برچسب: for

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

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


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

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •••

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

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





    Source link

  • We must do more to ensure college is worth it for all students

    We must do more to ensure college is worth it for all students


    Credit: People Images / iStock

    The national rhetoric regarding the value of attending a college or university has reached a fever pitch. Being “better off” goes well beyond politics and the price of milk and eggs or an understanding of how tariffs work. Let’s face it: Education provides opportunity, and making higher education work for everyone must be a priority if we are to be a thriving, civilized society. 

    Let’s start with the current disruptive notion that poses the discomfiting question: Is a college degree worth it?

    Many of us working in postsecondary education felt that question didn’t go far enough in looking for the opportunity to improve in new and better ways when the stakes are higher than ever.  

    So, we took that question on as a challenge and expanded it to ask: What is college worth, and how do we measure and improve its value, especially for low- and moderate-income learners? Answers to such questions should prove fruitful, especially given that a new Gallup survey reports Californians overwhelmingly value postsecondary degrees or credentials, particularly because of their career-related benefits. Yet, we know that many are hesitant to enroll in college or university because of the perceived unaffordability of earning a credential or degree.

    This led our organizations to explore what kind of return on investment higher education institutions — part of a stale, antiquated system that does not always deliver on its promise of economic mobility and equity — provide to their learners. The ensuing report produced more nuanced data to inform continuing conversations on the value of postsecondary education, which, frankly, helps learners and their families make decisions on where they want to make a higher education investment from a value and return-on-investment perspective.

    Our first step was to look at the value that California institutions offer their low- and moderate-income learners. We also wanted to know if certain college programs or credentials made a difference.

    After all, learners who choose a postsecondary education should end up better off for it, right? 

    The good news we found was, yes, most students were better off for the most part. The troubling news, though, was that for some students, it was not always, and sometimes, never. 

    We’ve also learned that sometimes a student’s college major can matter just as much for an economic return-on-investment — if not more — than the institution itself. Some programs provide a strong return, but some offer none whatsoever, even leaving some degree or credential graduates making less than a high school graduate.

    For example, we found that almost all programs (97%) offered at public institutions in California show their graduates being able to earn back the costs of obtaining a degree or credential within only five years. Essentially, these graduates earn enough of an “additional income” because of their college degree to make their college program worth it.

    And, also impressive, nearly half of public college programs (48%) allow this within one year’s time. Programs at private nonprofit colleges in California generally take students longer, as only 7% enable graduates to recoup their costs within 12 months. And worrisomely, for-profit colleges show their graduates struggling to recoup their college costs, and nearly a fifth of their programs (17%) show no economic return whatsoever.

    This work is not a denouncement of any specific program or desired area of study, but rather an opportunity for further research to understand why and how these institutions and college programs produce these outcomes and where there may be policy and practical implications.

    A simple example of such a practical change may be for institutions to provide a clearer picture to students before they enroll of how much a specific program will cost — and provide information on how much former students typically earn. Another may be more geared toward college administrators to ensure that they are equipping students with the right skills — and necessary credentials — to pursue and succeed in careers within the geographic region where the institution is located.   

    Institutional leaders and elected officials must lean into discussions that are happening right now about the value of a college education and how it ties to learners’ futures and where improvements can happen.

    While more questions must be answered — and more research will follow — one thing has become abundantly clear: Our higher education system can no longer be enabled by a “this is the way we do things” mentality in places where it is not working.

    Postsecondary attainment must be tied to value, economic mobility and equity, as this is essential to creating a higher education system that drives a robust, inclusive economy that works for all Californians. 

    •••

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley is president and CEO of College Futures Foundation, whose mission is based on a belief in the power of postsecondary opportunity.

    Michael Itzkowitz is founder and president of the HEA Group, a research and consulting agency focused on college access, value, and economic mobility.

    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.

    EdSource receives funding from many foundations, including The College Futures Foundation. EdSource maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage. 





    Source link

  • State Board criticized for soft-pedaling reporting on low student test scores

    State Board criticized for soft-pedaling reporting on low student test scores


    Students exchange ideas in a science classroom.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    Clarity matters when explaining to parents how their children did on standardized tests. An imprecise characterization of a complicated score can mislead parents into assuming their kids performed better than they did.

    That issue is at the heart of the opposition to draft revisions to descriptions of students’ scores on the Smarter Balanced assessments that are sent home to parents. While the degree of difficulty of the tests and their scoring wouldn’t change, the characterization of the results would, like replacing the term “standard not met” with “inconsistent” for the lowest scores.

    Parent focus groups this week

    The California Department of Education is scheduling three online focus groups to gather thoughts, questions and concerns on proposed changes to how scores on the Smarter Balanced statewide assessments will be reported publicly. The meetings are for parents, teachers and students. 

    Tuesday, Dec. 3, 6 to 7 p,m.: Session 1, in English 

    Wednesday, Dec. 4, 7 to 8 p.m. Session 2, in English for students only

    Thursday, Dec. 5, 6 to 7 p.m. Session 3, in Spanish

    Go here to register and complete this interest form to participate.

    The State Board of Education delayed its adoption at its November meeting because of criticism that the revised wording may compound, not solve, current unclear language.

    Board members listened to children’s advocacy groups who chided state officials for not first consulting with teachers and parents before taking any action — which state officials acknowledged they hadn’t done.

    In a letter to the state board about the proposed changes, particularly the labeling of low test scores, nine student advocacy groups — the Alliance for Students — argued that the revised language “will only serve to obfuscate the data and make it even more challenging for families and advocates to lift the needs of our most underserved students.” Signers of the letter include Teach Plus, Children Now, and Innovate Public Schools.

