اینترنت

برچسب: investment

  • The missing element in Cal State’s big investment in AI

    The missing element in Cal State’s big investment in AI


    Credit: Matheus Bertelli / Pexels

    A recent New York Times investigation revealed OpenAI’s ambition to make artificial intelligence the “core infrastructure” of higher education. In California, that vision is already a reality: The California State University system has committed $16.9 million to provide ChatGPT Edu to 460,000 students across its 23 campuses. But this massive investment misses a crucial opportunity to develop the strategic thinking capabilities that make students genuinely valuable in an AI-augmented workplace.

    The irony is striking. OpenAI helped to create the problem of students outsourcing critical thinking to chatbots, and now presents itself as the solution by making that outsourcing even more seamless. Recent research in Psychology Today found a negative correlation between frequent AI use and critical thinking abilities, particularly among younger users. When students delegate decision-making and problem-solving to AI, they bypass the very mental processes that build strategic capabilities.

    California State University’s investment in ChatGPT Edu is significant and potentially transformative. But spending almost $17 million on AI tools without a strategic framework is like buying students calculators without teaching them mathematics. The investment is sound; what’s missing is teaching students how to direct these powerful capabilities strategically rather than becoming dependent on them.

    Students in the CSU system already possess remarkable strategic thinking skills that traditional academic metrics don’t capture. Here are a few examples. Working multiple jobs while attending school requires sophisticated resource optimization. Supporting families demands stakeholder management and priority balancing. Navigating complex bureaucracies develops systems thinking. Translating between different cultural communities builds pattern recognition across domains.

    These aren’t just life experiences — they’re strategic capabilities that, when developed and articulated, become powerful career advantages in an AI-augmented workplace. The goal should be to help students recognize and leverage these skills, not replace them with chatbot dependency.

    European business schools are already proving that the strategy-focused approach works. At Essec Business School, outside of Paris, executive education programs focus on developing “strategically fluent leaders” who use AI as a strategic tool rather than a replacement for thinking. Students learn to maintain strategic direction while leveraging AI capabilities — exactly what CSU students need. When executives can apply strategic frameworks to AI integration, they don’t merely use the technology better; they direct it toward genuine business value.

    A recent University of Chicago Law School study found that even AI systems trained on specific course materials made “significant legal errors” that could be “harmful for learning.” This isn’t about AI’s current limitations; it’s about the fundamental difference between tactical execution and strategic judgment. AI excels at processing information within defined parameters, but strategic thinking requires the uniquely human ability to see patterns across domains, understand complex motivations, and envision new possibilities.

    The democratization of AI tools actually creates unprecedented opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to translate their strategic insights into career success. But only if we teach strategic frameworks, not just tool usage.

    In my courses at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School — spanning advertising, social media, public relations and political communications — I’m developing approaches that emphasize strategic thinking alongside AI capabilities. Rather than just teaching AI literacy, I focus on helping students develop strategic frameworks for directing these tools effectively. The goal isn’t AI literacy — it’s strategic literacy enhanced by AI capabilities.

    Rather than criticizing CSU’s AI investment, we should help the system maximize its value. Imagine courses that help students identify their strategic thinking patterns from real-world experience, develop frameworks for human-AI collaboration, and practice directing AI capabilities toward strategic goals. Students would graduate not as AI users, but as strategic directors of AI — exactly what employers need, and exactly what justifies CSU’s significant investment.

    This isn’t about rejecting AI in education. It’s about ensuring that as AI handles tactical execution, we develop the strategic thinking capabilities that become more valuable, not less. CSU students bring strategic insights from lived experience that no chatbot can replicate. The question is whether we’ll help them recognize and develop these capabilities, or teach them to depend on tools instead.

    We don’t need AI-native universities. We need strategic-thinking native students who can direct AI capabilities toward human purposes. That’s the transformation worth investing in.

    •••

    Steve Caplan teaches strategic communications at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism and is the author of “Strategy First: Thriving in the Face of Technological Disruption.”

    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

  • Teacher diversity is an investment in students worth making and keeping

    Teacher diversity is an investment in students worth making and keeping


    Participants in the Diversity in Leadership Institute’s Aspiring Principals of Color program.

