برچسب: Education

  • Artificial intelligence isn’t ruining education; it’s exposing what’s already broken

    Artificial intelligence isn’t ruining education; it’s exposing what’s already broken


    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    A few weeks ago, my high school chemistry class sat through an “AI training.” We were told it would teach us how to use ChatGPT responsibly. We worked on worksheets with questions like, “When is it permissible to use ChatGPT on written homework?” and “How can AI support and not replace your thinking?” Another asked, “What are the risks of relying too heavily on ChatGPT?”

    Most of us just used ChatGPT to finish the worksheet. Then we moved on to other things.

    Schools have rushed to regulate AI based on a hopeful fiction: that students are curious, self-directed learners who’ll use technology responsibly if given the right guardrails. But most students don’t use AI to brainstorm or refine ideas — they use it to get assignments done faster. And school policies, built on optimism rather than observation, have done little to stop it.

    Like many districts across the country, our school policy calls students to use ChatGPT to brainstorm, organize, and even generate ideas — but not to write. If we use generative AI to write the actual content of an assignment, we’re supposed to get a zero.

    In practice, that line is meaningless. Later, I spoke to my chemistry teacher, who confided that she’d started checking Google Docs histories of papers she’d assigned and found that huge chunks of student writing were being pasted in. That is, AI-generated slop, dropped all at once with no edits, no revisions and no sign of actual real work. “It’s just disappointing,” she said. “There’s nothing I can do.”

    In Bible class, students quoted ChatGPT outputs verbatim during presentations. One student projected a slide listing the Minor Prophets alongside the sentence: “Would you like me to format this into a table for you?” Another spoke confidently about the “post-exilic” period— having earlier that week mispronounced “patriarchy.” At one point, Mr. Knoxville paused during a slide and asked, “Why does it say BCE?” Then, chuckling, answered his own question: “Because it’s ChatGPT using secular language.” Everyone laughed and moved on.

    It’s safe to say that in reality, most students aren’t using AI to deepen their learning. They’re using it to get around the learning process altogether. And the real frustration isn’t just that students are cutting corners, but that schools still pretend they aren’t.

    That doesn’t mean AI should be banned. I’m not an AI alarmist. There’s enormous potential for smart, controlled integration of these tools into the classroom. But handing students unrestricted access with little oversight is undermining the core purpose of school.

    This isn’t just a high school problem. At CSU, administrators have doubled down on AI integration with the same blind optimism: assuming students will use these tools responsibly. But widespread adoption doesn’t equal responsible use. A recent study from the National Education Association found that 72% of high school students use AI to complete assignments without really understanding the material.

    “AI didn’t corrupt deep learning,” said Tiffany Noel, education researcher and professor at SUNY Buffalo. “It revealed that many assignments were never asking for critical thinking in the first place. Just performance. AI is just the faster actor; the problem is the script.”

    Exactly. AI didn’t ruin education; it exposed what was already broken. Students are responding to the incentives the education system has given them. We’re taught that grades matter more than understanding. So if there’s an easy shortcut, why wouldn’t we take it?

    This also penalizes students who don’t cheat. They spend an hour struggling through an assignment another student finishes in three minutes with a chatbot and a text humanizer. Both get the same grade. It’s discouraging and painfully absurd.

    Of course, this is nothing new. Students have always found ways to lessen their workload, like copying homework, sharing answers and peeking during tests. But this is different because it’s a technology that should help schools — and under the current paradigm, it isn’t. This leaves schools vulnerable to misuse and students unrewarded for doing things the right way.

    What to do, then?

    Start by admitting the obvious: if an assignment is done at home, it will likely involve AI. If students have internet access in class, they’ll use it there, too. Teachers can’t stop this: they see phones under desks and tabs flipped the second their backs are turned. Teachers simply can’t police 30 screens at once, and most won’t try. Nor should they have to.

    We need hard rules and clearer boundaries. AI should never be used to do a student’s actual academic work — just as calculators aren’t allowed on multiplication drills or Grammarly isn’t accepted on spelling tests. School is where you learn the skill, not where you offload it.

    AI is built to answer prompts. So is homework. Of course students are cheating. The only solution is to make cheating structurally impossible. That means returning to basics: pen-and-paper essays, in-class writing, oral defenses, live problem-solving, source-based analysis where each citation is annotated, explained and verified. If an AI can do an assignment in five seconds, it was probably never a good assignment in the first place.

    But that doesn’t mean AI has no place. It just means we put it where it belongs: behind the desk, not in it. Let it help teachers grade quizzes. Let it assist students with practice problems, or serve as a Socratic tutor that asks questions instead of answering them. Generative AI should be treated as a useful aid after mastery, not a replacement for learning.

    Students are not idealized learners. They are strategic, social, overstretched, and deeply attuned to what the system rewards. Such is the reality of our education system, and the only way forward is to build policies around how students actually behave, not how educators wish they would.

    Until that happens, AI will keep writing our essays. And our teachers will keep grading them.

    •••

    William Liang is a high school student and education journalist living in San Jose, California.

    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

  • Secretary of ED McMahon Wants to Destroy US Education with Her Budget!

    Secretary of ED McMahon Wants to Destroy US Education with Her Budget!


    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released her budget proposal for next year, and it’s as bad as expected.

    Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, reviewed the budget and concluded that it shows a reckless disregard for the neediest students and schools and outright hostility towards students who want to go to college.

    We know that Trump “loves the uneducated.” Secretary McMahon wants more of them.

    Burris sent out the following alert:

    Image

    Linda McMahon, handpicked by Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Department of Education, has just released the most brutal, calculated, and destructive education budget in the Department’s history.

    She proposes eliminating $8.5 billion in Congressionally funded programs—28 in total—abolishing 10 outright and shoving the other 18 into a $2 billion block grant. That’s $4.5 billion less than those 18 programs received last year.

    Tell Congress: Stop McMahon From Destroying Our Public Schools

    And it gets worse: States are banned from using the block grant to support the following programs funded by Congress:

    • Aid for migrant children whose families move frequently for agricultural work
    • English Language Acquisition grants for emerging English learners
    • Community schools offering wraparound services
    • Grants to improve teacher effectiveness and leadership
    • Innovation and research for school improvement
    • Comprehensive Centers, including those serving students with disabilities
    • Technical assistance for desegregation
    • The Ready to Learn program for young children

    These aren’t just budget cuts—they’re targeted strikes

    McMahon justifies cutting support for migrant children by falsely claiming the program “encourages ineligible non-citizens to access taxpayer dollars.” That is a lie. Most migrant farmworkers are U.S. citizens or have H-2A visas. They feed this nation with their backbreaking labor.

    The attack continues for opportunity for higher education:

    • Pell Grants are slashed by $1,400 on average; the maximum grant drops from $7,395 to $5,710
    • Federal Work-Study loses $1 billion—an 80% cut
    • TRIO programs, which support college-readiness and support for low-income students, veterans, and students with disabilities, are eliminated
    • Campus child care programs for student-parents are defunded

    In all, $1.67 billion in student college assistance is gone—wiped out on top of individual Pell grant cuts. 

