برچسب: equitable

  • California’s public charter schools — and their students — deserve equitable funding

    California’s public charter schools — and their students — deserve equitable funding


    A teacher and students at Aspire Inskeep Academy in Los Angeles.

    Courtesy: Aspire Public Schools

    In times of crisis, we should be looking for ways to help, not hinder. But in California, the inequities in public school education funding are only deepening the crisis for too many students.

    On top of the devastating social-emotional and academic effects of the pandemic, our communities have been dealing with widespread staffing challenges, culture wars and frequent unfair attacks on educators. And in cities across California, projections suggest that public school enrollment will continue to drop — creating a crisis for practically all schools across the state.

    Public charter schools face all of these challenges and more. At Aspire Public Schools, a charter school network serving more than 15,000 students in 36 schools across the state, our student population is more than 85% Black and Latino, and the vast majority of our students are experiencing poverty. Yet since the day we were founded, we’ve been forced to get creative with limited resources: Aspire students — like all public charter school students in California — receive less funding than their peers in traditional public schools.

    According to new research from the University of Arkansas, the problem remains severe. In the 2019-20 school year, Los Angeles public charter school students received $5,226 less per-pupil funding than their counterparts in traditional public schools. In Oakland, the gap is even larger, at $7,103. This is driven by a lack of public funding. In both cities, public charter schools receive less local, state and federal funding than their counterparts in traditional public schools.

    Why? While both public charters and traditional public schools receive the same amount of base funding under California’s Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, that doesn’t mean the total funding is equal. One reason for this is that schools receive additional funding for higher-need student categories and for higher concentrations of students in those categories, known as “concentration grants.” However, charter school concentration grant amounts are capped based on the average student demographics for the district in which they reside. This means that public charters are, in effect, penalized for serving a greater share of high-need students than their district. There are also a number of local, state and federal funding streams that are only accessible to traditional public schools —for instance, voter-approved local funding for operations or capital projects.

    I’m not writing this to complain. We are honored to serve our school communities and our wonderful, talented scholars. It’s hard work, but unequal funding makes it harder. The more time we have to spend fighting tooth and nail for basic resources, the less we can spend educating California’s next generation. Our scholars are the same students whom politicians claim to want to support, especially in the wake of the pandemic, but they are consistently left out because they and their families made the choice to attend a public charter school. Elected officials frequently speak about the importance of equity, and we at Aspire couldn’t agree more. But equity means all students getting what they need — and Aspire schools (as well as many other public charter schools) serve large numbers of historically marginalized students.

    This challenge is nothing new. If you talk to charter leaders across California, they’ll all tell you a similar story. Due to this systemic funding deficit, we have had no choice but to try to raise philanthropic dollars to fill critical funding gaps. But that is often turned into an attack against us, with critics saying that public charter schools are bankrolled by private investors. That is simply untrue. Trust me — I would love nothing more than to be able to operate our schools without fundraising. But it’s just not an option.

    And new challenges often emerge. Just two years ago we made the choice to go to Sacramento to advocate for all public charter students to fight against legislation that would have penalized charter schools — and not traditional public schools — for following the state’s guidelines for quarantining students who were exposed to Covid-19. While we were able to win that fight, it is illustrative of the larger issue: Charter students are treated as less than others.

    But here’s the thing: Despite these challenges, charter schools have been able to accomplish so much. According to new research from the CREDO Institute at Stanford University, California charter students have gained the equivalent of 11 days of reading and four days of math compared with similar students in traditional public schools. Black and Latino students and students experiencing poverty had even larger gains. At Aspire specifically, we were proud to have met CREDO’s “gap-busting” criteria in both reading and math, recognizing our ability to reduce opportunity gaps at scale.

    So many of our students are carrying so much. They are talented and resilient, and they work hard to achieve their goals. We believe in them, and we tell them that every day.

    But this funding gap tells them something different — that because they happen to attend a charter school, they matter less. It’s time that education leaders put childish politics aside and focus on giving all of our kids what they need. They’re all California students. They deserve to be treated as such.