    Getting the terms right is important for the assessment scores to be useful to parents and teachers, Sarah Lillis, executive director of Teach Plus California, told EdSource. “We want to make sure the signals sent by the descriptors foster dialogue” and encourage parents to ask the right questions. 

    “We echo the concerns of our colleagues,” testified Lindsay Tornatore, representing the California County Superintendents at the board’s Nov. 13 meeting. “Outreach to parents, families and the community should have been prioritized to engage in multiple opportunities prior to the changes being made.”

    In response, the California Department of Education hastily scheduled online presentations this week for parents and teachers, with the expectation that they will consider any recommendations at their next meeting in January.

    How scores are reported

    A student’s scores on the Smarter Balanced tests in English language arts and math and on the California Science Test fall within one of four achievement levels that provide context on how the student performed. Level 4, with the highest attainable scores, is also labeled “Standard Exceeded.” Level 3 is labeled Standard Met; Level 2 is Standard Nearly Met, and Level 1 is Standard Not Met. Many of the dozen states and territories that give Smarter Balanced use the same definitions. 

    The target is to score at least Level 3, which indicates a student is working at grade level. In the 2023-24 results, fewer than half of students achieved Levels 3 or 4: 53% scored at levels 1 or 2 in English language arts, and 64.5% scored at Levels 1 or 2 in math.  The tests are given to students in grades three through eight and grade 11.

    Statewide scores were worse in science, which is given to students in grades five, eight, and once in high school, 69.3% failed to meet Level 3 — the grade-level standard — in 2023-24.

    In response to criticism that the existing labels are vague, imprecise and confusing, Smarter Balanced representatives decided to create a new set of labels and brief descriptions, which states have the option to use. This is particularly so for Level 2 — the “Standard Nearly Met” label. Many parents don’t understand what nearly meeting grade-level standards in particular means. 

    Under the Smarter Balanced draft for the scoring bands, Level 4 would become “Advanced,” Level 3 would be “Proficient,” Level 2 would be “Foundational,” and Level 1 would be “Inconsistent.”

    A draft description for Level 2 in language arts for third to fifth grade would read, “The student demonstrates foundational grade-level skills and shows a basic understanding of and ability to apply the knowledge and skills in English language arts/literacy needed for likely success in future coursework.”

    In letters and in remarks at the board meeting, critics indicated they’re fine with “Advanced” and “Proficient” but are unhappy with the labels Foundational and Inconsistent for Levels 1 and 2.

    “The language is confusing and not engaging for families with the first two levels,” said Joanna French, director of research and policy strategies for Innovate Public Schools. “If a student is not at grade level, be direct about that. You cannot address a problem you cannot see.”

    Tonya Craft-Perry, a 15-year teacher who is active in the Black Parent Network of Innovate Public Schools, said that “’Foundational’ could lead parents to believe their children are doing better than they are. It makes the district and teachers look better, but if a low score requires intervention, a parent needs to know that,” she said.

    Several board members indicated that one easy remedy would be to include language in the revision’s current descriptions. The wording makes clear that a student scoring in Level 2 “may require further development” to demonstrate the knowledge and skills to succeed in future grades or, for older students, in college courses after high school. Students scoring in Level 1 “needs substantial improvement” to succeed.

    News media oversimplifies

    In a two-page explanation, Smarter Balanced blamed the news media for much of the misunderstanding over the current wording of the labels.

    “The media often incorrectly reports that students who aren’t proficient ‘can’t do math’ or ‘can’t read.’ This is not true. The Smarter Balanced assessments are aligned to grade-level content, and students who achieve Levels 2, 3, and 4 do, in fact, demonstrate a continuum of grade-level knowledge and skills,” it said.

    Students at all three of those levels are showing that they “understand core content,” said Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the California State Board of Education, at the board meeting.

    But as scores progress from one level to the next, students convey increasing accuracy and complexity in their knowledge and skills. Smarter Balanced said students demonstrate this in how they respond to more complex reading passages, concepts and advanced vocabulary, or in math, the number of elements in equations and difficult word problems.

    Rob Manwaring, a senior adviser to the advocacy group Children Now, said that the new labels would feed the “reality gap in the perceptions of parents that their kids are doing better than they are” in school. In an often-cited 2023 parent survey in communities nationwide, survey firm Gallup and the nonprofit parent advocacy organization Learning Heroes found that, based on their kids’ report cards, parents’ perceptions were out of whack with how their children did on assessments. In Sacramento County, where 28% of students were proficient in math tests, 85% of parents believed their children were proficient.

    “Now we are suggesting that students scoring below standard are foundational. Many parents will conclude, ‘My kid is doing fine,’” Manwaring said.





    Source link

  • Ballet opens doors for children to chase the joy of dance

    Ballet opens doors for children to chase the joy of dance


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNr3iXUvL2s

    Watch Gabriela Rodriguez dance at New Ballet in San Jose.

    Gabriela Rodriguez first glimpsed the magic of ballet in the third grade. The 7-year-old didn’t know a pirouette from a puppet when she first got tapped for the New Ballet School’s First Step program, which brings the joy of dance to low-income students in the San Jose Unified school district. 

    As a tiny tot, she loved to dance with her Wii every day after school. Now she’s 19, studying Level 6, the highest level at the ballet school, and is also a member of the studio company, a stepping stone to becoming a professional ballerina. The supple dancer with a sunny personality seems to float across the studio at a recent “Nutcracker” rehearsal, twirling like a spinning top. 

    Dance has changed her life forever, she says. She’ll never forget the first time she watched the beauty of “Swan Lake” unfurl on stage.