    Send your letter now

    And yet, McMahon increased funding for the federal Charter Schools Program to half a billion dollars for a sector that saw an increase of only eleven schools last year. Meanwhile, her allies in Congress are pushing a $5 billion private school and homeschool voucher scheme through the so-called Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).

    And despite reducing Department staff by 50%, she only cuts the personnel budget by 10%.

    This is not budgeting. It is a war on public education.

    This is a blueprint for privatization, cruelty, and the systematic dismantling of opportunity for America’s children.

    We cannot let it stand.

    Raise your voice. Share this letter: https://networkforpubliceducation.org/tell-congress-dont-let-linda-mcmahon-slash-funding-for-children-college-students-and-veterans-to-fund-school-choice/  Call Congress.

    Let Congress know that will not sit silently while they dismantle our children’s future.

    Thank you for all you do,

    Carol Burris

    Network for Public Education Executive Director



    Source link

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office criticizes Newsom’s education budget for risky funding practices

    Legislative Analyst’s Office criticizes Newsom’s education budget for risky funding practices


    Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, right, listens as Ken Kapphahn of the Legislative Analyst’s Office critiques Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed education budget at a hearing on May 22.

    Credit: State Senate Media Archive

    Top Takeaways
    • A drop in project state revenue projections from January to May, while avoiding cuts, would compound a dilemma.
    • Newsom also would increase funding for early literacy and after-school programs.
    • Key legislators share concern about draining the rainy day fund and deferring payments.

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office is criticizing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s spending plan for next year for schools and community colleges. It says the May revision of the 2025-26 state budget would create new debt, rely on one-time funding to pay for ongoing operations, and drain the education rainy day fund to pay for new programs and enlarge existing ones.

    The Legislature should reject the financially unsound practices, which would “put the state and districts behind the eight ball” if state revenues fall short of projections, Ken Kapphahn, senior fiscal and policy analyst for the LAO, told the Legislature’s budget committees on May 22. 

    The LAO provides the Legislature with nonpartisan analysis and advice on fiscal and policy issues.

    In his budget for 2025-26, Newsom would protect TK-12 and community colleges from a $4.4 billion drop in projected state revenue between his January and revised May budgets and add $2 billion in spending to the administration’s priorities, which include:

    • Qualifying more students for coverage of summer and after-school learning through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program ($526 million).
    • Hiring more math and literacy coaches and training teachers in literacy instruction ($745 million). The money would reflect legislation that the Legislature is expected to pass requiring textbooks and instruction practices to incorporate phonics and foundational skills.
    • Reducing the student-to-staff ratio in transitional kindergarten from 12 to 1 to 10 to 1 ($517 million).
    • Paying stipends for student teachers ($100 million).

    The biggest budget challenge is that the projected Proposition 98 guarantee for 2025-26 — the minimum portion of the state’s General Fund that must be spent on TK-12 and community colleges — fell $4.4 billion — from $118.9 billion in the initial budget in January to $114.5 billion in May — because of revised revenue forecasts for California that project a drop in stock market earnings and uncertain impacts from President Donald Trump’s economic policies.

    Newsom’s May budget would include some cuts and savings from, for example, lower projected enrollment in transitional kindergarten. It would also withdraw or reduce nearly $400 million in community college funding for updating data systems and investing in Newsom’s Master Plan for Career Education (see Page 28 of his budget summary).

    But he’d primarily rely on financial tactics that the LAO cited as fiscally risky and unwise:

    • Committing $1.6 billion in one-time funding for ongoing funding, a strategy that could leave the state short of funding starting a year from now;
    • Depleting the Prop. 98 rainy day fund by $1.5 billion;
    • Issuing a $2.3 billion IOU by pushing back paying $1.8 billion for TK-12 and $532 million for community colleges from June 2026 to the next fiscal year in 2026-27. This deferral, though only for several weeks, creates a debt that must be repaid. Paying it off will eat into state revenue for districts and community colleges in the subsequent year. 

    Issuing deferrals and digging into the state’s reserves have been done before during recessions and financial emergencies, but should be viewed as “a tool of last resort,” not as solutions to difficult spending choices, Kapphahn said. 

    “The state historically has tried to contain spending during tight times to protect funding for core programs,” its critique said. “May Revision would task districts with hiring staff and expanding local programs based on funding levels that the state might be unable to sustain.”

    Neither LAO nor Newsom is predicting a financial recession, but both project weakened state revenues over the next two years.

    The LAO’s option

    The LAO put forward an alternative budget that it claims would meet the revised, lower Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantee for 2025-26, including a required 2.3% cost-of-living adjustment for community colleges and schools. It would avoid deferrals, reduce $1.6 billion in ongoing spending, and reject many of Newsom’s one-time spending proposals, including literacy training and materials. 

    Instead, consistent with local control, it would increase an existing discretionary block grant to let districts choose how to spend much less new money.

    Negotiations in the coming weeks between Newsom and legislative leaders will determine what’s in the final budget. However, two Democratic leaders who chair budget committees overseeing education in the Assembly and Senate said they shared the LAO’s skepticism. 

    Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said he felt uncomfortable recommending increased funding for individual programs that “set us on for being in trouble next year.”

    “If we do all this, and the projections are accurate,” he said at the May 22 hearing, “there will not be enough money to pay off deferrals and make the COLA. The decision to put us in that position we are making now, potentially creating a bad situation for next year.”

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, who chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, said he too is concerned that the proposed budget would deplete the last $1.5 billion of the rainy day fund, which was $8.4 billion only two years ago.

    At the same time, he agrees with Newsom’s new spending on literacy instruction and funding for stipends for student teachers. And he would add in money for ethnic studies that Newsom didn’t include. Without the funding, the mandate for a semester-long ethnic studies course that the Legislature required, starting in 2025-26, cannot take effect.

    Alvarez didn’t suggest budget cuts to make room for ethnic studies.





    Source link

  • California students have a unique opportunity to shape education policy

    California students have a unique opportunity to shape education policy


    California State Board of Education student member Julia Clauson talks with First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom at a convening on smart phones hosted by the governor.

    As national conversations about the role of states in public education unfold, it’s crucial to center these discussions around the most important stakeholders in our school system: students. In California, we ensure that student voices are included in policymaking by empowering them to become policymakers.

    Within our state, there are numerous opportunities for students to get involved in education policy. One of the most significant opportunities for California students is applying to be the student board member for the State Board of Education, a position I currently hold. Every year, the governor appoints one student to serve, and the application and selection process takes place during the applicant’s junior year.

    In fact, Gov. Gavin Newsom recently appointed my successor to the board, Vanessa Ejike, who is currently a junior at Whitney High School in Cerritos, California.

    As my one-year term on the State Board of Education comes to an end this July, I reflect on the incredible opportunity I’ve had to represent the nearly 6 million students in California public schools. It’s an immense responsibility to be the only student with voting rights on the board. As the application opens for students in the class of 2027, I highly encourage all students to learn about the position and consider applying.