    Courtesy: Adela Montes / Diversity in Leadership Institute

    Representation matters, especially in the classroom. Students can do better when they are instructed by a person who looks like them. As California is challenged by fiscal uncertainties, school districts are bracing themselves to establish their own budget priorities. Now more than ever, it is time for school districts to protect and realize their promises of establishing and maintaining teacher diversity that is reflective of the students and communities they serve.

    Two years ago, the Los Angeles Unified School Board demonstrated its commitment to Black students, educators and families by passing a resolution on Black student excellence through educator civersity, preparation and retention. The resolution demonstrates the district’s commitment to foster a more inclusive and equitable educational landscape.

    But resolutions are only as good as their implementation. Los Angeles Unified has taken some initial steps that can be built upon and expanded to serve as a model for other districts.

    In addition to prioritizing workforce diversity in the district’s Ready for the World strategic plan, one of the district’s key initiatives has been to create affinity spaces for Black male and female educators. These spaces provide a supportive environment for Black educators to connect, share experiences, and receive mentorship and support throughout their careers. This effort is a crucial step toward increasing the representation of Black educators in the teaching profession and fostering inclusivity.

    Another significant initiative has been the district’s targeted recruitment efforts at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to diversify the teaching pipeline. By partnering with institutions like Cal State Dominguez Hills, the district has secured funding for programs that support Black students pursuing careers in education. This effort is a vital step toward addressing the longstanding inequities faced by Black students and educators.

    Additionally, the district has established mentorship and support programs to incentivize students to pursue careers in education and facilitate a seamless transition into the profession. The Educators of Tomorrow program, for example, offers financial incentives to students pursuing teaching credentials and provides resources and support to facilitate their career transitions. Moreover, the district’s collaboration with nonprofits to expand the Black educator pipeline and the emphasis on mentorship opportunities within the district demonstrate a concerted effort to nurture talent and foster growth.

    These efforts are not limited to Los Angeles Unified. In the Bay Area, Emery Unified School District is seeing progress through targeted approaches to improving outcomes for Black students by shifting to equity-based grading, paying teachers to tutor outside of school hours and continuing its focus on recruiting Black educators, among other strategic approaches.

    And recognizing the need to invest more in school leadership, in July 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California State Legislature approved the Diverse Education Leaders Pipeline Initiative, a $10 million dollar grant program, to address the need for a more diverse and culturally responsive education leadership workforce.

    Administered by the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing, this initiative seeks to credential and train over 300 new administrators across the state over the next four years.  To recruit, support and retain educators, particularly those of color, we must have a pipeline of culturally responsive school leaders.

    These local and state initiatives must be celebrated, supported and replicated. But while we celebrate Los Angeles Unified’s efforts to date, we know more transparency and engagement with community stakeholders is vital for realizing the promise of the district’s 2021 resolution. We also know others cannot follow what they can’t see. Los Angeles Unified and districts across California must share their data and learning so that others can join in taking action too.

    Fiscal uncertainties can undermine progress and change if our leaders don’t uphold their commitments and maintain their courage. Districts have shown progress toward ensuring our schools reflect the students and communities they serve. Our state and district leaders can’t stop investing and prioritizing teacher diversity now.

    We can’t build a better tomorrow for California’s students and families of color without keeping and making the necessary investments of today.

    ●●●

    Laura McGowan-Robinson, Ed.D., is CEO of the Diversity in Leadership Institute, a nonprofit working to build a movement of racially diverse and culturally competent public education leaders.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • How to evaluate California’s groundbreaking community schools investment

    How to evaluate California’s groundbreaking community schools investment


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    California’s $4.1 billion investment in community schools is the largest in the nation. An investment of this size raises important questions about whether community schools are working and what difference they are making for students.

    Community schools are intended to provide the multitude of opportunities and supports that students need to thrive and succeed. They include a rich array of integrated services, expanded learning opportunities, deep community partnerships, and importantly, offer a more democratic way of engaging with students, families and the school community to shape school priorities and vision.

    Community schools are a complex endeavor that, when done well, substantially expand what schools do to support students — and who is included in this work. Assessing the implementation and impact of community schools is similarly complex. 

