اینترنت

برچسب: isnt

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

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


    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What to do, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •••

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

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





    Source link

  • LAUSD’s 100 priority schools show support for equity, but some say program isn’t enough

    LAUSD’s 100 priority schools show support for equity, but some say program isn’t enough


    Students catch up and get ahead during LAUSD’s Summer of Learning.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Thomas Jefferson High School has a rich history. 

    It is one of the oldest schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District — established more than a century ago — and lies in Central Avenue, which used to be called “Little Harlem” during the 1920s and 1930s. 

    Its graduates — from Ralph Bunche, the first Black Nobel laureate, to Alvin Ailey, the legendary choreographer — have had lasting impact.

    Now, Jefferson High sits on LAUSD’s list of 100 priority schools — meaning that Superintendent Alberto Carvalho has identified it as one of the district’s highest-needs campuses with lagging academic performance and lower attendance rates. 

    In an effort to promote equity across the district, LAUSD provides priority schools like Jefferson extra support and is the first to receive various resources, including instructional days designed to recover pandemic learning losses, as well as being the first to pilot LAUSD’s AI personal assistant. 

    “This approach places schools with the most need in a place of priority in the District regarding time and attention by Central and Region Offices,” an LAUSD spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource. 

    While veteran teachers and community activists have applauded Carvalho for putting an emphasis on equity, they have also said that being placed on the list creates a stigma that affects the schools’ administrators, teachers and students. Many have also warned that the superintendent’s approach is too standardized and does not address the root, societal causes of students’ academic struggles. 

    “Nobody wants to be listed as a failing school,” said Nicolle Fefferman, a longtime LAUSD educator who co-founded the Facebook group Parents Supporting Teachers. “Who wants to be on this list? No one — because it feels like an indictment of the hard work that we are doing every day at these schools in the face of huge historical and institutional obstacles.” 

    According to a district spokesperson, LAUSD’s priority schools have higher percentages of underserved students, including those who are Black, Latino, foster youth, unhoused and from immigrant backgrounds. 

    Proponents of other equity programs that largely support the same student body, including the Student Equity Needs Index, say their efforts have been sidelined and that they have not received the same level of support. 

    LAUSD has a history of prioritizing equity, Fefferman said, and Carvalho wasn’t the first district leader to roll out a list of struggling schools during Fefferman’s tenure as a teacher in the district. Former Superintendent Ruben Zacarias, who served in the late 1990s, did something similar. 

    “Los Angeles Unified is committed to an equitable approach in providing historically underserved schools with critical access to supports and resources,” the spokesperson for LAUSD said. 

    A need for equity support

    Largely clustered in south and southeast Los Angeles, the roughly 54,000 LAUSD students who attend Carvalho’s priority schools have struggled with chronic absenteeism — 38.2% in the 2022-23 academic year — and lower academic performance. Only 23% of students attending priority schools met or exceeded English standards, while 16% met or exceeded math standards, according to Smarter Balanced Test results for that same year. 

    Meanwhile, nearly 70% of priority school graduates failed to complete their A-G requirements, which are mandatory for admission to the University of California or the California State University systems. 

    Data for the 2023-24 academic year is not yet available, and it is difficult to determine whether performance at priority schools has improved since they were so identified. 

    So far, the priority schools have improved their outcomes, the spokesperson said, noting that their rate of improvement is larger than the district’s overall. 

    “The questions are: How did those schools get there? How long have they been there? And what’s the plan?” asked Evelyn Aleman, the organizer of the Facebook group Our Voice/Nuestra Voz. 

    “Outside of tutoring and additional school days, things like that, what does (being a priority school) mean? Is it going to be Saturday classes throughout the year? Is it just going to be three additional days? That’s simply not going to be enough.” 

    According to a district spokesperson, developing the list of 100 priority schools was part of a larger plan to improve student performance — and that the campuses on the list receive strategic and priority staffing, along with additional professional development opportunities that are “specific to their school’s unique needs.” 

