اینترنت

برچسب: gains

  • Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles

    Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles


    Is this a picture of something bad, or something good?

    Cognitive scientists call this the global-local processing dilemma: Do we perceive the overall image, or focus on the details? Education policy often faces the same question: Can a policy be considered “good” if the overall data look promising, but the day-to-day experiences feel “bad?”

    This tension is at the heart of California’s college math reforms.

    Like the image, the story of these policies may look “good” from a distance, but “bad” up close.

    Before recent reforms, community college students who needed extra math support were typically placed in remedial courses like elementary algebra. These classes didn’t count toward transfer requirements, and most students stuck in them never made it to a math course needed to transfer to a four-year university, such as college algebra or introductory statistics. This created an academic dead end for many.

    A 2017 law, Assembly Bill 705, changed that. It used high school grades for placement and gave more students direct access to transfer-level courses, with corequisite support (a support course taken concurrently with a transfer-level course) when needed. Instead of multi-semester remediation, students could move into transfer-level math courses faster.

    While challenges remain, the approach led to significant improvements. In 2016-17, before AB 705 was announced, only 27% of students passed a transfer-level math course within one year. But in 2019-20, the first full year of AB 705’s implementation, that number had nearly doubled to 51%. And by 2023-24, it reached 62%. About 30,000 more students were fulfilling their math requirements each year. The story is similar in English courses, and so it’s undeniable that AB 705 has helped California’s community college students get one step closer to transfer. 

    Despite these gains, many faculty don’t see AB 705 as a success. As one instructor put it, “There are a lot more people failing than before … largely students of color. … By making this change (i.e., AB 705) around equity, we’ve created an inequitable system.” And the data do show that pass rates have declined. 

    But here’s the catch: Far more students are now taking those courses. The graph below helps illustrate this shift using data from one community college district. Before AB 705, only a small fraction of students reached transfer-level math, but with high pass rates, as shown by the darker blue shading within the dashed box. After AB 705, access expanded, but pass rates declined from 80% to 70%. Critically, that’s 70% of a much larger group.

    With such an improvement, why do some faculty feel like the policy is a failure? 

    Because of this paradox: AB 705 absolutely led to more students passing. But it also led to more students failing. 

    People respond more strongly to stories than to statistics, and losses loom larger than gains. The students we see struggling — their faces, their frustration, their stories — linger longer than a bar graph showing statewide gains. As faculty members, we know this all too well. We remember the students who didn’t make it. We think about what we could’ve done differently. We agonize over them.

    And often, faculty haven’t been given the full picture. Our research has found that many instructors hadn’t even seen outcome data on AB 705’s impact. So, without that context, and given the classroom experience, it’s reasonable to assume the policy failed.

    This disconnect is a classic challenge in public policy: a policy can be effective overall but still feel painful on the ground. And this tension is always a part of the hard work of building systemic justice. AB 705 succeeded in dismantling long-standing barriers and expanding access to transfer-level math. But that progress has introduced new classroom dynamics that feel personal, urgent and overwhelming to faculty. Good policy must account for both the big-picture gains and the human cost of change. Reforms don’t succeed on data alone. They require understanding, empathy and support for those doing the work.

    And just as faculty were beginning to adjust to AB 705, we face Assembly Bill 1705, a sharper and even more controversial new policy. It asks colleges to stretch even more, limiting their ability to offer even prerequisite math courses. Understandably, many educators are still reeling. They’re trying to adapt to new expectations while managing unintended consequences in their classrooms. Recent guidance has softened the rollout, but confusion remains. The stakes are high, and many faculty feel mistrustful and angry.

    If AB 705 taught us anything, it’s that mistrust grows when there’s a gap between what the data show and what people experience. This is why the next phase of work cannot be just about compliance or policy enforcement. It must be about storytelling, listening and solutions. Faculty need to see the big picture. Policymakers need to understand life on the ground. The policy “worked” in aggregate, but not without professional and emotional cost. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very equity goals these reforms were meant to achieve.

    Like the image above, the truth lies in seeing both levels clearly. We must acknowledge the trade-offs, the tension, and the very real pain of transition. Let’s take concerns seriously without retreating from hard-won progress. Let’s keep asking the harder, more honest questions: How do we support both students and faculty through ambitious change? How do we ensure that every student, not just the most prepared, has a real shot at success? 

    If we can do that, maybe we’ll find a way forward that is both honest and hopeful, one that sees the whole picture.