    “It was so beautiful and graceful, I knew I wanted to be up there on stage, wearing a pretty tutu,” said Rodriguez, who lives with her family in East San Jose. “I was also a really hyper kid, so ballet also taught me discipline, how to be still, how to focus.”

    The program shines a spotlight on the sheer love of movement for first, second and third graders at local Title 1 schools — schools that receive federal funding to enhance educational opportunities for low-income families. Roughly 50 children a year receive scholarships that include free ballet classes, including leotards and footwear. Like Rodriguez, many children are recommended for the program by their elementary school teachers. 

    Little dancers in the ballet’s First Step program often make their stage debut in the holiday classic, “The Nutcracker.”
    Credit: San Jose’s New Ballet

    “My mother warned me that it would be a big commitment if I decided to take this route,” said Rodriguez, who dances about three hours a day in addition to nightly ballet rehearsals, “and it is a lot of hard work, physically and mentally as well.” 

    Rodriguez whirls onto center stage this holiday season in the starring role of Clara in “The San Jose Nutcracker.” Based on E.T.A. Hoffmann’s story “The Nutcracker and the King of Mice,” Tchaikovsky’s gem was first danced in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1892 and has become a yuletide tradition. New Ballet gives the chestnut a local twist, setting the story in turn-of-the-century San Jose, the Valley of the Heart’s Delight.

    Many of the youngsters in the First Step program make their stage debuts as adorable rodents, the minions of the menacing Mouse King in the Christmas classic. They learn about the magic of live performance, how to combat stage fright with rehearsal and how rigor and tenacity can help unleash their individual creativity. Ballet balances the sheer power of kinetic energy with an almost mathematical exercise in precision. 

    “It taught me about discipline,” says Rodriguez. “You have to make sure you get your schoolwork done and your household chores done while you’re spending so much time at the ballet.”

    Rodriguez has now danced in “Nutcracker” nine times as well as recorded the story of “La Boutique Fantasque” for the troupe in Spanish. She also works as a hostess in a restaurant to make ends meet.

    “I want to pursue dance for as long as I can,” Rodriguez said. She fantasizes about training at New York’s storied Juilliard School but fears the cost would be prohibitive. “If I went, I’d be the first in my family to go to college.”

    Young dancers in the ballet’s First Step program get to take classes, to learn the joy of dance without spending a fortune.
    Credit: San Jose’s New Ballet

    The high price of arts and culture today keeps many cash-strapped audience members away. That’s why equity is part of the mission of New Ballet. Founder Dalia Rawson believes the arts are an expression of our collective humanity that belongs to all of us, not a luxury for the privileged few.

    “There’s nothing frivolous about dance,” said Rawson, executive artistic director of the ballet. “Dancing is part of everybody’s human experience. We believe dance is for everybody. It feeds everybody’s soul. If you don’t dance, you’re not connecting to a part of yourself.”

    As our society becomes ever more sedentary, some experts warn, we may be losing touch with the essential need to move our bodies. Children, in particular, need physical activity to stimulate the brain, enhance concentration and boost learning. Dance is an invitation to marry movement with the creative impulse, to make poetry out of motion. 

    “Dance is something that all humans need,” said Rawson. “We all thrive when we’re connected to our body. And it’s good for your soul. It’s good for your heart. It’s good for your sense of who you are as a human.”

    The thrust of the program isn’t so much to cultivate professional dancers and artists as it is to spread the alchemy of arts education, its ability to boost engagement and cognition at a time when chronic absenteeism has skyrocketed.  

    “We look for kids who have that little spark,” said Laura Burton, director of outreach for the ballet. “That’s something that you want to see grow, because especially at this age, we don’t need to see them do a plié. Does that kid have the heart and the passion? We bring them in and we have two or three classes that we run specifically for them. They get to take the whole semester free of charge.”

    Knowing who their audience is, what their niche is, is central to their vision of the ballet. The troupe is all about speaking to their unique community. 

    Tiny dancers in the ballet’s First Step program get to take classes, to learn the joy of dance without spending a fortune.
    Credit: San Jose’s New Ballet

    “We are not trying to compete with San Francisco Ballet,” said Rawson. “We never will. It’s a $60 million budget, and it’s not hard to get there. If you want to see one of the best ballet companies in the entire world, you can get there in an hour.” 

    New Ballet focuses instead on opening doors to the next generation, to children and families who can’t pay a fortune for a night of dance. 

    “We try to make it fun, easy and accessible,” said Rawson. “We don’t have the budget to pay top dancer salaries, but we hire dancers who bring something really special to the stage. We don’t discriminate by body type or anything else.” 

    These dancers, like Rodriguez, are true believers in the power of dance to uplift the soul. New Ballet dancers often hold down outside gigs to support their artistic pursuits. 

    “What they share is they want to be here,” said Rawson. “They love to dance. They’re passionate about ballet. That to me is more important than the perfect line of your leg.”’

    Rodriguez, for one, dreams of one day teaching dance to children and adults with disabilities, people who may not realize that you don’t have to be a world-class athlete to chase the joy of dance.

    “Why not?” she says. “If you start late, you can still dance. If you’re missing something, you can still dance. There’s modifications for everybody out there. Anyone can dance if they truly want to. There’s always a way.” 