    They also receive more instructional coaches and dual/current enrollment options. Their progress is more closely monitored. 

    Some LAUSD teachers, however, maintain that the extra support that comes with being a priority school won’t be enough because there are other institutional and societal factors that get in the way of better outcomes. 

    “There is so much stress in the community — much of it because of poverty, some because of violence. And it’s not that there’s violence all the time, but it’s the fact that there can be at any moment — that you’re on guard,” said Susan Ferguson, a veteran LAUSD educator who previously taught at Jefferson High School. 

    “When you’re on your stressors like that for an extended period of time, it affects your immune system. It affects your ability to learn and focus. It affects so many things,” Ferguson said.

    ‘I just don’t feel like we’re moving forward’ 

    Educators in priority schools say they can feel pressure from the district to improve outcomes, and Ferguson said LAUSD officials would come by and visit classrooms on a weekly basis. 

    “Classrooms are constantly having visitors: ‘Are they teaching? What are they teaching?’ The people coming in, I feel like, are well-intentioned, but they’re visiting 10 different schools who have different needs,” Ferguson said.

    “And yet, they’re being asked to help all of us, and they can’t — not unless they really spend time at one school looking at it.” 

    Administrators at the Jefferson High School campus, Ferguson said, have been under enormous pressure to improve academic outcomes. 

    She also said she wouldn’t be surprised if students’ psychology were impacted by the constant flow of district administrators in and out of classrooms — and any nervousness coming from their teachers. 

    “Our kids aren’t stupid. I’m sure that they have picked up on … some sort of problem,” Ferguson said. “I’m really hoping that they’re not taking it as being them. … I can’t imagine them not feeling the anxiety.”

    More than anything, Ferguson maintains that the district’s standardized approach may not address the root cause of students’ academic challenges. 

    “‘Let’s have tutors. Let’s assign these tutors to Jefferson and make the kids stay till 6 p.m.’” Ferguson said. “Well, if you bothered to come to our school and talk to our kids, you’d realize that we don’t have kids that generally stay until 6 p.m. because it’s not even safe. And people have family members to take care of and responsibilities.” 

    “It just totally seems not in touch with what’s going on and what the issues are.”

    ‘A broader view’: SENI’s approach to equity 

    A long-term equity program across LAUSD schools — the Student Equity Needs Index (SENI) — is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. 

    The effort, which was developed by the district alongside various community partners, ranks and categorizes all of LAUSD’s campuses based on their needs. The 15 factors that inform SENI’s rankings go beyond academic factors to include the prevalence of gun violence and asthma rates. 

    During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, exposure to the coronavirus and related deaths were also taken into account. 

    Jessenia Reyes, Catalyst California’s director of educational equity, said social indicators help them focus on challenges more uniquely faced by lower income communities and communities of color. 

    SENI then uses a sliding scale to allocate funding, which schools can use to address whatever needs they and their communities collectively feel are most pressing, said Daniela Hernández, the senior director of campaign development at Innercity Struggle, a local nonprofit organization that has been part of the effort to implement the program. 

    About 90% of SENI funds — which come from the district and are given to schools based on their level of need — went toward bolstering staff across elementary, middle and high schools, with many choosing to focus on psychiatric social workers and pupil services and attendance staff, according to a 2021 evaluation of the district’s SENI program conducted by American Institutes for Research. 

    The same evaluation found that SENI helped boost English language arts scores among economically disadvantaged students and those who are English learners. Math scores also increased among students with disabilities who are also English learners and economically disadvantaged.  

    Despite the improvements SENI has seen over the past decade, community advocates have also sounded alarms that not all of SENI funds allocated to schools are spent by principals. According to a district budget report, there is roughly $282 million that remains unused going into the 2024-25 academic year. 

    “Schools are encouraged to utilize SENI funds for each school year in order to serve the students who generated those dollars, and to engage with educational partners regarding the use of these funds,” a district spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource. 