    The California Department of Education (CDE) recently requested proposals for an evaluator of the  California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) initiative and will make a selection this spring. We wish to share lessons for future evaluators of program, the department of education, and the county offices of education, districts, schools and communities implementing these community school models throughout the state and country. Ideally, whatever data is required for the state evaluation and grant compliance should also be usable to help schools and districts in guiding strategic, high-quality community schools implementation.

    The suggestions below come out of our work as evaluators for Oakland Unified School District’s community schools initiative for many years while working at Stanford University’s Gardner Center, and as authors of a book about the effort to transform all the district’s schools into community schools.

    1. Community schools are not a program that a school either has or does not have, but rather an approach to education with many gradations along a spectrum.

    While many California schools have recently or will soon receive funding to become community schools, fully implementing the model can take years. Further, many of these schools already operated some elements of community schools prior to funding (such as expanded learning, school-based health services, positive discipline practices, coordination of services, or family engagement strategies), without the “community school” label. The community school grant, which includes funding for an on-site community school coordinator, is meant to expand and strengthen whole-child work and bring increased collaboration and coherence across many people, organizations and initiatives. Thus, identifying the community school “start date” as the receipt of CCSPP funds is not as clean as it may seem. 

    Lesson for evaluators: The multifaceted and fluid nature of community schools make traditional causal research designs challenging. Evaluators ideally should adopt a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach that examines change over time at community schools and illuminates connections between quality implementation and desired outcomes. Evaluators should thoughtfully consider the extent to which it is possible to isolate the impact of community schools and be precise about which elements or stages of community schools are captured in any assessment of impact.

    1. A multilevel strategy map can provide a framework to guide implementation and evaluation.

    Community schools provide a range of additional services, engage families and community organizations, and align all of these toward school goals; increasing students’ well-being and, ultimately, educational success. Successful community schools are more than a site-level intervention and require intentional district support. Given the multifaceted nature of community schools, we recommend a theory of change or “system strategy map” at three levels.  Assessing key activities and outcomes at the 1) System (school district), 2) Site (school and community), and 3) Individual (student and family) levels can help ensure a comprehensive evaluation and improve understanding of differences in implementation and outcomes across the state. 

    Lessons for evaluators: Consider grounding your evaluation in a theory of change, and incorporating strategies and outcomes at individual, setting, and system levels.

    1. Impact on traditional measures of student success can take time, and is predicated on quality implementation. But there is a lot you can measure along the way.  

    Community schools are a whole child, whole school improvement strategy. It takes time to adopt new practices, integrate resources, cultivate meaningful collaboration, develop supportive structures, and shift culture. We are unlikely to see immediate effects on traditional measures of student achievement — e.g., test scores, graduation rates, attendance, and suspensions — for at least 3-5 years. We may start to see bumps in achievement for specific student subgroups as community schools are designed to precipitate more equitable access across opportunity gaps.

    To impact long-term student wellbeing and success, quality implementation matters. Proximal indicators can show if schools are on the right track: for example, participation, knowledge, and use indicators (e.g., to what extent are students and families accessing services and opportunities; to what extent is staff aware of and utilizing community school resources); culture/climate indicators (e.g., levels of trust, collaboration, and participation); and if other enabling conditions are being met. Additionally, qualitative data is crucial for answering critical questions about how community schools are working, what is going well, what is not, and why.

    These findings can directly inform program improvement at the LEA and state level. For example, some of our early research with Oakland Unified showed that many principals were struggling to understand their role in community schools development. In response to these findings, the district increased investment in professional development for site leaders.

    Lessons for evaluators: Before assessing whether community schools are yielding desired results for students, it’s imperative to examine the extent to which implementation is happening as hoped and planned, such as, school-level coherence and collaboration and family-school partnerships. Further, an evaluation should include more nuanced indicators of student experiences beyond what is included in the California Data Dashboard and existing statewide culture/climate surveys to capture youth voice, cultural relevance and community connection.

    The California Community Schools Partnership Program evaluator will set the tone for “what matters” in community school implementation across the state. Additionally, the evaluation activities should include support for schools, districts and county offices to help them use data in collaborative, participatory ways with their teams and community.

    A strong evaluation of the California community schools initiative will provide lessons that inform ongoing school and district-level implementation, and give us an understanding of the difference community schools make for students and families.