    •••

    Mala Batra is the chief executive officer at Aspire Public Schools, a charter management organization serving 15,000 TK-12 students across 36 schools in historically underserved communities throughout 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

  • Artificial Intelligence is already here; we need to make access more equitable

    Artificial Intelligence is already here; we need to make access more equitable


    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency/EDUimages

    ChatGPT is all over the news these days, but when it was first released to the public in November 2022, one of us (Linda) was completely unaware of its existence, while the other (Candice) was already exploring the ways it could be used to creatively brainstorm solutions to complex policy problems in her graduate studies.

    It wasn’t until after listening to a podcast on a road trip with her two teenage sons that Linda learned about ChatGPT’s incredible ability to generate creative content, write lines of code and summarize dense literature, and that one of her sons — like 33% of 12- to 17-year-olds nationwide — had already used ChatGPT to help with school assignments.

    A recent meeting of the California Collaborative on District Reform focused on the future of K-12 education further pushed our awareness of artificial intelligence in education and the efforts schools are making to prepare students for a new world. Meeting participants walked away with a better understanding of the power and limitations of AI but expressed emerging and persistent concerns around bias and equity, asking questions about how to ensure that such a powerful tool can be accessed by all students. As history tells us, new technologies often widen the gaps between the rich and the poor. More recently, research shows us that 31% of students from low-income households lacked access to technologies needed for remote learning during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    So, we asked ourselves how AI can be accessed equitably — and what does that even mean?

    As the academic year launches, it’s imperative that school system leaders think about how to make access to AI more equitable and empower both students and educators to navigate these tools with more critical awareness.

    A haphazard approach to integrating AI into schools poses potential threats to equity. Failure to ensure access to AI in resource-limited schools potentially widens the digital divide and perpetuates unequal learning opportunities and outcomes for historically underserved students and their communities. For example, OpenAI’s GPT-4 features can only be acquired through a paid premium account, meaning the most advanced AI tools, such as analyzing images and generating graphs, might be restricted to students and communities with greater financial resources. Therefore, implementing a thoughtful, realistic approach to ensuring all students, regardless of resources, can access AI tools that are changing how we learn and work, is necessary to furthering an equity agenda.

    Additionally, prioritizing equity goes beyond merely ensuring access; it requires critical awareness to integrate AI into school systems. Redefining access will require comprehensive teacher training to effectively engage with AI and integrate its many capabilities into the school and classroom. A nationwide survey revealed that 72% of K-12 teachers had not received guidance and training on integrating AI into their curriculum. But training teachers to recognize the bias inherent in the tool, learning to fact-check the results AI produces, and incorporating nuanced, human details into its output is a necessity. And more essential is ensuring that teachers in both resource-rich and resource-restricted schools have access to this training.

    Understanding how AI tools are built can help shine a light on the bias and systemic issues of equity associated with AI. The 2020 documentary “Coded Bias,” for example, reveals how the quality of AI output depends entirely on the data used to train it. A recent Boston Globe story shared the experience of an Asian MIT student who asked AI to make her headshot more professional, and it gave her lighter skin and blue eyes. Demographics show that 67% of AI specialists are white and 91% are men. If AI tools learn from sources primarily produced by white males, the output generated is likely to reflect the same homogenized knowledge, insights and resulting bias.

    With the rapid growth of AI technology, it is likely that AI will become increasingly integrated into schools. Students are already using AI to take notes in lectures, assist with language translation, and help solve math problems. Therefore, focused attention on redefining access is necessary to ensure that students from resource-rich schools are not the only ones with the opportunity to master AI tools that will increasingly be part of their daily lives.

    We are at the beginning of a long journey of understanding and navigating the role of AI in all schools, but the conversation must begin with a thoughtful and proactive approach by system leaders to center equity and empower teachers to guide students on a pathway to more powerful learning experiences.