    “Unspent SENI dollars are reallocated to schools based on need in order to address learning acceleration, provide mental health services and supports, provide additional learning supports, support student attendance, and address the needs of student populations.”

    Priority schools, the spokesperson said, get to keep up to 70% of their carryover funds. 

    A delicate relationship 

    This past year, 88 high- and highest-need SENI schools were listed on Carvalho’s list of 100 priority schools. A district spokesperson said that SENI serves as more of a financial designation, while the 100 priority schools list is more of a “strategic designation for central and regional support systems.”

    Advocates have said they appreciate LAUSD’s expressed commitment to equity. 

    “The district, if anything, has been ahead of the game of understanding that students don’t learn in a box — that whatever happens in their community matters,” said Miguel Dominguez, the director of development at Community Coalition, who has worked with LAUSD on the SENI initiative. 

    “If they’re being exposed to gun fatalities in their neighborhood, maybe doing a test or a pop quiz might not be something at the forefront of their mind. … This understanding of this overall whole child approach has been big.” 

    But several advocates also maintain that the district’s attitude toward SENI has changed with the emergence of the 100 priority schools. 

    When Carvalho announced he had developed developedhe list, Reyes said SENI seemed to drift onto the back burner; and, they felt an increasing pressure to prove SENI’s worth, and that it “wasn’t just symbolic” but had funding tied to it. 

    She noted that funding for SENI has increased over the years — soaring from $25 to $700 million. Advocates have continued to press for sustained support. 

    “Now more than ever, it is vital that LA Unified takes actionable steps to demonstrate its core belief of equity by interrupting the course of history and committing to prioritizing stable, long-term adequate funding to meet the unique needs of highest-needs students,” a March letter from various SENI supporters to Carvalho and the school board states. 

    “This includes protection of SENI and ensuring the $700 million investment is a permanent and stable funding source beyond the 2024-2025 school year.”      

    Meanwhile, SENI advocates said that a lack of transparency from the district and its failure to immediately release the list of 100 priority schools has made it harder for them to work collaboratively. 

    The district, however, noted that support for priority schools is intended to help campuses take advantage of their resources, including SENI funding and “removing any barriers that may interfere” with their schools’ individual efforts. 

    “There’s room for improvement in collaborating and working in parallel. Because ultimately, if they are SENI schools and they are priority schools, that means it’s a high-need school, period,” Reyes said. “It needs the support and the love from everybody and everything.”





    Source link

  • ‘Academic probation’ sends message to students that college isn’t for them, research says

    ‘Academic probation’ sends message to students that college isn’t for them, research says


    Students at Fresno City College

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

    When a college student’s GPA dips below 2.0 — lower than a C average — schools often send a notice meant to serve as a wake-up call: Improve your grades or risk losing financial aid and being kicked out of college.

    But the way that universities and colleges deliver this wake-up call could be backfiring and pushing students to give up on higher education altogether, according to new research. 

    That’s what California Competes, a nonpartisan policy and research organization, concluded in a recent report on “academic probation.” The policy report was born out of a study that relied on interviews with over 50 “comebackers” — students who returned to higher education years after stopping out — from Shasta College and Sacramento State.

    Academic probation wasn’t on the radar of researchers until the comebackers, brought on to co-design the study, raised academic probation as a serious issue that led many students to give up on their studies. 

    Su Jin Gatlin Jez

    “I was very surprised that this came up from the students, but this is why we center students in our work,” said Su Jin Jez, California Competes CEO, in an interview with EdSource.

    Jez said students perceived being put on academic probation as a message that they aren’t cut out for higher education, not as a wake-up call. This was especially true when an automated notice did not offer clear next steps for a student to begin to turn their academic career around.

    This is an issue that affects a lot of students. One national study by the Center for Analysis and Postsecondary Education and Employment found that 1 in 5 first-year students on Pell Grants were at risk of losing their grants due to low GPAs. But there’s no California-specific data about these students — something California Competes would like to see changed.