    After the applications are received this fall, a screening committee for the State Board of Education selects 12 semifinalists, who are then invited to the Student Advisory Board on Education (SABE) hosted by the California Association of Student Councils. At SABE, the semifinalists present themselves to student delegates from across the state through speeches and question-and-answer sessions. This is a wonderful opportunity for them to showcase their advocacy, passions, and commitment to leadership. Finally, the student delegates at SABE vote for the top six candidates.

    The top six semifinalists then interview with members of the State Board of Education, who select three finalists. During these interviews, candidates have the chance to share more about their past leadership experience, the topics they care about, and why they should be considered for the role. The board members select the three top candidates, who are then submitted to the governor’s office for interviews in the following months. The final selection is made by the governor.

    Although the process may seem daunting, each step of the journey offers students opportunities to challenge themselves and develop leadership skills. I remember enjoying the chance to advocate for my community, share my perspective on policy, and engage with passionate students.

    Since being appointed by Gov. Newsom, I have been able to connect with students from across California and work hard to bring their voices to the forefront of policy discussions. Outside of the board meetings in Sacramento, I have liaised with the Statewide Model Curriculum Coordinating Council and provided feedback on the developing Native American Studies curricula. I have also engaged with the National Association of State Boards of Education through their Student Advisory Council. Meeting and collaborating with student representatives from other states has been incredible, and together, we have worked to propose new policies that make high schools more engaging.

    Last November, I met with the governor, the first partner, and various policymakers and educational leaders to discuss cellphone policies and restrictions. I was able to echo the concerns of my peers, amplify student voices, and learn from our leaders in education, health, and government.

    To better connect with the diverse student body in California, I established the first student board member social media account (@ca_sbe_studentboardmember on Instagram). Since its inception, I’ve used the account to make policy more accessible by sharing information about board meetings, highlighting other student leaders, and providing opportunities for students to get involved with various councils and scholarships.

    These are just a few examples of the impact the student board member can have. Each student who assumes this role has the freedom to make the position their own, identify their own priorities, and share their unique perspective.

    Applying to be the student board member was initially daunting, but I’m incredibly grateful I took the step. Competing for the position offers applicants invaluable leadership and communication skills, fostering collaboration with various stakeholders in education policy.

    All students in the class of 2027 should definitely apply to be the next student board member. It’s truly an exceptional and unique opportunity for students across California.

    •••

    Julia Clauson is the current student board member for the State Board of Education, California’s K-12 policymaking body for academic standards, curriculum, instructional materials, assessments and accountability.

    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

  • Californians without high school education by county

    Californians without high school education by county


    Match your donation today

    EdSource has been on it when big shifts happen – like the Department of Education shutting down many areas of their work. But we also remain committed to following the long-term stories in our communities and having an impact through our reporting.

    Help us have an impact through data-driven, factual reporting. Your donation will be matched through June 11.





    Source link

  • How California can achieve what the public actually wants from education

    How California can achieve what the public actually wants from education


    Three high school Linked Learning pathway students don lab coats as they collaborate on a hands-on science experiment, bringing classroom learning to life through real-world application.

    Courtesy: Linked Learning Alliance

    California’s Golden State Pathways Program is a historic commitment to career-connected learning.

    In January 2025, $470 million in grants began flowing to hundreds of school communities across the state. These are huge investments, based on a proven approach to education called Linked Learning, which carefully integrates rigorous, college-bound academics with hands-on career learning experiences and strong student supports — all connected by an industry theme that meets workforce needs within the local community.

    For example: In Porterville Unified School district, which serves California’s rural central valley, nearly every high school student is enrolled in a Linked Learning college and career preparatory pathway related to thriving local occupations, including those in energy, aviation, agricultural technology, and other fields. The district has an impressive 99% graduation rate, 94% of its alumni enroll in postsecondary education, and 25% percent of students earn industry-recognized certificates while still in high school. Similarly, by offering Linked Learning pathways focused on health sciences, information technology, child development and other high-growth careers, the more urban Oakland Unified School District has boosted its rates of high school graduation and completion of college-preparatory credits, and reduced absenteeism and discipline issues.

    Both the extraordinary new Golden State Pathways Program (GSPP) funding and the California Master Plan for Career Education, recently released to guide educators and labor market leaders across the state, empower school leaders to build such learning pathways for their students. We wholeheartedly affirm this work.

    But truly effective Linked Learning practice — the kind that extensive third-party research links to excellence and equity — requires more than working through a checklist of courses and activities. It takes intentional integration of each aspect of student experience, thoughtful measurement and supportive policy.

    To this end, we offer three key recommendations: 

    1. District leaders should push for true college and career integration. Rather than maintain the long-standing divide between college prep curricula and career-technical education, Golden State Pathways Program resources can be applied to make core academic subjects more engaging and useful by connecting them to themed pathways focused on the high-opportunity, high-wage careers that correspond to real workforce needs in each region. Classroom learning should sync with similarly themed sequential career-technical education courses and work-based learning, like internships and apprenticeships. Districts should engage students and families to ensure pathway options are well understood, aligned with student interests, and connected to workforce demands. As modeled in Porterville and Oakland, the right industry themes bring learning to life in very tangible ways, and they build skills and mindsets that translate to success in any field of future study or employment.

    2. Researchers should inform and strengthen program implementation. Rather than wait for parents and legislators to ask, “did this pathways investment work?” participating regions should develop a robust and proactive research agenda in coordination with local communities to begin generating evidence that improves outcomes along the way. Understanding student experiences, opportunities and outcomes in pathways is essential for strengthening the program over time. Research on the conditions that return the strongest results can help spread best practices across rural, suburban and urban communities.

    3. Policymakers should remove barriers to effective implementation. We cannot keep asking high schools to do everything they currently do and layer additional tasks on top of it all. State and local policies that enable waivers, flexibility, or alternatives to A–G requirements for UC/CSU admissions would increase time and space in students’ schedules to engage in work-based learning. Policymakers should also build in incentives for collaboration and coordination between K–12 and postsecondary institutions to enable purposeful dual-enrollment opportunities that accelerate all students toward a valuable credential. To further our recommendation in point two above, policymakers should also ensure data systems that tag students in pathways to lower the barriers and costs of high-quality research on program outcomes. 

    Washington DC and California are moving in dramatically different directions on education. Where the nation is pulling back, we are charging ahead. We must continue to see this progress through. By acting on these recommendations, we prove a point: that government can respond in good faith to the public it serves. And we do not fail to miss the point of it all: that our future depends on getting education right for young people.

    •••

    Ash Vasudeva is president and CEO of ConnectED: The National Center for College and Career, an organization that partners with school, district, and community leaders to transform education through Linked Learning pathways.

    Anne Stanton is president and CEO of the Linked Learning Alliance, an organization that leads the movement toward educational excellence and equity for every adolescent through high-quality college and career preparation.

    Editors’ note: Anne Stanton is a member of the EdSource board of directors. EdSource maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage. 

    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

  • Are you cut out to be the next student member of the California State Board of Education?

    Are you cut out to be the next student member of the California State Board of Education?


    Anya Ayyappan, left, being sworn in as the student member of the California State Board of Education by Board President Linda Darling Hammond.