    •••

    Ji Y. Son, Ph.D., is a cognitive scientist and professor at California State University, Los Angeles and co-founder of CourseKata.org, a statistics and data science curriculum used by colleges and high schools.
    Federick Ngo, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His research examines higher education policy, with a focus on college access and community college students.

    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

  • Literacy bill compromise gains support of a former foe and passes first hurdle

    Literacy bill compromise gains support of a former foe and passes first hurdle


    An elementary student reads on his own in class.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    KEY Takeaways
    • The California Teachers Association testifies in support of the compromise.
    • Co-author: Reaching a deal was by far her hardest challenge as a legislator.
    • Up against a deadline, an Assembly committee endorses a bill they haven’t actually read.

    A new bill that could reshape early reading instruction quickly passed its first test in the Legislature on Wednesday, with a major opponent doing an about-face and publicly announcing support.

    Members of the Assembly Education Committee unanimously passed Assembly Bill 1454 after a short hearing. The compromise legislation that Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas helped create, after months of stalemate, won over the California Teachers Association (CTA).

    “Reasonable people can disagree on reasonable things, but we also can show the world how you can disagree and come together,” said Patricia Rucker, a lobbyist for the CTA and former member of the State School Board. “We’re committed to continuing the work on this bill to keep the bill moving forward.”

    Advocates of a comprehensive statewide approach to early literacy say the bill would fill in significant gaps in what has been missing under the state’s current policy of local control over instructional decisions.

    The main elements are:

    • The California Department of Education would select teacher training programs in reading instruction for TK-3 that are aligned with “evidence-based practices.”
    • The State Board of Education will designate appropriate TK-8 textbooks for reading instruction, also based on evidence-based practices and aligned to the state English language arts framework and English language development framework for English learners. School districts would have to choose among those or seek a waiver from the state board.
    • The Commission on Teacher Credentialing would update school administrator standards to include training for principals and district administrators on supporting effective literacy instruction.

    Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, the author of a previous bill that stalled and is now co-authoring AB 1454, said at the hearing that negotiating the compromise “by far, has been the hardest thing that I have ever done in nine years as a legislator.”

    “Sometimes I was ready to walk away,” she said, “but for the coalition (of supporters), parents, family members, and of course, our speaker, for finally sitting us down and saying, ‘Get it done. Get it done.’ ”

    Several Education Committee members said they appreciated the effort.

    “You can find people who are struggling readers in every community,” said Darshana Patel, D-San Diego. “To know that you are focused on making sure the very fundamental, foundational skill of learning to read is available for every single child is so meaningful and important.”

    The language of AB 1454 and its implementation over the next several years will determine its effectiveness. Members of the Assembly Education Committee, however, relied on a staff analysis of the bill, not the bill itself. It has yet to be released, because the intense talks that led to the deal continued into this week, leaving not enough time for the Legislative Counsel to vet the wording before the final hearing for new bills.

    When published within the next few days, the new wording will replace a spot bill, about heating and cooling, that is there now.

    AB 1454 contains many key elements of AB 1121, a contested bill, authored by Alvardo and co-sponsored by advocacy nonprofits EdVoice and Families In Schools,  Decoding Dyslexia CA and the California NAACP. First introduced last year and reintroduced this year, it stalled because of disagreement with CTA and English learner advocacy groups over how much research-based training should emphasize foundational skills, starting with phonics in TK to Grade 2 and progressing to learning vocabulary, oral skills, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Together, they are known as structured literacy or “the science of reading.”

    English learner advocates, including Californians Together, argue that a rigid application of structured literacy would ignore the needs of English learners and attention to bilingual language learners.

    Under AB 1454, reading instruction training would be optional, not mandatory, although districts must provide state-approved courses to be reimbursed by the state. The bill’s language will also call attention to the needs of English learners, and the California Department of Education will consult with a range of language-acquisition experts, including English learner organizations, when choosing the programs.

    The bill will skirt fights over semantics by avoiding references to structured literacy and the science of reading. However, the bill is expected to require aligning training to existing statutory requirements for reading instruction, which specify foundational skills.

    Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, drew an optimistic analogy to the state effort to require universal screening for potential reading challenges. CTA and English learner advocacy groups initially opposed that initiative, but later supported the effort, after extensive negotiations and agreement on an advisory committee of experts. “This fall, 1.2 million kids, kindergarten, first and second grade will be screened for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia,” he said.