    •••

    Linda Choi is a researcher and Candice Handjojo is a research associate at the American Institutes for Research and staff members of the California Collaborative on District Reform

    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

  • To make dual enrollment more equitable, bring the college experience to high school

    To make dual enrollment more equitable, bring the college experience to high school


    Justice Spears is a senior at Sacramento Charter High School, who is enrolled in the Panther Pipeline Program.

    Credit: Arrows Digital / St. HOPE Public Schools

    College enrollment was declining even before the pandemic. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “the overall college enrollment rate for 18- to 24-year-olds decreased from 41% in 2010 to 38% in 2021.” In 2021, the college enrollment rate for 18- to 24-year-olds was highest for Asian students (60%) compared to 37% for Black students and 33% for Hispanic students.

    One important way to increase college attendance is through dual enrollment programs in which high school students take college classes and receive college credit. According to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California, participation in dual enrollment programs is associated with higher high school completion, college readiness and higher academic achievement.

    While the benefits of dual enrollment are clear, not all students have the bandwidth to take college classes on top of their high school coursework. In order to reduce barriers and increase access to college-level courses, we have taken dual enrollment one step further at St. HOPE Public Schools. Our Panther Pipeline program brings the college experience to our high school campus. Through our partnership with the Los Rios Community College District, college professors come to Sacramento Charter High School and teach our juniors and seniors in person. Scholars enrolled in the Panther Pipeline program take rigorous college courses and receive both high school and college credit.

    This program is unique because our scholars do not have to leave our high school campus to take college courses. Two days a week, college professors come to Sac High to teach in person, and the other three days, scholars complete their college work in class with their Sac High instructional aide. By bringing college to our scholars and allowing them to receive both high and college credit we are making dual enrollment more accessible and an option for scholars who may not otherwise be able to take high school and college classes at the same time.

    The benefits of bringing college courses to our scholars are far-reaching. Our student population is predominantly low-income minority students, and many of our scholars are the first in their families to go to college. By exposing them to college before they need to apply in fall of their senior year, we hope to spark their interest in pursuing higher education and expand their worldview of what opportunities are available in college. Providing our upperclassmen with multiple college course offerings while they are in high school helps them home in on what major they may want to pursue in college as well as think about what career might be the best fit for them.

    Dual enrollment programs provide students with an opportunity to graduate from high school with college credits, which helps them save money on college tuition by reducing the number of college classes they need to graduate. High school juniors enrolled in our dual enrollment program could potentially take four college courses before they graduate from high school, saving them time and money while in college.

    Bringing college classes to our high school campus also helps reduce transportation barriers for students who may not be able to travel to a college campus. Many of our scholars have after-school commitments — jobs, sports, and responsibilities at home — that might prevent them from taking courses at a college campus, but when they are part of their high school day, those barriers are removed.

    An important part of our dual enrollment program is that it provides students with a multitiered system of support. We have high school teachers who help students navigate and manage their college coursework, and students have access to the Los Rios College campuses, facilities and tutoring resources. This is critical for preparing students for university-level expectations and ensuring they have the study skills to succeed in college.

    As we collectively work on increasing access to college and career pathways, I encourage high schools around the state to offer dual enrollment programs that provide students with both high school and college credit. Taking college courses in addition to high school classes can be daunting, but combining college and high school credit is much more doable for many students, especially those we are trying to get into the college pipeline.

    •••

    Lisa Ruda is superintendent of St. HOPE Public Schools, a tuition-free, college prep public charter school network in Sacramento.

    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

  • There’s a more equitable way to grade; districts should invest in it

    There’s a more equitable way to grade; districts should invest in it


    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimage

    Grading in most classrooms remains tied to rubrics devised by individual teachers and rooted in century-old practices. Recently, amid a broader national trend, grading systems in schools have come under increased scrutiny as educators and policymakers debate the best ways to support students. This movement further gained traction during the Covid-19 pandemic as educators tried new grading approaches to help students.

    Traditional grading systems assess students through tests, homework and projects combined into a single class grade and other more subjective factors, such as behavior, attendance and classroom participation.