    Laura Bernhard

    The organization calls on the state to create a task force to examine academic probation policies at California public universities and promote practices that will help students. It also calls on each of the state’s higher education segments — community colleges, the CSUs and the UCs — to address this issue. That is happening already. 

    “There is interest. There’s growing recognition of the need to make these changes,” said California Competes senior researcher Laura Bernhard. “I think that’s exciting.”

    Bernhard acknowledges it can be tough to roll out sweeping policy changes in a higher education system as decentralized as California’s, but there are signs of progress. During the study, the University of California announced that it would be following one of the study’s recommendations: calling it “academic notice” rather than academic probation, a phrase that makes getting D’s or F’s sound like a crime.

    In this Q&A, Jez and Bernhard detail what they have learned in their research and, specifically, what they want to see happen in California. It has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    What typically happens when a student’s GPA drops below 2.0?

    Bernhard: Most schools use an automated system where a student will receive a form email notifying them of this status. Campus policies vary. California Community Colleges are required to notify students when their GPA falls under this threshold.

    There is not a systemwide process, which is one of the things we wanted to flag. So the student experience varies pretty widely. It’s also going to vary based on if they’re in a targeted program that receives specialized advising, such as student athletes or people who are in an honors college, but in a lot of ways it’s left to the student. I don’t think we do a lot.

    What is the problem with telling a student they are on academic probation?

    Bernhard: The first, perhaps the most obvious one, would be the link to the carceral system. That can be very triggering for many people.

    One of our institutional partners was reviewing their website about academic probation, and she was taken aback by the language. After they are given notice, the first image students see is a cop holding a stop sign saying, “You’re on probation.” She was horrified. Then she remembered 20 years ago, she was one of the people who helped write that policy. It was just a real moment of, “Oh goodness, what have we done?”

    Jez: I think previously there wasn’t a lot of concern about a letter with that kind of language because people assume students were on academic probation because they couldn’t hack it. Because they truly weren’t college material. They couldn’t handle the coursework. 

    Fast-forward to today, there’s a growing understanding that students can be academically capable and excellent — and still not be getting good grades. There are all of these factors in students’ lives that impact their academic performance. Institutions want to figure out how they can help students navigate those sorts of life circumstances, so that they can succeed in the classroom. For that reason, institutions are really wanting to make sure they have the right tone in these letters.

    So are some of these assumptions based on an outdated vision of who a college student is?

    Jez: Traditionally, we’ve had a student who is full-time focused on academic studies. You wouldn’t think of life outside of school being a major factor for them. So if they weren’t performing academically, it was because there was some academic shortcoming. 

    But now most students have heavy workloads, particularly at community colleges and the CSUs. Over 400,000 students in California have children. It’s just a very different student. I think we’re beginning to tackle our policies one by one as we look back and sort of realize they don’t work anymore. 

    Besides that phrase “academic probation,” what are some other problems with those automated notices sent to students when their GPA dips?

    Bernhard: Usually just the length. It’s long, it’s verbose, it’s wordy, it’s complex. There’s jargon. It’s not clear what steps I need to take. It’s not clear who I need to reach out to. It’s not personal. It can tend to use deficit-minded language: “You’ve done something bad; you are on probation; you are in trouble.”

    Instead, things can really be flipped. It can be short; it can be clear. It can be: ‘This is temporary. This is a setback. This happens to a lot of people. We all struggle sometimes.” We can normalize this behavior. ‘These things happen sometimes. It’s out of our control and here are the steps you can take. We care about you as our person. Please talk to us. Reach out.”

    I think a lot of colleges have also realized that, in addition to sending an email, we can text, we can call, we can have tables on campus. We can have an academic event with more personal outreach, which we realize is bandwidth-heavy. But sometimes that makes a huge difference for people. 