    Source link

  • Fareed Zakaria: Trump’s War on Science Is Bad for America

    Fareed Zakaria: Trump’s War on Science Is Bad for America


    TRUMP’S ATTACK on science has the backing of fundamentalist evangelical Christians, and especially virulent The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). In fact, however, anti-science is anti-Christian, and the traditional Christian denominations which represent the large majority of Christians have even accepted as dogma that the human body and all other forms of life have evolved in a Drawinian manner. The media ignores this acceptance because the media likes to portray conflict. Take a look at the following: SAINT AUGUSTINE SAYS THAT ANTI-SCIENCE IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN —

    Christians today should heed the warning that St. Augustine gave to his fellow Christians: “It is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talking nonsense about scientific topics. Many non-Christians are well-versed in scientific knowledge, so they can detect the ignorance in such a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The danger to Christianity is obvious: The failure to conform to demonstrated scientific knowledge opens the Christian, and Christianity as a whole, to ridicule. If non-Christians find a Christian mistaken on a scientific subject that they know well and hear such a Christian maintaining his foolish opinions, how are they going to believe our teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?”

    In short, St. Augustine was pointing out that God gave humans intellects and that Christians shouldn’t let anti-science political ideology make Christianity look foolish to the vast majority of people and cause them to turn their back on Christianity, which is one of the main reasons why fewer Americans profess any religion.

    Traditional Christian Churches To Which Nearly All Christians Belong Have Accepted the Science of Evolution — here are some of the official Christian church positions on their acceptance of evolution:

    The CATHOLIC CHURCH: Half of all Christians in the world are Catholic, and in the 1950 Papal Encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII declared that the human body came “from pre-existent and living matter” that evolved through a sequence of stages before God instilled a spiritual soul into the human body. Catholics accept that Genesis is not literal and are only bound by faith to believe that the natural evolution of the human body was a God-guided process, and that the spiritual human soul that inhabits the physical human body didn’t evolve, but is created by God.

    The EPISCOPAL CHURCH declared in its 67th General Assembly:

    “Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’ whenever evolutionary models are taught; and

    Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such “balanced treatment” laws; and

    “Whereas, the dogma of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and

    “Whereas, ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it

    “Resolved: that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further

    “Resolved: by 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively urge their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the ‘Creationists’ into legislating any form of ‘balanced treatment’ laws or any law requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’.”

    The LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION declared in its Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, Vol. I, 1965, that: “An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution’s assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology’s affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.”

    The UNITED METHODIST CHURCH declared at its 1984 Annual Conference that:

    “Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,

    “Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,

    “Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,

    “Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,

    “Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce ‘scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.”

    The UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in the USA declared at its 1982 General Assembly that:

    “Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:

    “Therefore, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish ‘creationism’ or creation science’ as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma; and,

    “Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach ‘creationism’ or ‘creation science’.”

    The above Christian churches represent the overwhelming majority of Christians.

    Like



    Source link

  • How we obtained and examined contracts for school resource officers

    How we obtained and examined contracts for school resource officers


    We began by sending requests for contracts and memoranda of understanding with law enforcement agencies under the California Public Records Act to nearly 20%  – 178 – school districts across the state, in urban, suburban, and rural communities.

    We sent requests to 103 unified school districts, 37 high school districts, and 38 elementary school districts.

    We received responses from 157 districts; we are continuing to pursue responses from the remaining 21. We asked for contracts entered into between 2018 and June 2024 and analyzed the most recent contract provided by each district, some of which extend as far as 2027.

    Of the districts that responded to our requests, 68 said they had no applicable documents. Sixty-five districts had no assigned school resource officers; three had officers on campus but no contracts with cities and counties for policing services. The 89 districts with responsive documents provided contracts, including supplemental material such as memoranda of understanding, as PDFs and other document file types. 

    We analyzed the 118 responsive documents – many districts had agreements with multiple law enforcement agencies – and extracted a collection of data points including contract length, costs to the district, reporting requirements, and resource officers’ duties, among other topics.

    Additionally, to verify and clarify notable points, we reviewed videos of school board meetings, interviewed experts on policing and government transparency, as well as school board members, school superintendents, law enforcement officers, parents and students.

    The resulting data was combined with demographic and accountability information from the California Department of Education and analyzed to identify the commonalities, trends, and outliers explained in our stories.

    Teacher pay data was collected from Form J-90s that school districts submit to the state with teacher pay scales. To determine the salary for a  mid-career teacher, we used data from the “BA+60” field on those forms.

    If you have questions, please email data journalist Daniel Willis at dwillis@edsource.org.

    digging into the documents

    Our collection of district contracts that informed this story can be browsed and downloaded below.





    Source link

  • How one rural county pays for its resource officers

    How one rural county pays for its resource officers


    A Trinity High School student in Weaverville conducts a science experiment with the assistance of school resource officer Taylor Halsey, while fellow resource officer Greg Lindly observes.

    Credit: Timbre Beck / EdSource

    While some districts commit millions of dollars to resource officers, others struggle to find funding.

    Trinity County, population 16,500, has cobbled together a school policing program using a state grant funded by taxes on marijuana sales.

    The grant helps pay for two resource officers who cover nine widely spaced districts across the county’s 3,208 square miles, most of it national forest. Checking on one school requires a five-hour drive round trip on mountain roads, County Superintendent of Schools Fabio Robles said.

    The officers, a deputy sheriff and a juvenile probation officer, balance their work at schools with other law enforcement duties.

    They can only get to some schools a few times a year. “It’s a challenge,” Robles said in an interview in Weaverville, the county seat. The sheriff’s office and the probation department did not allow the officers to be interviewed for this story.

    Only one district has a contract with the county. Trinity Alps Unified agreed to an open-ended agreement with the county in 2020. That agreement doesn’t address school discipline.

    Robles said he wants to revisit the issue of contracts, but his priority is to keep the resource officer program running.

    “We’ve taken a step back lately,” Robles said of formal agreements between the districts and the counties. Contracts “are something we should re-look at,” he said.