    Standards-based grading, however, measures academic achievement without considering these subjective metrics. Standards-based grading measures academic achievement against specific content standards, offering students multiple opportunities to demonstrate knowledge. It still involves assigning grades, but these grades are based on students’ mastery of the content, making the process more transparent and individualized.

    For example, when a friend of mine was in a math class that used standards-based grading, he was assessed on specific learning targets, like solving quadratic equations, without considering participation or behavior. In a traditional grading system, his final grade comprises quizzes, tests, homework, participation and behavior. As such, a poor test score early in the semester could significantly impact his final grade. On the other hand, in standards-based grading, he had multiple opportunities to retake tests and demonstrate improved understanding, so his final grade reflected his highest mastery level. Traditional grading boosted his grade with attendance and participation points, even if he didn’t fully understand the material. Standards-based grading showed his actual academic achievement.

    While there isn’t any national data, individual states across the U.S. have begun to adopt standards-based grading. A 2021 statewide survey in Wyoming revealed that over 63% of middle schools and 35% of high schools had either started or fully implemented standards-based grading. In Delaware and Mississippi, schools have actively worked to support the use of high-quality, standards-aligned instructional materials in K-12 classrooms​​.

    Districts in California, including Lindsay Unified District in Tulare County, moved towards standards-based grading systems. High schools in Oakland are also transitioning to a more objective assessment system, emphasizing a gradual and inclusive approach to grading reform. 

    In my district, Dublin Unified, individual teachers instituted standards-based grading on a trial basis, but nine months ago, the district discontinued its standards-based grading system, impacting almost 13,000 students.

    However, despite an overwhelming 85% of the student body voting in favor of standards-based grading practices, the school board discontinued the practice districtwide, preventing teachers from using any form of standards-based grading.

    The rationale behind the board’s decision was simple: Trustees believed that standards-based grading decreased academic rigor and harmed students’ chances of success beyond high school by introducing a new grading system. Their concerns, primarily driven by parental pressure, focused on how the grades of high-performing students could fluctuate because of the introduction of a new grading system. 

    I acknowledge that standards-based grading was a new concept and could pose a risk to the perception of the academic achievement of high school students. (I was sympathetic, too; I am all too familiar with the competitive nature of high school.)

    But I think the concerns about standards-based grading hindering academic progress are misguided. For traditionally high-performing students, this grading system allows these students, like all others, to focus on mastering concepts and skills. Instead of promoting memorization to pass tests, students are assessed on their ability to understand concepts, allowing the performance of these students to remain strong even under this new system. If anything, standards-based grading boosts academic performance, evidenced by a study that found that students in schools using standards-based grading were nearly twice as likely to score proficient on state assessments compared with those in traditional grading systems.

    Our district’s push to switch to a standards-based grading system ultimately collapsed through misinformation and a lack of teacher training. This perceived lack of support made teachers feel they had to choose between supporting individual student needs and maintaining academic rigor, even though that wasn’t necessary.

    Had our district provided more support for parents and teachers, we could have developed effective curriculums that help students and maintain rigor. Larkspur’s multi-year transparent process with teacher training and parent seminars allowed a smooth transition from traditional to standards-based grading. Similarly, in New York City, districts successfully shifted to the new system after training teachers and having town halls with parents.

    The transition to standards-based grading or similar systems requires a shift in grading practices and a cultural and perceptual shift in how we view education and student success. It demands robust teacher training, practical communication with parents and students, and a collective commitment to redefining academic achievement. We must provide teachers, students,and parents with the necessary resources to succeed in these new grading paradigms. If we truly want to make education more equitable, districts must put their money where their mouths are and fully support our educators in this significant shift.

    I hope the adults responsible for decisions regarding our schools and education can set aside partisanship and genuinely reassess grading practices. Because equity has never been, nor will it ever be, the enemy of achievement.

    •••

    Aakrisht Mehra just completed his junior year in the Dublin Unified School District.

    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