    Credit: Courtesy California State Board of Education

    As education policy and issues at school boards across California continue to grab headlines, it’s more important than ever that K-12 students — especially those in a state as diverse as ours — have a representative at the table who can voice concerns and have their opinions and input heard.

    That’s why, as the current student member of the State Board of Education, I strongly encourage all eligible high school students to apply to be the student member for the 2025-26 school year. The application window is now open.

    As student member, you can represent the voice and perspectives of millions of students across California. Your input ensures that student concerns and interests are considered in educational policymaking and decisions made by the State Board of Education. Your insights and experiences as a student can shape policies related to curriculum, standards, assessments and other aspects of education in California.

    During my term, I have advocated for increased student involvement in decision-making processes like adopting instructional materials, designing local control and accountability plans and determining actionable goals based on school climate surveys. I have also forged connections with student leaders across California’s various regions, including the Central Valley and Northern California, that have been traditionally underrepresented.

    These channels of communication allow for coordinated student-led initiatives and diverse input on items discussed by the state board. Based on my conversations with students, I have supported the integration of artificial intelligence in classrooms and increased project-based learning opportunities.

    Recently, I joined the Statewide Model Curriculum Coordinating Council to review lesson plans on Native American history and culture, ensuring they capture authentic, diverse voices. I will be continuing this work beyond my term.

    In addition to providing me with the opportunity to serve my state, this role has given me a deeper understanding of California’s education system. Seeing the incredible work that is being done, along with all the work that remains to be done, has had a profound impact on me, sparking my desire to continue exploring education policy in college.

    Serving on the board provides you with a unique learning experience regarding governance, policymaking, and the educational system. You’ll gain valuable insights into how decisions are made at the state level and how they impact students and schools.

    The application is the first step. The selection process starts with the board’s Screening Committee reviewing all applications and selecting 12 semifinalists. Of those 12, California law requires that student members of a school district governing board select six for further consideration by the State Board of Education. The state board uses the annual Student Advisory Board on Education conference — which takes place Nov. 10-13 in Sacramento — to perform this function. 

    At this conference, the semifinalists make individual presentations to all other advisory board participants about why they should be the next student member — an incredible opportunity to gain valuable experience and make personal connections. Following a secret ballot by the advisory board participants, six candidates will be submitted for further consideration by the state board’s Screening Committee.

    Each of the final six candidates will be interviewed by the committee, after which committee will recommend three finalists to the State Board of Education. Following the board’s action to select the three finalists, the names of the three finalists will be sent to the governor for the final decision.

    Hopefully, after reading this, many students will be inspired to apply. If you or someone you know qualifies for the student member position and wish to apply, you have from now through Sept. 20 to do so. And with summer coming soon, we encourage you to apply soon.

    If appointed by the governor, you’ll have the opportunity to network with other board members, educators, policymakers and stakeholders in the education field. This networking can open doors to future opportunities and collaborations.

    Serving on the board can enhance your leadership, communication and advocacy skills. It’s a chance to develop as a leader and make a meaningful impact on education in your state while also enhancing your resume and future academic or career opportunities.

    Merely going through the process allows you the chance to gain valuable experience and provides many opportunities to help your community. It also helps you think more critically about the education system and how your help can impact students across our state.

    As a student, your voice is powerful. I highly encourage you to apply!

    •••

    Anya Ayyappan is currently serving as the student member of the California State Board of Education. She is a senior at Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon.

    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

  • ‘Fixing the core’: U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona vows to promote equity

    ‘Fixing the core’: U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona vows to promote equity


    U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, left, speaks to members of the Education Writers Association at annual conference.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona answered questions about this year’s rocky rollout of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid Application (FAFSA), civil rights violations and Covid recovery, among other topics, on Thursday, at the Education Writers Association’s annual conference in Las Vegas. 

    Erica L. Green, a White House correspondent for The New York Times moderated the discussion — which was followed by a Q&A from the audience. 

    “I have the opportunity to see as a father, what my daughter and my son are experiencing as students, and it fills me with joy to see the promise, the opportunities that are available,” he told the audience in his opening remarks. “And that’s what we’re fighting for in this Biden/Harris administration.”

    Here are the highlights from his discussion on current issues in education, which have been edited for length and clarity: 

    Does the department understand the “gravity” of this year’s rocky FAFSA rollout?

    As frustrating as it was to be a secretary of education, to see the delays and the setbacks that we were having, I know it was much more frustrating for families, for students, for school leaders. But we’re also aware that this system, right now, is going to get better, and it’s going to continue to get better every year. You know, we’re at 10.4 million submissions. We’re 11% lower than we were last year, which is something that we’re working directly to address. Then applications are being processed. We’re working with colleges very closely. We’re working with superintendents, parents, community partners — (this) is all hands on deck.

    Did student loan debt take precedence over the FAFSA rollout? 

    As a first [generation] college student, the system wasn’t working for too many Americans in this country. … I would be more frustrated with myself if I looked back and I didn’t do anything about it (the FAFSA rollout).

    We’ve been devoting resources to FAFSA since we got in. We recognized early on that it needed to be delayed, and we continue to find ways to move it along. But no, the idea of we took resources away from (the effort to reduce student debt) to do that (revamping FAFSA) is false. 

    We have a very aggressive agenda to fix a broken system. We fix Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Seven thousand people got it in four years over the last administration. Ninety percent of people were denied. Now we have over $50 billion just in debt relief for teachers, nurses, service members, people that are serving our community. So, there is a lot of work that we are doing to fix a broken system. Improving FAFSAs is part of that. 

    Is the Office of Civil Rights ready to tackle a constantly growing load? 

    There’s an influx of practices that promote exclusion, that target students who, many times, are already vulnerable. We’re seeing, in many states, laws being passed that really, in my opinion, divide and make students feel less welcome in schools.

    We are prepared. We are pushing for additional funding for investigators when these cases come forward. But we’re also being proactive through our officer-based partnerships. We’re not waiting for incidents to happen to then address it. We’re working very closely on creating materials (and) guidance resources. We work very closely with university leaders, K-12 leaders on what they could do. We redesigned our website to make sure that the resources that we have in D.C. are two clicks away….

    We are working proactively but also being very intentional about communicating with both Democrats and Republicans that we have 60 less investigators now than we did in 2009. We have about three times as many requests for investigations. We need to make sure that we’re not just talking about supporting our students, but making sure we’re funding it. 

    Will cases be resolved by the end of this year? 

    Some cases take over a year because what the investigation request comes in as, often changes once we get people on the ground investigating. …  I don’t want to speak to timelines and investigation in a hypothetical sense. 

    I will tell you they’re priority for OCR (the Office for Civil Rights). And what we’re doing is communicating the resolutions that we come up with. You know, the goals of these investigations are not just to say you were wrong, but to say this student was harmed, and you have to provide restitution. How are you going to do that so that this doesn’t happen again? We want to lift those up and make cases out of those in a way that other universities can learn from it.

    How should districts navigate attacks to pipeline programs for specific demographics? 

    Let me start off by sharing an experience that I had: I was speaking at a commencement, and the word “equity” was scrubbed out of my bio. Let that sink in for a second. 