    Tracking progress with data

    Tuck said that under the bill, the state will begin collecting data for the first time on how many teachers complete the training, and which training programs, textbooks and materials districts choose. “And then collectively, we can all say, OK, these districts are making real progress. They had consistency. They used similar programs and they trained a lot of teachers. Maybe these districts aren’t making as much progress.”

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, an English learner growing up, said the issue will be not just how widespread the training is, but whether it’s appropriately used. “At the end of the day, it’s what is happening with the students who are the ones who are struggling,” he said, adding that he appreciated the bill’s attention to biliteracy.

    “This is a one-size-fits-all approach,” he said, adding that progress is happening in small reading cohorts with one-on-one literacy coaching. “How we track that would be helpful.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom included $250 million in his initial 2025-26 state budget he proposed in January, but since then the financial outlook has darkened; money for new programs is expected to be scarce. However, Rivas as Assembly speaker; Alvarez, as chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance; and Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, a co-author of AB 1454 and chair of the Assembly Education Committee, are well-positioned to see the bill passed and funded. Newsom, who has funded several early literacy initiatives in the past four years, may be receptive.

    No member of the public spoke against the bill. Instead, EdVoice, Families in Schools, and Innovate Public Schools, based in San Francisco, organized dozens of parents, members of the Black Parallel School Board and supporters to travel to Sacramento.  Although they signed up for Rubio’s stalled bill, they switched bills when they learned of the compromise. They were given time to say just one sentence.

    “I’m a parent of a dyslexic who only learned to read in the third grade because of outside resources,” said Alyson Henry. “I’m here in support of 1454.”

    “On behalf of the Sacramento Literacy Foundation, the Sacramento Literacy Coalition, the 200,000 kids who are not reading at grade level right now, and my son, a struggling reader, I am in support of 1454,” said April Jarvis.





    Source link

  • California should emulate states posting gains on ‘nation’s report card’

    California should emulate states posting gains on ‘nation’s report card’


    Credit: Alison Yin for EdSource

    Once again, California’s scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress — often called the ‘nation’s report card’ — were disappointing across the board.

    Most news coverage, locally and nationally, focused on the stagnant post-Covid recovery nationwide. But this discouraging coverage overlooks a more positive development: Some states are continuing to see growth in student learning. And it’s happening because of focused, visionary state leadership — something California’s leaders would do well to learn from.

    A recent analysis by the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University identified states that successfully leveraged federal Covid recovery funds to fuel academic improvement. It’s no accident that states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky are on the list of places where students have made gains over the past two years. These are all states that set a clear vision for how to improve curriculum and instruction in schools, are giving schools the necessary tools and resources, and are tracking outcomes to fuel continuous improvement.

    For example, in Louisiana, the state Department of Education first set a high bar for curriculum and instruction. Then it identified curricula that met that high bar; incentivized districts to adopt those curricula; identified effective curriculum implementation partners and provided funding for districts to hire them. While this may sound like a top-down reform effort, it was anything but: It included input from teacher leaders from the start, leading to changes like providing each district a single contact person for all state programs and working with teachers to develop Louisiana’s own literacy curriculum. Now, Louisiana is one of only two states where students’ scores have exceeded pre-pandemic results.

    Source: Edunomics (red arrows pointing out CA added by Jennie Herriot-Hatfield)

    California, unfortunately, has set no such vision for curriculum and instruction. The state creates lots of frameworks, but it’s unclear how those massive documents affect what’s happening in classrooms. (In my five years of teaching, I never heard about or used any state framework documents.) The state spent billions of dollars in Covid recovery funds, but didn’t use the funds to pursue any particular instructional improvement strategy, and failed to systematically track outcomes from different spending strategies.

    The states that have pursued instructional improvement with positive results seem to have two common characteristics: a visionary state education leader who makes this work a priority over the long term; and a willingness to learn from other states that have done this work. California hasn’t had either recently, but perhaps that could change, if parents, teachers, and other advocacy groups work together to influence current leadership or find new leaders willing to prioritize this work.

    California is a leader in so many fields — but not in education. Hopefully, that will change soon, with statewide elections less than two years away. With more purposeful state leadership, future NAEP score releases could someday highlight better results for California’s students too.

    •••

    Jennie Herriot-Hatfield is a K-12 education consultant, former elementary school teacher and public school parent in San Francisco.

    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