    Source link

  • Joyce Vance: Stand Up and Speak Out for the Rule of Law!

    Joyce Vance: Stand Up and Speak Out for the Rule of Law!


    Joyce Vance was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. She writes a smart blog called Civil Discourse, in which she writes about court cases and the law, in language accessible to non-lawyers. In this post, she explains how massive protests can change the course of history.

    She writes:

    This coming Tuesday marks Donald Trump’s 100th day in office, a tenure that has led to a steady decline in the economy. If we use that measure, which many voters said led them to vote for Trump, these first 100 days have been a failure. Even as Trump has successfully seized power from Congress and some organizations have bent the knee to his every request, lawyers are winning in court, and some law firms, businesses, universities, and individuals are standing up to the president who would rather be a king. Trump may not have lost the first 100 days, but he hasn’t exactly won them either. Our democracy has been weakened, but it can still be saved.

    Thursday is May Day, May 1st. There will be renewed protest marches across the country, many of them focused on Americans’ increasing awareness that the fundamentals of democracy, which we’ve taken for granted for so long, are in danger. It’s not just due process concerns, although that is an enormous part of it, as the deportations continue. Last week we learned that included some involved American citizen children and children with cancer, with Secretary Rubio offering a sorry rejoinder on Meet the Press this morning, blaming the mothers who took young children back to their countries of origin with them, rather than being forced to abandon them. There are plenty of reasons to march.

    This will not be the first time Americans have engaged in mass protests on May Day. In 1971, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Washington, D.C., to protest the Vietnam War. They began on May 3 and continued for two more days. By the time the protest ended, more than 12,000 protestors had been arrested. The protesters’ goal was to cause a traffic jam that would keep government employees from getting to work; their slogan was “If the government won’t stop the war, we’ll stop the government.”

    Mass protests that are large and sustained have an impact on even an entrenched presidency. They did with Nixon. The White House Historical Association’s official version of events concludes that “the enormity of the protest pushed Nixon to accelerate the nation’s exit from Vietnam.” 

    Even though it’s a different era, protests are bound to get to the thin-skinned president whose staffers, during his first term in office, had to prepare folders of positive stories about Trump for him to review twice each day. Imagine having thousands of people protesting within earshot of the White House. It must be even more galling because these protests are nonviolent and aim to support democracy through a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. They make a powerful statement, in contrast to a president who has abandoned the rule of law. 

    In 1970, two-thirds of Americans had come to believe U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was a mistake. We are not quite there yet when it comes to people’s view of the Trump administration. The most recent NBC News Stay Tuned Poll shows only 45% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing. But, when asked about how strongly they hold their beliefs about the president, “the vehemence of the opposition outweighs the intensity of support from the president’s MAGA base.” Twenty-three percent of Americans said they were “furious” about what Trump is doing.

    Thursday is also Law Day, an annual celebration of the rule of law. Although it has been in effect since 1958, it doesn’t usually receive much attention. This year, lawyers across the country have big plans for the day—make sure you look to see what’s going on in your area. President Dwight Eisenhower established Law Day as a day of national dedication to the principles of government under law. State Bar Associations hold essay competitions for school children, and there are state and national dinners most years. In 2025, Law Day takes on special significance as Americans’ concerns about due process come to the forefront. How fitting that the May Day protests sync with the Law Day commemoration. 

    I’ve been doing a lot of research and writing about the origins of Law Day for my book (Giving Up Is Unforgivable, due out October 21), so I’ll leave that for another time, but I want to make sure everyone knows about Law Day. This year, many lawyers across the country will retake their oath to show their support for the rule of law. There is no reason the rest of the country can’t participate too!

    The president issues a proclamation every year for Law Day. Trump did during his first term in office, too. In 2019, the proclamation began, “On Law Day, we renew our commitment to the rule of law and our Constitution. The rule of law requires that no one be above the obligations of the law or beneath its protections, and it stands as a bulwark against the arbitrary use of government power.” Unfortunately, he never lived up to those sentiments. On Thursday, we can look for the proclamation and point out the inconsistencies between what we expect from our presidents and how this one is behaving. The hypocrisy is always full force, and we shouldn’t shy away from pointing it out.

    Due process is the sleeper issue of the second Trump presidency. No one really expected democracy issues, let alone concepts like the rule of law and due process to animate a country’s protests. But it’s increasingly clear that Americans are smart, and when we are well-informed, we have no difficulty assessing what matters and what is true. We see more and more of that as Americans carry signs that say “No Kings” and “Due Process” at local rallies. All of us can be advocates for democracy, not just the lawyers among us.

    Here at Civil Discourse, we all understand the importance of this. We need to make sure the rest of the country does too. Until the Trump administration is over, it has to be Law Day every day. 

    In 2024, the Law Day theme was “Voices of Democracy,” recognizing that the people are the rulers in a democracy. Americans express their views without fear of retribution because of the First Amendment and vote in elections to select their leaders. It’s up to us to make sure it stays that way.

    This week will bring more briefings in the Abrego-Garcia case and others. There will be outrages, like the fact that Trump has a website hawking merchandise, literally selling the presidency. It’s not just the $50 price tag on the hat; there’s also the slogan, “Trump 2028,” a reference to Trump’s not-so-subtle hints that he’d like to serve a Constitution-busting third term in office. It’s not a joke. It never is with him.

    So, make sure you take some time this week to celebrate Law Day. Invite people over. Go for a walk with friends or neighbors and share your views. Talk with your kids. Democracy is not automatic; it’s a participatory sport we must all play in together, one with critically important outcomes. Democracy is important. Let’s make sure we play for keeps.