    This policy analysis mentions that nationally, 1 out of 5 first-time college students receiving Pell Grants end up with a GPA below a 2.0. Is there any statewide data on that?

    Bernhard: I think that’s one of the biggest issues. It’s not a publicly shared data point in most cases. It’s usually within an institution. It’s hard to get good, comprehensive, systemwide statewide information about students who have a certain GPA. We obviously believe in the power of data, so that is something we would love to be able to collect and analyze.

    Jez: I would love to see that, as the launch of the Cradle-to-Career data system happens, we have students’ GPA information.

    Is there any kind of pushback to these changes you’re suggesting? What’s the attitude among campus leaders?

    Jez: Across the three systems, I will say that there’s a growing recognition that this is a really critical issue that needs improvement. And so we’re seeing attention to this at the systemwide level. 

    At the campus level, there are a number of campuses that are just picking it up and sprinting with it. In many ways, our work has been thinking about how we get a more consistent, comprehensive approach, so we can pick up on campuses leading the way, learn from what they’re doing, and then sort of broaden it across the system. So the systems are all in and then the campuses are in. 

    You’re calling for a statewide task force. Why would that be helpful?

    Jez: Unlike literally every other state in our country, we don’t have a coordinating entity that would be thinking about these issues statewide, centering the student and the students who are attending multiple institutions. It’s critical, then, that we pull it together — in these more ad hoc ways, sadly — to be able to address this. 

    We are hopeful that there will be a proposal in the next 12 months, maybe even the next two or three months, that will tackle this.

    Was there anything that surprised you as you researched this issue?

    Bernhard: I think we could have named 17 other things that we think would have led people to stop out and make returning to complete their degree more difficult. I don’t think academic probation would necessarily have been on that list. 

    The other thing I just really wanted to tout is that this feels, to me, like a relatively easy win. It’s essentially free. It feels small, but it could be incredibly impactful for students. There really hasn’t been pushback, because it just feels very common-sense. Now it’s just like, “Great, how do we get momentum, take action and make this change statewide?” I feel like in a year when we’re sort of feeling financially constrained, I think we should take the win. 

    A lot of what you’re talking about and pushing for is systemic change, but I want to close by asking you what your message would be to students on academic notice or probation right now.

    Jez: When we’ve done previous research and we’ve talked about academic probation, what we hear from faculty and staff is they really saw it as an early warning sign, like “Hey, pay attention.” And then what we heard from students was the opposite. It was more like “You don’t belong, you’re not college material.” 

    So I think that a student should know that this status doesn’t mean you’re not college material and you don’t belong and you can’t do it. I think of it more like a wake-up call. Obviously, there are some students where some sort of crisis happens in their life, and they need to get through that moment and then get back on track. And when they hit that crisis, it’s really important to reach out to their institution because they can take incompletes or withdraw or there are other strategies that make it so that this doesn’t have an impact on their GPA.

    If it’s something that’s sort of like a bigger issue where they’re having to work full time and trying to figure out how they balance their studies, reach out to your institution. There are also a number of community-based organizations that can support students. Also, many struggles aren’t visible, but students are far from alone in grappling with this. In many ways, it is a very normal experience. Students can successfully, absolutely make it out of this temporary status. 

    It’s really like the institution’s obligation to help the student. It is not like, “Go figure it out, student.” The institution needs to help figure out with the student, “How do we support you to success?

    My last recommendation is a general customer service one. If you call customer service and the person’s not helpful, I wouldn’t try to convince that person how they should help you. Sometimes, you just hang up and find someone else. Our institutions are pretty big, so there are lots of people. Find a person that can get to your issue and that’s willing to help.





    Source link

  • Why isn’t Los Angeles Unified settling this lawsuit on arts funding?

    Why isn’t Los Angeles Unified settling this lawsuit on arts funding?


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    My time on the high school football field was spent with a snare drum strapped around my chest. As a student who was easily distracted in the academic classroom and struggled to apply myself, band class was a welcome reprieve during the day.

