Eric Chung is a lawyer, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project. His work focuses on law and policy related to economic mobility and educational opportunity.

    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

  • Playing the long game in an uncertain education policy climate  

    Playing the long game in an uncertain education policy climate  


    Credit: RDNE stock project

    As California emerges from a divisive national election, it is crucial to remain clear-eyed about the risks ahead while pursuing bold strategies to address them. There are many domains in which state and local leaders can still work to improve the lives of Californians, and education offers one of the clearest examples. Historically, education policy has been shaped at the state and local levels, and California has the tools to lead the nation by championing sensible, evidence-based policies that create better outcomes for children and families. 

    That work has never been more important. California’s education system faces four pressing challenges in the wake of COVID-19. Student achievement continues to lag behind other states, with performance gaps remaining unacceptably wide. Chronic absenteeism is also hindering recovery efforts, as many children and families remain disengaged from schools. Additionally, schools are falling short in equipping students with the skills needed for career readiness, real-world success, and active participation in a complex democracy.  Meanwhile, brutal culture wars are consuming vital attention and resources from addressing these critical issues. Tackling these challenges head-on and developing targeted solutions is essential for driving meaningful progress. 

    Parents care deeply about how their children are learning, and California urgently needs a comprehensive strategy to improve student achievement. Even before Covid-19, the state’s overall performance—and outcomes for students from historically underserved racial and ethnic groups—lagged behind the national average.

    Any improvement strategy must start with every teacher having high quality, comprehensive instructional materials and the training to use them effectively. One clear model for this kind of reform is the “science of reading” movement, which has been adopted by many states but not yet embraced by California.

    One need not agree with every element of the science of reading to recognize that Mississippi’s suite of reforms pushed the state from nearly last in national rankings to above the national average. Their approach offers a model of a state that had a clear instructional point of view, supported that vision with a well-crafted policy, and saw impressive outcomes as a result. California would do well to embrace the idea that state policy can meaningfully shape teaching and learning when implemented with purpose and precision.  

    However, students cannot learn if they are not at school in the first place.  Chronic absenteeism in California more than doubled after the pandemic, rising from 10% to 24% in the 2022-23 school year, affecting over 1.4 million students. It’s a pervasive issue that cuts across all types of schools and students. While the causes of this crisis are not fully understood, several ideas merit policy responses.

    Access to school-based mental health services remains inadequate and disproportionately limited for students of color and those from low-income families. Districts must collaborate across systems to expand these services and ensure they reach those most in need. Additionally, the school violence and bullying epidemic causes parents to question whether sending a child to school is safe. Therefore, efforts should be made to eradicate violence and bullying on school campuses.

    California ranks near the bottom of all states in terms of access to school-site physical health services, making greater access to affordable, quality healthcare for low-income students critical. To tackle this crisis effectively, districts need localized strategies that identify the specific drivers of absenteeism in their communities and implement targeted interventions to support affected students. 

    The goal is not to simply get students to school, but to ensure that their determination to stay translates to strong job opportunities and overall well-being — whether they enroll in college or go directly into the workforce. For districts, paving the way begins well before high school.

    Encouraging progress is being made in the region to expand student access to high-wage, high-interest careers. Public-private partnerships can help districts better equip students with well-paying jobs by developing career pathways in fields like technology and healthcare, progressing from foundational skills to advanced competencies. District administrators can join forces with local colleges to build cross-sector strategies to better prepare students for college success. These efforts should include paid internships in high-demand professions, such as health care, allied health professions, high technology, or green technology.  Notably, several organizations (UniteLA, Growing Inland Achievement) and others are already driving this important work in Southern California, providing a model for other regions to follow. 

    To gain traction on these meaningful issues, advocates, parents, and policymakers must lower the temperature around divisive “culture war” issues that are currently sucking up too much of the air in the room.  Where there are areas of sharp moral disagreement, we must demand civil discussion and respect differing viewpoints. California’s public schools must remain spaces where all parents feel comfortable sending their children. While debates about the goals of education are inevitable — and even vital to a healthy democratic process — allowing school boards and education leaders to be overtaken by partisan, nationalized politics only hinders progress. By focusing efforts on the pressing challenges, we all recognize we can move forward and create solutions to improve our children’s lives.  

    We don’t yet know what the national election portends for California’s schools, and some federal actions could escalate with serious potential consequences for the state’s students and families. In times of uncertainty, it is prudent to focus on local education improvements rooted in strong evidence. By prioritizing proven strategies that advance long-term goals, California can continue to strengthen student learning across the region’s schools and colleges, regardless of broader political shifts. 

    •••

    Patricia Burch is a professor of education at USC Rossier School of Education and faculty co-director of the USC Education Policy Hub.

    Morgan Polikoff is a professor of education at USC Rossier School of Education and faculty co-director of the USC EdPolicy Hub.

    Jon Fullerton is a research professor and executive director of the USC EdPolicy Hub.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link