    We’re in this together,

    Joyce



    Source link

  • Author of federal mental health law has advice for California

    Author of federal mental health law has advice for California


    Seventh-graders work together on homework in their school library.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    Mental health has been at the center of former U.S. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy’s personal journey to recovery from addiction as well as his public career as a policymaker, author and advocate. 

    In 2008, while representing Rhode Island in the U.S. House of Representatives, Kennedy was the lead author of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, a federal law that requires health insurance companies to provide equal coverage for mental health and addiction care and general physical health care, such as diabetes or cancer treatment.

    Forner U.S. Rep, Patrick J. Kennedy, D-R.I.

    Kennedy, who has long been vocal about pursuing treatment for his substance use and bipolar disorder, remains an advocate for greater access to mental health care.  Earlier this year, he published his book “Profiles in Mental Health Courage” — a reference to his late uncle and former President John F. Kennedy’s classic “Profiles in Courage” — detailing how people from diverse backgrounds across the country have taken on mental illness and addiction. In October, he was a keynote speaker at the annual student wellness conference Wellness Together in Anaheim, where he spoke about his advocacy as founder of the mental health policy nonprofit The Kennedy Forum.

    “As we turn the corner on stigma related to suicide and overdose, we need to finally focus a lot more on solutions early on in a person’s life,” Kennedy said in an interview with EdSource. Not only are young people less likely to seek help due to stigma, but are also less likely to be properly insured, incurring high out-of-pocket costs for treatment when they need it.

    For Kennedy, the key to addressing the youth mental health and addiction crisis is increasing and sustaining funding for care on the local, state and federal levels. He emphasized that schools desperately need the bulk of that funding, given that early intervention significantly reduces a child’s chance of developing a serious mental illness in adulthood.

    California has, in recent years, invested heavily in expanding mental health support for children and adolescents. The state’s next challenge, Kennedy said, is sustaining these crucial services. 

    In 2019, the state embarked on a $4.7 billion Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, focused mainly on recruiting and training new mental health providers across the state’s school system. To help sustain these programs, the state Department of Health Care Services plans to make new public school-based mental health services billable to both Medi-Cal and commercial health insurance, making California’s multi-payer fee schedule one of the largest school reimbursement programs in the country. 

    EdSource interviewed Kennedy about expanding mental health care for students and families. His remarks have been edited for length and clarity. 

    How do we address the enduring impact of stigma on our health and education systems?

    We need greater literacy (regarding mental health) across the board. Many don’t know these mental illnesses as brain illnesses, and they don’t understand that they’re treatable. If we knew we could treat them successfully, which we can, especially if we go in early, how can we think about them differently? We don’t let cancer get to stage four to treat it. We screen it, screen it, screen it. It’s embedded in my medical chart. My doctor asks me 15 ways about my risk for stroke and cancer. We need to do that with mental health. 

    We could address so much of this if we just incorporated better mental health services within our community. So many families have their mental health symptoms exacerbated by lack of stable housing, no supportive employment and a lack of community to help. They become isolated, which is the worst thing for those struggling with their mental health.

    Why does the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act matter for young people today?

    It used to be the case where, if you had a mental illness, you had to pay higher co-pays, premiums and deductibles to get mental health treatment than you would to get diabetes treatment or asthma treatment. Unlike for physical illnesses, insurance companies would cap the total of dollars you could spend as a patient on mental health. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act established that insurance companies could not discriminate and treat the brain any differently than any other organ of the body. 

    Ultimately, we can’t treat everyone based upon bake sales. We have to change the metrics of what constitutes value in our mental health system. We have to get this embedded in regular insurance. 

    How can California ensure that new school-based coverage for mental health care is effective in the long term?

    We have to figure out how to reorient the insurance process so that there’s a way of capturing the return on investment from an earlier investment. The state is the one that has the most to say about overall state coverage for mental health early on, in order to reduce future obligations on the state’s part, which means picking up the pieces of a broken population that hasn’t properly been supported by coverage through early intervention services. 

    We need to get organized as voters. There’s not a family out there that doesn’t have these issues affecting a member of their family, who hasn’t lost a loved one to suicide or overdose. There’s a huge need for mental health treatment because we keep waiting till people are in a crisis. Why not make this a public health issue and really embed resources in elementary and secondary schools so students can take care of themselves? 

    What role should the federal government play in addressing youth mental health?

    We need to have Federally Qualified Health Centers in every public school in America. They could open satellites in each of the schools that can help treat kids where they are. A lot of kids, particularly from minority communities, are not going to get mental health care after school. You could bring tele-mental health into a school nurse’s office, so it’s not just where you get an aspirin, but a real clinic in the school where you could be meeting kids’ health needs writ large. You’d also need ongoing intensive care to connect them to the community health center outside. 

    We already fund Federally Qualified Health Centers. It’s supported on a bipartisan basis. It covers the uninsured as well as the insured. These centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers cover a lot of rural areas and health deserts, and they can provide general counseling and support services. They have a board of directors, who are all people in the community who know the resources in the community and can pull together a more wraparound, holistic approach. 

    So many kids come to school from homes where there’s violence, addiction or mental illness. We need to reach the whole family. In many states where Republicans don’t have good benefits for their people, the centers provide a valuable safety valve for their constituents to get health care. We just need to take that model to scale in schools. The easiest thing is to run all of these through existing bureaucracies, so you’re not trying to create a new system from whole cloth.

    How can students help address mental health? 

    I would say to young people that there are two major ways they can really help the system. One, they can learn about how to prevent mental health challenges themselves through learning about their own brain and learning coping skills and problem-solving skills. We can focus on a lot more upstream, or proactive, mechanisms early in a student’s life, when they can start to build different coping skills and learn how to manage their emotions. 