    •••

    Kendra Fehrer is founder and principal of Heartwise Learning, which helps schools and organizations create practical, research-informed solutions to improve student learning and well-being.
    Jake Leos-Urbel is senior director of learning and evaluation at Oakland Thrives. They are authors of the book “The Way We Do School: The Making of Oakland’s Full-Service Community School District”

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Bilingual teacher training must be a long-term investment in California schools

    Bilingual teacher training must be a long-term investment in California schools


    Photo courtesy of SEAL

    Speaking more than one language is a superpower and a growing necessity in our global economy. If we want more California students to experience the economic, academic, social and emotional benefits of multilingualism, bilingual or dual language classrooms should be the gold standard for all schools. English learners, who often fall behind in school, especially stand to benefit from bilingual/dual language programs.

    Families across the state — regardless of political affiliation, or whether they speak English at home — can recognize the academic, cognitive and economic advantages of bilingualism. They want multilingual education for their children when they see the data and experience these benefits for themselves. While California has made major strides toward making bilingual classrooms the norm, there is a long road ahead, particularly in communities with large numbers of English learners. This is a grave injustice for the 40% of California children who speak a language other than English at home, because these children would excel in bilingual classrooms academically while still developing literacy in their home language and English. We need long-term investment from the state for our students to realize their full potential.

    A recent report from the UCLA Civil Rights Project underscores this urgent need. Proposition 227, which passed in 1998, mandated English-only education for English learner students in public schools and dismantled bilingual teacher preparation programs. Then, in 2016, California voters passed Proposition 58 with 73% of the vote, overturning Proposition 227 and making it easier, in theory, to implement bilingual classrooms.

    However, more than two decades of “English-only” education has left us without enough qualified bilingual teachers, even though there is now more demand for them. According to the UCLA report, out of 1.1 million English learners in California, only 188,381 students, or 16% of that population, were enrolled in these programs as of the 2019/2020 school year.

    California is still a nationwide leader in supporting bilingual education, despite these numbers. The state’s English Learner Roadmap and Global California 2030 show that our education leaders really do want to improve our students’ critical thinking skills, family and community relationships, and earning potential through bilingual education. And one-time programs like the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Program, English Learner Roadmap Power in Collaboration Across California, and the English Learner Roadmap Implementation for Systemic Excellence are doing important work to fulfill these goals.

    But visionary policies and initiatives, along with one-time grants alone, are not enough. Schools and districts require sustained resources and incentives to train bilingual teachers, set up classrooms, purchase materials, recruit families and ensure their programs can launch and thrive. Right now, we simply do not have that in California. It’s a symptom of our state’s fundamental lack of investment in education overall — California is the world’s fifth largest economy, but we rank 18th in education funding out of the 50 states.

    To illustrate this, the UCLA report compares California to Texas, another state with similar English learner populations. Even though California has a large number of English learner students and high interest in bilingual education, it’s still difficult to expand these models in California classrooms. Meanwhile, in Texas, enrollment in bilingual education programs is twice as high as in California. This is because Texas mandates bilingual education for districts enrolling significant numbers of English learners and provides extra state funding per student enrolled in these programs. This ensures strong demand for bilingual teachers and secure funding for their training.

    Districts and schools need ongoing funding sources like this embedded in their funding formula. Policymakers must support both one-time initiatives like those mentioned above and long-term sustainable funding sources that help increase our bilingual teacher pipeline and incentivize schools to build high quality bilingual/dual language programs.

    These long-term solutions could be modeled after initiatives like First Five, which has received $492 million in state investments since 2000. We need a comprehensive approach to the bilingual teacher pipeline, such as giving colleges and universities “Jump Start” funds to hire faculty and build out their bilingual teacher prep and authorization programs. California should also create initiatives to recruit and give incentives to students who graduate from high school with a State Seal of Biliteracy to enter bilingual teacher preparation programs.

    Language is the vehicle of learning. When educators understand how to integrate and leverage language development across everything, all students thrive. We must invest in bilingual education long-term if we are ever going to create a sustainable future for our state’s most valuable resource: our children.

    •••

    Anya Hurwitz is president and executive director of SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language), a nonprofit initiative of the Sobrato Foundation and vice president of the board of directors for Californians Together. She holds a doctorate in education from University of California Berkeley.

    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