    The level of scrutiny that our leaders are under is ridiculous. In my conversations, whether it’s a college leader or a district leader, they’re telling me we have to navigate this. This is political interference. … We’re going to do everything in our power to make sure students feel welcome, are seen for who they are, respected, and let the political stuff stop at the doorstep. 

    Is the department prepared for potential attacks to key civil rights cases?  

    Nothing really surprises us. … We’ve seen book bans just take over. Forty-seven percent of the books that were banned were books on LGBTQI or BIPOC-themed. … What was once done in the shade is now being done in the sunlight. It doesn’t surprise me. We are prepared. I trust our educators to know how to make students feel welcome and supported and how to create a community in our schools. 

    Has the administration had an opportunity to be aggressive to get schools on track post-Covid? 

    We released the Raise the Bar strategy early on. We’ve been focusing on comprehensive schooling. … We were up to $200 million in full-service community schools, which helped address chronic absenteeism, parent engagement. … We’re focusing on career pathways. We have more states now that have career pathways. We have teacher apprenticeships in 30 states. We had zero when I came in. 

    In terms of mental health, we have 40% more school social workers, counselors, 25-30% more nurses. … What we’re doing is focusing on the core of what works. We know good teaching and learning works. We are really raising the bar on the teaching profession. … We’re defending public education, focusing on good Title I programming, making sure our students have access to multilingualism in this country. I’m talking about embracing multilingualism as a superpower. 

    What do you want to be remembered for?

    We’re focusing on fixing the core of education — literacy, numeracy, giving students access to higher levels of that, addressing inequities in our schools by addressing mental health issues, by making sure we have a professional workforce that is respected and is going to want to come back. 

    We’re losing teachers. We have a lot of schools in our country that have 20-30% of the teachers are substitute teachers. So we’re doing that, and we’re improving affordability and access to higher education. To me, there’s no silver bullet. … It’s about really being student-centered and making sure we’re focusing on the things that actually move the needle in the classroom, while also addressing inequities by being bold.

    Are Jewish students’ civil rights violated under Article 6 of the Civil Rights Act when that Jewish student is told that Israel should not exist?

    If a student feels that they are being attacked for who they are — their faith or who they are, where they come from — and they feel that they’re being violated, or they feel harassed, it is the responsibility of the college to act. And if the investigation comes forward, it’ll be reviewed by the Office for Civil Rights.

    Is anti-Zionism a civil rights Article Six violation? 

    We do take into consideration anti-Zionism in the investigations that we’ve made, as the executive board in the last administration requires us to do. 

    What are your thoughts on diversity, equity and inclusion bans? 

    Those programs are intended to make sure that (students) feel welcome on those campuses. That’s the bottom line. And there’s a myth out there that they promote only some and not others. Well then, fix it. I believe a lot of the issues that we’ve had in this country — in the last two months on campuses — could have been corrected with strong programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion, because they teach students, and they embrace a culture where you can disagree but still be a part of a community, which is what we didn’t see on some campuses. 

    So for me, as a Latino, it really concerns me because I remember my experience when I was the first one in my family going to a college, and I didn’t know anyone there. It’s programs like that that helped students like me, 30 years ago, feel welcome, seen and unapologetic for who they are. 

    What is the department’s plan to fund districts to reduce absenteeism? Is the department willing to call for grant proposals to address the challenge? 

    A big part of the focus of those full-service community schools is focusing on attendance. The funding for that since the president took office … is five times more. In our budget, we have a proposal for $8 billion. A big chunk of that would be for addressing chronic absenteeism. And there’s already $250 million in grants. 

    Do you release any form of guidance on book bans? 

    The biggest difference from my current position to every other position I’ve had since I was a fourth grade teacher is that I don’t influence, promote, dictate curriculum. Those decisions are state level decisions. … 

    For me, as a teacher, CRT (critical race theory) is culturally relevant teaching. … When we teach in a way that’s culturally appropriate with materials that reflect the beautiful diversity of our country, students engage better. We talk about chronic absenteeism, right, making students feel welcome and seen. We have the opposite happening. …

    We are engaging through our Office of Civil Rights to provide support for those districts and how to handle situations like that and inform districts of what the rights are. We actually sent folks from the Office of Civil Rights … to states when requested to help them understand how to navigate political terrain, while doing what’s right for kids.  

    Where does special education fall in your top 10? 

    It’s very high, I would say; you know, definitely one of the priorities, but we address it by saying we need to fund our public schools. When I talk about defending public education, I recognize there are students with disabilities that need to make sure that public education dollars don’t dry up. 

    You know, when I was a school principal, we had ratios of like 25 to 30 students with special needs with one teacher. Those ratios just get higher. School counselor-to-student ratios are like 600 to 1 in a lot of parts of our country. When I talk about making sure we’re funding public education, it’s the students with disabilities that also are said to lose a lot if you don’t do that. … 

    I’m not into shiny things, I’m into what works in the classroom: funding Title I, funding our classrooms. Giving our schools the resources that they need will go to those special education students as well. …

    Special education students or regular education students first. We can’t put them in a corner, put them in a box and say “these are your resources over here.” Every teacher should be qualified to serve students with disabilities. 

    Have schools spent enough Covid relief money on the priorities you outlined?

    I do believe that districts focus on academic recovery, mental health support and making sure that facilities are safe for students to return. … 

    As these … dollars sunset, we’re passing the baton back for state and local leaders who recognize that when used well, we get students back to school, we close achievement gaps, we provide the mental health support that our students need. So, let’s not take our foot off the gas pedal. And, we have a blueprint of those priority areas that work, and we see data from our districts that show, when used well, it does work. We just can’t stop now. 





    Source link

  • Arts education: Will misuse of funds undermine the Proposition 28 rollout?

    Arts education: Will misuse of funds undermine the Proposition 28 rollout?


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    At first, Caitlin Rubini, a veteran dance teacher at a school north of Sacramento, was thrilled when Proposition 28 passed with its promise of bringing arts education to all California students. Participation in the arts can help students recover from trauma, make social connections and increase engagement in school, research has long shown, all critical issues in the post-pandemic era. This kind of boost may have the greatest impact on children from low-income families, experts say, the very cohort Rubini teaches.

    Her excitement turned to devastation when she heard that the dance classes she teaches at El Dorado county’s Union Mine High School are slated to be axed next year due to budget cuts, despite all the extra state funding, roughly $1 billion, now earmarked for arts education every year. 

    “It’s devastating. I cry most days. This is my life; I have dedicated so much energy to it,” said Rubini, who has taught dance at Union Mine for nine years. “There’s been no transparency as to where these funds have been disbursed. It’s just been crickets. … We feel like we’re being thrown under the bus.”

    Rubini, who had just finished choreographing the school’s production of “Peter Pan,” says she was informed she would no longer be teaching dance next year. She has gathered 100 signatures from students who support the program and roughly a dozen students protested the cuts at a El Dorado Union High School District board meeting.  They chanted “Music, dance and drama too. Save the arts for me and you.” 

    Union Mine principal Paul Neville has countered that the school is doing its best to meet student needs given declining enrollment and a shrinking budget.  