    And second, if they’re interested in going into the mental health space, they can create a much better track to get into the mental health field. We just don’t have enough hands on deck to really meet the enormity of the need for those who desperately need treatment. Not only do we need to build that infrastructure and access, but also build a workforce pipeline for those trying to go into the field in greater numbers. 

    It’s got everything to do with young people. These are illnesses where 50% of them occur before the age of 14, and 75% occur before the age of 25. They’re illnesses of the young; they can take you hostage and take out whole parts of your life, when, ordinarily, you’d be in the most productive period in your life as a young person.





    Source link

  • Why many colleges are giving more credit for learning outside the classroom

    Why many colleges are giving more credit for learning outside the classroom


    Alice Keeney was in the Navy from 2003 through 2012, where she learned how to safely operate the nuclear propulsion plants that power submarines and aircraft carriers.

    When she enlisted in the Navy in 2003, Alice Keeney attended naval nuclear power school. 

    There, she learned how to safely operate the nuclear propulsion plants that powered submarines or aircraft carriers — knowledge that she used when she was deployed outside the Arabian Gulf as a nuclear surface warfare officer in the late 2000s. 

    Keeney’s expertise in nuclear theory and practice was valued enough that she became an instructor in the Navy, and she trained the first 22 women who became submarine volunteers.

    Keeney specifically chose this path into the Navy because she believed it would give her skills that are valued in the civilian world. She spent many 12-hour days in school — not counting homework — studying advanced physics, math, chemistry and reactor core nuclear principles. She expected she could skip a few semesters ahead in college — and maybe even have enough funding from her G.I. Bill left over to attend graduate school. But it wasn’t that easy.  

    When she enrolled in chemical engineering at Cal Poly Pomona in 2012, Keeney was dismayed to learn that nothing on her Joint Services transcripts, a document that describes military training in a way that makes sense to colleges or employers, amounted to a single college credit.

    “It was frustrating to look at my transcript — for somebody who has the experience I have, who has the training that I have,” Keeney said. “There were classes listed like general chemistry — I should never have had to take that.”

    The benefits of getting credit for prior learning

    When students start college later in life, they often bring unique knowledge and skills with them. The military is the most common way — at least it is now — but that experience can also come through a job, a hobby or even volunteering.

    Increasingly, universities and colleges are working on ways to award credit to students for what they have learned outside the classroom. California’s community colleges and Cal State University system, in particular, have expanded this over the past decade, formally recognizing this experience, known as credit for prior learning (CPL).

    This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom praised the practice during a news conference about the state’s effort to improve career education. He is promoting a shift toward what he calls a “skillset mindset,” where Californians can demonstrate their skills and knowledge beyond grades or a credential, whether those skills were picked up in school, the military or volunteering.

    He lauded the community colleges for ensuring that military members don’t have to “take basic requirements for education that they’ve already received in the military,” he said. “They get credit for prior learning.”

    How students receive credit can vary widely, depending on the discipline. Students might take a challenge test. A portfolio review by a faculty member might be appropriate for business or art courses. Some jobs require certifications that can transfer into course credit.

    Research shows that students who receive credit for what they’ve learned outside a classroom save time and valuable tuition dollars. A national study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) found that students who entered college with 12 credits through prior learning could save anywhere from $1,500 to $10,500 and shave nine to 14 months off their time in college. 

    There are also psychological benefits for students who start college with credits under their belts. 

    “Students begin their college careers with a sense of momentum and accomplishment,” said Tina Barlolong, a veteran and credit-for-prior-learning counselor at Palomar College in San Diego.

    This might help to explain why 49% of students who received this credit for prior learning completed their degree compared with 27% of students who received no credit, according to the study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. The national study followed more than 200,000 students, largely over the age of 25, at 72 institutions for over seven years, beginning in 2011.

    “That student immediately feels valued, they feel seen, and they’re going to take more advanced level classes, they’re more likely to take more units,” said Su Jin Jez, CEO of the nonprofit California Competes, a nonpartisan policy and research organization. 

    Students who receive credit for prior learning avoid the sense of deflation that Keeney felt when she realized that she would be required to take courses, like general chemistry, that she had long surpassed as a nuclear propulsion plant supervisor in the Navy. That may send students the message that college isn’t for them, Jez said.

    “We spend all this money on them and put them in harm’s way,” said James Cahill, an advocate for credit for prior learning for vets. “They come home and are told [their experience is] worthless.”

    Meeting workforce demand

    This is a subject that hits close to home for Jez. Her father spent two decades as a plane mechanic in the Air Force, but when he tried to attend a community college, he struggled to prove that he had the knowledge and skills to skip ahead in his coursework. Because he couldn’t get college credit, he opted to become a letter carrier.

    “We did fine, but he would have earned more,” Jez said. It’s not just her father who lost out, she said; the workforce also lost a worker with highly specialized and in-demand skills.

    This is what has motivated Cahill to advocate at both the state and federal level for veterans to be awarded college credit for their military training. Cahill’s son served as a medic in Iraq, but he received no credit for his military training when he enrolled as a premed student at Sacramento State. Cahill said his son burned through his G.I. Bill money by taking a lot of classes on topics he had already put into practice on the battlefield.

    Cahill testified about this issue at the height of the pandemic when the shortage of nurses became a crisis.

    “If they had had these laws in place, imagine how many nurses could have backfilled,” he said. “Imagine how many teachers and law enforcement and the language that [veterans] bring to a college campus.”