    Playing the drums was my niche, it was how I stood out. I carried my drumsticks around the way football players wore their varsity jackets.

    During my school years, I was fortunate that the district I attended recognized the importance of arts education. In elementary school, there were classrooms devoted to art and music staffed by full-time teachers. There was also an orchestra teacher. My middle school had two full-time band teachers, and an art class was included in the curriculum. High school offered a full range of band and choir classes in addition to the chance to participate in the jazz band and marching band in after-school programs.

    Even back then, it was clear that future students would not have these same opportunities. The program that allowed interested sixth-grade students to participate in a stage production disappeared while I was in school, a victim of budget cuts as the baby boom turned into a bust. During my time in high school, there were constant rumors of plans to reduce the number of band teachers.

    This reduction in the availability of arts education was part of a nationwide trend that accelerated as the second Bush administration and then Obama’s placed an increasing focus on test scores. Ignoring evidence that music and art help increase academic performance, teachers were forced to spend more time teaching to standardized tests. Arts funding was seen as extravagant in a system that values data over a full educational experience.

    When I visited my old elementary school in 2015, the band room did not even exist anymore. I grieved for the school’s students who no longer had the opportunity to find the joy of mastering an instrument.

    California voters understood the magnitude of this loss when 64.4% of voters opted to approve Proposition 28 in 2022. This measure provided an additional source of funding for arts and music education for K-12 public schools with rules to ensure that districts used this money to supplement, not supplant, existing funding.

    This included a requirement that schools with 500 or more students use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% for training and materials.

    Complaints grew as parents in Los Angeles noticed that their children were not seeing improved access to art and music funding as the Proposition 28 money started to flow into the district. As the author of the proposition, Austin Beuttner was well acquainted with the rules it set in place and agreed that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was not following the spirit or the letter of the law.

    After months of trying to get the district to do the right thing, Beuttner joined parents, students,and teachers in filing a lawsuit against the district and current Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho.

    The suit could have served as a wake-up call to LAUSD’s leadership that their actions were being watched, but they did not use it as an opportunity to ensure the Proposition 28 money was being spent properly. Carvalho saw the suit as a public relations problem, and instead of fixing the compliance issues, he tried to spin the narrative. As noted by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Jeff Chemerinsky, he “has already decided to double down on explanations not grounded in fact.”

    To resolve this issue, the plaintiffs are demanding that LAUSD:

    • Publicly acknowledge that it misspent the Proposition 28 funds in the 2023–24 and 2024–25 school years.
    • Fully restore the misspent and misallocated funding to schools.
    • Be fully transparent about how the funding is used in future years.

    In a letter to the LAUSD’s general counsel, Chemerinsky reminds the district that, if it is found that the funds were not used properly, it will have to return the money to the state. Combined with possible penalties for “violating the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Black and Latino students,” LAUSD could be facing a hit to its budget of over $100 million.

    This is not a slip-and-fall lawsuit designed to squeeze scarce education funding from our children’s classrooms. Rather, it is intended to improve the educational experience of our students.

    The suit would not have been brought if Carvahlo and the district had engaged with the community instead of ignoring their concerns. As Chermerinsky notes, “families, labor partners and concerned citizens spent months seeking answers. Regrettably, LAUSD refused to meaningfully respond.”

    The lawsuit has also attracted the attention of California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who has asked the state auditor to look into how the funds were spent.

    If the audit proceeds, Bryan says, “The district is going to have to produce the necessary documents to show that they are in compliance.” Based on statements from Carvalho saying the author of the proposition has a “misunderstanding of the law,” LAUSD should be concerned that its creative budgeting will not pass muster when held up to scrutiny.

    The LAUSD board must make it clear to Carvahlo that the concerns of their constituents can no longer be ignored by an increasingly detached bureaucracy. A good place to start would be by settling this lawsuit.

    •••

    Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, and serves as the education chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. Read more opinion pieces by Petersen.

    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