    “Enrollment in the dance program has decreased, while interest in drama has increased. In response to our students’ changing preferences, and the needs for other classes, we are adding theater sections,” he said. “We are exploring different ways to support this change and provide dance instruction within the theater program.”

    Rubini is among a growing group of arts teachers concerned that some districts may be misspending their Proposition 28 money, using the new funds to pay for existing classes or activities outside the scope of arts education. In a letter to the governor, a coalition of arts education advocacy groups argue that school districts facing a budget crunch may be misapplying the funds.

    “We are concerned that some school districts are making decisions without input from their communities and not complying with Prop 28,” the letter reads. “Some school districts are encouraging arts education teachers to resign, promising to rehire these teachers using Prop 28 funds.”

    Teachers, students and parents throughout the state are asking where the money, which landed at schools in February, has gone, and why some arts programs are being cut. 

    “My biggest issue is that they are not only misusing the Prop. 28 funds, but at the same time cutting our performing arts programs dramatically,” said an arts teacher in Lake County, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We have serious budget issues, but this is too much for me to take without a fight.”

    While Proposition 28 was designed to prioritize hiring new arts teachers — most schools are required to use 80% of funds on staff  — this teacher alleges the school is using the money to pay for electives it has long offered. Similarly, teachers unions have alleged that LAUSD, the state’s largest school district, has spent arts education money on other activities. Some parent advocates are also pushing for more transparency on how the funds are spent.

    “When you look at the hours of arts instruction and they haven’t changed, how can you say arts instruction has increased?” said Rachel Wagner, the mother of a fourth grader at Encino Charter Elementary School and a leader of Parents Supporting Teachers, an advocacy group with roughly 40,000 members. “It’s very black and white in my mind.” 

    LAUSD officials maintain that overall arts education is up in the district. This year, the district budgeted $129.5 million toward the arts, in addition to $76.7 million from Proposition 28, for a total of more than $206 million. That’s roughly three times the $74.4 million that LAUSD spent on arts education in the previous academic year, according to a district news release. 

    At the core of Proposition 28 is the notion that funds are specifically designed to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding, which means that you can’t use the new money to pay for old programs. Former LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner, who authored the legislation, has characterized the law’s implementation so far as a C-minus. 

    “Some school districts either don’t wish to recognize the plain language of the law or are willfully violating the law,” Beutner said. “And they’re using money to backfill existing programs.” 

    Abe Flores, deputy director of policy and programs at Create CA, one of the advocacy groups that sent the letter, says that some school leaders may be unintentionally out of compliance with the law.

    “Right now, we are in this phase of raising awareness,” he said. “We know principals are super busy. They have a lot of things on their plate. Proposition 28 may not be on their radar.” 

    The bottom line, Flores said, is if a school district is spending Proposition 28 funds but has not increased its arts staff, then by definition, it is violating the law. The coalition wants the state to make school districts prove they’ve hired more arts teachers, explain their plans for the future and get community input.

    That’s precisely what Rubini and her department chair, Heather Freer, are calling for: greater accountability on how the money is spent going forward. 

    “Transparency isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s the law,” said Freer, visual and performing arts department chair at Union Mine. “We should be able to look at the budget and see where money is spent and see what’s going on.”

    Budget cuts looming in the wake of the state’s deficit may be making matters worse for school administrators looking for stopgaps amid myriad troubles, including falling test scores, staffing shortages, chronic absenteeism and rampant misbehavior in the wake of the pandemic.

    “Schools are looking for ways to save money,” said Jessica Mele, the interim executive director of Create CA, which advocates for high quality arts education. “In the absence of guidance from the CDE (California Department of Education), they will use the funds how they want.”

    Another wrinkle may be that schools were intended to decide how to use the money, in response to the needs of their individual communities, but since the money gets funneled through the district, that hasn’t always happened. 

    To make matters worse, some say the CDE, which is administering the funds, has not provided enough guidance on how the rules work, leaving many in the dark about exactly what’s allowed and what’s not. For his part, Beutner has called for the state auditor to hold feet to the fire.

    “Let’s be real; the only reason districts are cutting any arts positions now is because they think they can replace it with Prop 28 funds and get away with it,” said Beutner. 

    Thus far, the CDE has been offering guidance largely through webinars and FAQs designed to help districts best use the funding.

    “CDE is aware of localized concerns about the use of funds,” said Elizabeth Sanders, a spokesperson for the department. “CDE takes such concerns very seriously and is working directly with district leaders to ensure that all statutory requirements are understood and followed. We are offering this support proactively and in partnership, to ensure that all of our students receive rich arts education opportunities.”

    Sanders also said the department did not wish to interfere with the auditing process built into Proposition 28 accountability measures. The auditor will review all spending, and if the auditor finds that schools are misusing the money, they risk losing the funds.

    Many have long argued that more oversight may be needed on how schools spend money, particularly during times of shrinking budgets. 

    “California school districts have been taking money for years that was provided for specific purposes and using it for other initiatives and the state Department of Education ignores it,” said Jack Jarvis, former adjunct faculty at Cal State Fresno and a veteran administrator. “There used to be a lot more oversight. Back when I became an administrator, there was much more scrutiny over school categorical funds.” 

    Some also argue that a lack of clarity on the complicated Proposition 28 rules might be partly to blame. For example, if a school is forced to cut its music program because of budget cuts, can it be revived the next year with Proposition 28 money? Would this run afoul of the supplant rule? Or could a waiver suffice? Many say the rules remain blurry.

    “The Prop 28 rules seem clear enough on paper, but when you get into the weeds of budget development and the myriad of situations and circumstances that schools face in implementing an instructional program, they get far more fuzzy,” said Phil Rydeen, visual and performing arts director at Oakland Unified, which has long had a robust arts curriculum. “With little specific help from the CDE on the minutiae of Prop 28, it may indeed mean that districts will need to get through an audit to figure out what is actually permissible or not. In OUSD, we are being as conservative as we can be until we understand the impact of the Prop 28 rules.”

    This lingering uncertainty over the rules is leading some schools to delay using the money.

    “There are FAQs that sort of contradict one another,” said Letty Kraus, director of the California County Superintendents Arts Initiative. “If you look at FAQ 19, it says schools can pool resources and share staff, and FAQ 20 says you can’t reallocate funds to sites. So I can see how it would be confusing.”

    Others believe that it may be more a matter of convenience than confusion. They say some administrators are playing fast and loose with the rules.

    “They say that it is confusing legislation,” said Freer, who says the number of arts classes this year has remained the same despite the new money being spent. Next year, she says, there are even fewer arts classes planned. That adds up to less arts, she says, not more. “It is not confusing legislation. There is no lack of clarity.”

    Flores, however, points out that ambiguities in the rules may exist. 

    “I wouldn’t go that far to say that they’re cheating,” said Flores. “I would say that there’s definitely some confusion and there’s definitely some wishful thinking in terms of the flexibility of the funds. There’s been a lot of confusion around some of the key points.” 

    Coupled with the fear of running afoul of state auditors, this cloud of uncertainty may have a chilling effect on the rollout at large, leading some schools to delay their pursuit of arts education just when children, still reeling from the aftershocks of the pandemic, need it most.  Some arts educators are proceeding with caution, waiting to see how the rules are enforced before they proceed.