    Credit for prior learning isn’t a new concept. Since at least World War II, the American Council on Education has evaluated military training to help veterans transition to civilian life. But there are still no federal guidelines requiring colleges and universities to honor veterans with credit.

    Recently, credit for prior learning has begun to receive renewed attention as a way to encourage students to enroll — or re-enroll — in college to finish their bachelor’s or other post-secondary degree. One group of students with some college credit but no degree has caught the attention of colleges and universities, especially in the wake of pandemic-era enrollment losses. 

    About 1 in 5 adults in California over age 25 have attended college but do not have a degree. These are students that were at one point interested in a credential, but were, for a variety of reasons, sidelined.

    One of those students was Benjamin King. His first attempt at college didn’t go well, he said; early fatherhood threw a wrench into his plans. He planned on returning to school but then found a well-paying computer programming job that was stable — until the company downsized, and he became jobless.

    “At that point, I was at this crossroads where I was trying to figure out: Do I want to continue on my programming journey or do I want to go in a different direction?” he said.

    King enrolled in Palomar College to explore his options. It wasn’t his programming background that called to him, but his passion for photography. He took a job on campus running the photography lab. He enjoyed mentoring students and offering advice from the vantage of being an older student.

    “The faculty really saw the way I was interacting with the younger students and how I was able to help them out,” he said. 

    He was encouraged to apply for an adjunct faculty position in the photography department. There was one problem: He didn’t yet have an associate degree needed for the position, and the clock was ticking for when applications would close.

    Faculty encouraged him to petition for college credit through the prior learning program. Palomar College’s work to expand its process has paid huge dividends for veterans and even active duty members, but it also helped King, who had no military experience.

    King put together a portfolio of his photography that the faculty reviewed. This enabled him to get credit for several photography courses, finish his degree quickly and ultimately, land the adjunct faculty position. 

    Now he enjoys teaching photography courses and continuing to mentor students. Recently, a pregnant student came to him concerned about her future. He was able to assure her that he had been in a similar boat — and that it wasn’t the end of the road for him.

    “I enjoyed programming and still do it for fun,” King said. “But I get much more fulfillment from this job.”

    California slowly improves

    Trying to get credit for prior learning can be difficult. It’s not just students who need help navigating this arena — even many counselors or faculty don’t know what’s happening on their own campuses, according to Wilson Finch, vice president of initiatives at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.

    Finch compares the national landscape of credit for prior learning to an overgrown garden: “It needs a good pruning and cleanup just to make it useful for people.”

    Public universities and colleges in California have been doing some of that pruning. Legislation over the past decade has encouraged public universities to do more.

    Veterans have been a key target of legislation. They make up a small percentage of the student population, but — at least for now — the majority of students who are receiving credit for prior learning. Most begin their academic careers at community colleges.

    In 2012, legislators passed a bill requiring the chancellor of California Community Colleges to determine which courses could be completed using military credit. But state Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, complained that three years after the law was supposed to be implemented, community colleges “still lack a uniform policy for the awarding of course credit for military education, training and experience.”

    The Senate passed Roth’s bill, SB 1071, requiring community colleges at the district level to create a consistent policy aimed at awarding veterans credit. Another bill, AB 1002, passed in 2021, was aimed at the CSU and UC systems.

    Cahill said he is frustrated to see Newsom only now promoting what had been signed into law before he took office.

    “The delay meant that thousands of veterans got no college credit,” he said.

    Advocates say that efforts to improve and expand credit for prior learning will benefit the larger student population outside the military. In fact, the 2020 study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning found that when non-veteran students received credit for prior learning, nearly three-quarters completed their credential.

    But a 2018 survey from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office noted that 81% of credit awarded at community colleges was for military training compared with 13% for job training.

    The Chancellor’s Office would like to see that change. It has set an ambitious goal of ensuring that at least 250,000 Californians receive credit for prior learning by 2030, with most of those credits going to non-veterans. The Mapping Articulated Pathways (MAP) Initiative supports community colleges in these efforts through training, technology and policy.

    Streamlining the process for veterans to get credit for prior learning has sparked an effort to improve the system as a whole, according to Brent Foster, Cal State’s assistant vice chancellor and state university dean of academic programs. Each campus in the CSU system now has its own policy.

    “That was the whole reason many of us went back to the drawing board with CPL,” Foster said.

    Public colleges and universities now largely have their own policies for credit for prior learning. But that doesn’t mean it’s been fully implemented.

    “It’s not a light switch you flip, and it just runs,” Foster said. “You have to make sure the bones are good.”

    Counselors, faculty members and other staff are key in making sure that students even know that they might be eligible for the credit. The 2018 survey by the Chancellor’s Office found that the main barrier was a lack of awareness.

    “It’s an important reminder as we intake students,” Foster said, “that we need to look at the whole student and what kinds of experiences might help them graduate faster and save money.” 

    At Cal Poly Pomona, that means that administrators involved in promoting credit for prior learning have been holding discussions with groups on campus, such as faculty, department chairs and advisers to get feedback, and, perhaps most importantly, a buy-in, according to José Lozano, articulation officer in the Cal Poly Pomona registrar’s office.

    Changes at Cal Poly Pomona have come too late for Keeney to avoid taking classes she didn’t need. To save money, she ended up finishing her senior year through an online college. But her story became a case study for improving the credit for prior learning process — not just at Cal Poly but other CSU and community college campuses, according to Elke Azpeitia, director of the Veterans Resource Center at Cal Poly Pomona.

    Keeney said beyond policy, it’s important that people inside the system understand why credit for prior learning is so important.

    “I think having allies in universities who see value in education that isn’t just structured in a college scenario or university scenario,” Keeney said. “That’s a big thing.” 





    Source link