    “Prop 28 is fraught with these kinds of problems,” Rydeen said. “It places well-meaning districts trying to maximize the impact of this resource with fidelity in a very difficult circumstance, hoping that they don’t guess incorrectly about applying the regulations.”

    Many are calling for clearer and more explicit instructions before local education agencies (LEAs) are held accountable by audits.

    “I suspect that lack of decisive guidance and being told to ‘consult legal counsel’ may be having a chilling effect for some LEAs who are understandably risk-averse,” said Kraus. “It would be helpful to have an accountability mechanism before the audit.”

    For his part, Flores says his organization is not looking to play “gotcha” with schools, which are already overstressed and understaffed in the post-pandemic era, but instead to work with administrators to boost their arts education offerings.

    “We want to be helpful,” he said. “We know most people want to do the right thing, and we want to create the situation, the resources, the awareness, the sharing of promising practices, so folks can do the right thing and and folks can plan and share their knowledge.” 

    For her part, Freer hopes she can raise awareness of just how vital dance is to many students. The class is crucial to keeping students engaged in school in the post-pandemic era, she says, when chronic absenteeism and apathy are running high. 

    “Especially at our school, the arts is a haven for our students who don’t have other reasons for coming to school,” said Freer. “We have a lot of kids who are at risk of disengaging from school. We hear it every day as arts teachers, (kids saying): ‘I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for you. I wouldn’t care if it wasn’t for you.’”

    Some are also arguing that private philanthropy, such as parent donations, should not be counted as part of the baseline that can’t be supplanted because it is not funded by the state, not to mention variable.

    Parents have labored long to raise enough donations to pay for a part-time art teacher in San Diego Unified, where Kimberly Cooper’s daughter attends a cash-strapped school. She and other parents were hoping that Proposition 28 would mean that hard-earned, parent-fundraised money could now go to raise the pay of the Spanish teacher, for instance.

    “I am frustrated as a parent who has fundraised and donated for arts in our school,” Cooper said. “The issue of not supplanting parent fundraising isn’t just unfair, it’s impractical. It’s a struggle every year to meet our fundraising goals, because our limited sources are tapped out. We aren’t a school where parents can fundraise for a new donor-named auditorium.”

    Some see this as an equity issue because richer communities will not have to fight as hard to raise funds year after year to meet the baseline. They are also far more likely to already have some expertise in how to develop arts education programs, which may exacerbate existing inequities in who has access to the arts. 

    Schools that have “disinvested in the arts over the years don’t have that expertise in-house, and they need help,” said Mele, the interim executive director of Create CA. “They’re struggling to know what kind of decisions to make… That’s where we see some inequities.”

    Best practices for building an arts ed program from scratch is just one of many tricky issues that advocates are calling for more guidance on from the California Department of Education, which some say has been hard to pin down on many specifics, such as what constitutes good cause for a waiver and whether parent donations are counted against the baseline.

    “Where the CDE could clarify but has not clarified is what constitutes baseline arts education funding at a school for the purposes of determining what is ‘supplanting’ versus ‘supporting’ existing arts education funds,” Mele said. “For example, do grant funds or PTA funds count? Or is it just state education dollars that count as the baseline? If PTA funds don’t count, then a school could use Prop 28 funds for arts programming that were formerly paid for with PTA funds and re-allocate PTA funds elsewhere.”

    Proposition 28 author Beutner has long maintained that all funding should be counted as part of the baseline, but many are still waiting for the CDE to weigh in on the issue. 

    The “CDE has stayed silent on which funds ‘count’ as existing arts education funds,” said Mele, “leaving it up to schools and districts to figure this out by consulting their own legal counsel.”





    Source link

  • Lack of reliable education data hamstrings California lawmakers and the public

    Lack of reliable education data hamstrings California lawmakers and the public


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    This story was updated to more accurately describe the data availability issues. Details.

    Public data posted by the California Department of Education has been incomplete, often outdated and occasionally inaccurate, forcing legislators to pass laws based on old data, researchers to delay inquiries and journalists to grapple with inaccurate information.

    Californians, living in a state known globally as a center of innovation and technology, have had to cope with a state education agency that has admittedly lacked the staffing and the policies to provide much-needed data, EdSource reporting has found. 

    As a result, there are gaps in the knowledge needed by lawmakers, researchers, journalists and others to evaluate state programs and policies, from teacher demographics, to how many English learners become fluent in English each year, to how districts have spent a $50 million court settlement to improve early literacy.

    Obtaining data from the California Department of Education (CDE) has been difficult, said Christopher Nellum, executive director of The Education Trust-West, one of the state’s most prominent social justice and advocacy organizations. There have been delays in the public release of data and a lack of consistency when it comes to the annual publication of key data sets, he said.

    “In an ideal world, we would have a legislature in a state that is making data-informed decisions about legislation, and then making data-informed decisions about assessing the efficacy or impact of investments, or the interventions, and this is difficult in the state of California right now,” Nellum said.

    The CDE collects data about student achievement and demographics, enrollment, course information, discipline, graduation rates, staff assignments and other data, much of it mandated by legislation. 

    Some data have not been updated by the department for as long as five years. The most recent available data for teacher demographics, pupil-teacher ratios, course enrollment, and class size is from 2018-19.

    “In an ideal world, we would have a legislature in a state that is making data-informed decisions about legislation, and then making data-informed decisions about assessing the efficacy or impact of investments, or the interventions, and this is difficult in the state of California right now.”

    Christopher Nellum

    The dashboard that tracks the annual progress of K-12 students on standardized tests, chronic absenteeism, suspensions and graduation was also suspended or only partially updated due to the pandemic-related school closures until Dec. 2023. The Legislature suspended the reporting of state and local indicators on the 2020 and 2021 dashboards and, because the state didn’t have prior-year data to measure growth in 2022, that year’s dashboard was published without the full-color display.

    Cindy Kazanis, the director of the Analysis, Measurement and Accountability Reporting Division at CDE, said many of the delays in reporting data have resulted from “not having enough boots on the ground.”  The department is in the process of recruiting and hiring 17 new staffers.

    New state mandates and changes in the way data is collected also have impacted data collection, Kazanis said. The five-year delay in updating some data is because the department has a backlog of reports and data that must be reconfigured because the state changed course codes in 2018-19, she said.

    Legislation based on old data

    An EdSource examination of recent state education bills shows that legislative staff have sometimes had to rely on outdated CDE data to complete analysis meant to help legislators make decisions about whether to pass laws.

    One example is an analysis of Assembly Bill 2097, which used department data from 2018-19, the most recent year it was available, to show computer science offerings in California high schools, and the number and gender of students enrolled in them. The bill, if passed, will require school districts to offer computer science courses to high school students, who will be required to complete a one-year course before graduating.

    An analysis of Assembly Bill 2429 also relied on data from five years ago. The legislation mandates health education courses, required by some districts to graduate, including instruction on the dangers of fentanyl use. The legislation passed on June 13.

    “The committee may wish to consider that course-taking data, which is important for policy analysis and evaluation, has not been updated by the CDE since the 2018-19 school year,” stated the analysis. “The CDE reports that this data will be updated in 2024.”

    Since 2018, legislators also have required that several new datasets be added to the CDE website, including absenteeism by reason, a stability rate, restraint and seclusion, special education, college-going rates, teacher assignment monitoring outcomes, five-year graduation rates and homeless students by dwelling type, according to the CDE.

    Assembly Bill 1340, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October, mandates that the department post test scores, suspensions, rates of absenteeism, and graduate and college-going rates for students with disabilities, disaggregated by federal disability category, on its website. 

    The analysis of the bill for the Assembly Education Committee was terse. “When this committee is asked to evaluate the effect of a policy on a subset of students with disabilities — for example, students who are visually impaired — it requires data about this subgroup of students’ progress on academic and other measures. Under current CDE practice, a single number for all students with disabilities is shown, obscuring important information about students’ progress, which is needed for evidence-based policymaking and to provide transparent information for the public,” it read. Legislators could not be reached to comment.

    Unreliable public information

    EdSource journalists working on news stories have struggled in several cases to obtain accurate, up-to-date data from the California Department of Education. This year, EdSource had to twice remove data after publication because the analysis was based on incorrect data that the department had published on its website. In both cases, school district officials notified CDE that they had inadvertently submitted incorrect data to the department, but the agency did not correct the information online.

    The timing of data releases has also been an issue. When CDE refused to publicly release state test scores after districts began releasing the information to parents, EdSource enlisted legal help to require CDE to comply with the California Public Records Act

    In September 2022, just months before the election that re-elected Tony Thurmond as state superintendent of public instruction, the CDE refused an EdSource request for Smarter Balanced test scores, saying they would not be released until sometime later in the year. EdSource wrote about the delay and enlisted an attorney to write a letter outlining why the data was public information. Within a week, the department announced the scores would be released in October, before the election. The Legislature subsequently required the department to release test scores annually by Oct. 15. 

    Nonprofits, schools share data

    Because of the difficulty obtaining education data from the state, many nonprofits and collaboratives have started collecting their own data or creating online tools, so the public can more easily access CDE data.

    The Education Trust-West, which has campaigned for clear and accessible data through its Data for the People initiative for over a decade, developed a data visualization tool that uses public data on California K-12 and higher education systems. Because much of the data comes from the CDE, information is limited to what the department has made available. 

    CORE Districts, a collaborative of nine California school districts serving more than a million students, collects data directly from districts for its Insights Dashboard. CORE collects data from its member districts, as well as 124 other school districts and charter schools, so that comparisons can be made. But the effort doesn’t come near reporting on all nearly 1,000 districts.

    “We regularly get requests from researchers to look at our data,” said Rick Miller, CORE Districts’ chief executive officer. “Going through the CDE process is so cumbersome.”

    Lack of data stymies researchers

    Education data that is not being collected or made publicly available recently became the central topic of a gathering of California researchers discussing educator diversity, said Kai Mathews, project director for the California Educator Diversity Project at UCLA.

    “What we realized is that some people had some information that’s not publicly available, and it largely depended on past relationships,” Mathews said. “So some data is actually probably collected, it’s just not publicly shared with all of us.” 

    Mathews and Nellum agree that a lack of updated teacher demographic data is particularly perplexing, given the teacher shortage and the number of workforce issues facing teachers. The Education Trust-West has had to delay some of its work because it hasn’t been able to obtain teacher data, Nellum said.

    “That is bad for students. It’s bad for schools. And, of course, it’s bad for any sort of hope we have of advancing equity,” Nellum said.

    EdSource requested updated teacher demographic information from CDE earlier this year for a series of stories on recruiting and retaining Black teachers, an issue Superintendent of Public Instruction Thurmond had called a priority. The data was last updated in 2018-19, despite being submitted to the department annually by school districts. After sending five email requests over a month, the reporter never received the data from the CDE. Instead, the reporter used data from 2020-21, the most recent year available, from the National Center for Education Statistics. 

    Alix Gallagher, the director of strategic partnerships at Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), says the lack of data on universal transitional kindergarten makes it unclear whether the state is optimizing the annual investment it is making in the grade. California will spend an estimated $3 billion a year by 2025-26, when universal transitional kindergarten (TK) will be offered to all 4-year-olds, Gallagher wrote in a commentary on the PACE website.

    The state should collect data on the features of transitional kindergarten programs and on student outcomes from transitional kindergarten through second grade, to better understand the effectiveness of transitional kindergarten, she wrote.

    “Right now there isn’t publicly available data for roughly the first third of a kid’s career in the public schools,” Gallagher told EdSource. “We now have universal access to TK, kindergarten, first, second and third grades. And, at the end of third grade, kids take the SBAC (Smarter Balanced Assessment). And that’s the first time, as a system, we know anything about kids’ learning.”

    In fact, this year’s test scores show 57% of third-graders reading below grade level and 55% doing mathematics below grade level. 

    CDE data division staffing up

    An annual $3 million investment from the state will allow CDE to add 17 new employees to improve data reporting to the public, Kazanis said. Twelve of the new employees have been hired. The Analysis, Measurement and Accountability Reporting Division currently has 66 employees.

    Some of those resources are headed to CDE as part of the state’s launch of the first phase of its Cradle-to-Career Data System sometime this year. The longitudinal data system will provide tools to help students achieve their goals and deliver information on education and workforce outcomes, according to the website. It may also give researchers the data they are seeking.

    “I’m hopeful though, because the Cradle-to-Career data system is working on a teacher dashboard, which I know will have a lot of the data that we have been waiting for,” said Nellum, who also is a member of the Cradle-to-Career (C2C) Advisory Board. Nellum spoke to EdSource for this story as a representative of The Education-Trust West and not as a member of the C2C board. 

    Eight of the employees will make up the new Data Visualization and Insights Office. It will collect data at the request of state policymakers and the California State Board of Education and work to make publicly available data more user-friendly, Kazanis said.

    The state funding includes $300,000 to move the release date of the California School Dashboard data up incrementally each year until the annual release date is Oct. 15. This is expected to happen in 2026. Last year, data which includes test scores, graduation rates and student demographics was released on Dec. 15. Two data teams work on the dashboard full-time all year, Kazanis said. 

    The influx of new staff is expected to allow the department to revamp DataQuest to make it more user-friendly, Kazanis said. The new teacher reports, for example, will allow the user to make comparisons among districts, she said.

    Seven new positions will focus entirely on generating teacher data, Kazanis said. 

    “We’ve wanted to get out from under this backlog, but part of it was recognizing that we did need more resources, and we need dedicated resources to be focused on teacher data.”

    Friday: California launches the Cradle-to-Career data system, a long-awaited project to track student progress

    California prepares to launch first phase of new education data system | EdSource

    This story has been changed to correct the spelling for Tony Thurmond, California superintendent of public instruction and to reflect that some data sets have not been updated for the past five years, not seven years as originally stated. The paragraph about the California School Dashboard has been updated to make clear that the dashboard was suspended by the Legislature during the Covid pandemic.





    Source link