برچسب: leave

  • Fresno City College instructor placed on administrative leave following EdSource report

    Fresno City College instructor placed on administrative leave following EdSource report


    Tom Boroujeni, Fresno City College academic senate president.

    Credit: Mark Tabay / Fresno City College

    The State Center Community College District placed Fresno City College instructor and president of the school’s Academic Senate, Tom Boroujeni, on administrative leave late Thursday, district officials said in a statement.

    District officials cited no specific reason for the action. It takes effect immediately.

    The move came one day after EdSoruce reported that in 2021 Fresno State University determined that in 2015, Boroujeni “committed an act of sexual violence” against a professor who also teaches part-time at Fresno City College. He denies committing the act. 

    Chancellor Carol Goldsmith did not respond to messages Thursday night.

    Boroujeni did not respond to messages following the district’s brief announcement.

    In a message to the City College campus community Thursday, President Robert Pimentel wrote that “investigative action” was being taken, and that “the college takes allegations of this nature very seriously.” He did not explain the specific allegations.

    Boroujeni, 38, of Clovis, is also known as Farrokh Eizadiboroujeni and Tom Eizadi, documents show. He has taught at Fresno City College since 2015, the same year he began his academic career at Fresno State while still a graduate student. 

    Earlier Thursday, three female instructors in the communication department at Fresno City College refused to teach their classes, citing the EdSource report.

    Tiffany Sarkisian, the college’s program-review coordinator and a communication arts instructor, told the administration and her students that she and others decided to stay off campus in an effort to advocate for a safe teaching, learning and working environment. 

    “The environment at FCC (Fresno City College) grows more toxic and unsafe by the day, especially as an abuser has been – and continues to be – protected by various campus leaders,” she emailed college administrators.

    Late Thursday, after learning the district put  Boroujeni on administrative  leave, Sarkisian said the college’s decision was appropriate. 

    “It provides a space where other parties can feel safe to actually do the job of teaching and learning,” she said, but the paid administrative leave is “essentially rewarding (him) for behaving badly.”

    She added that the college had deeper problems than Boroujeni.  “It’s not just this individual being a bad actor; it’s institutionalized practices and structures that allowed this to continue for so long.” 

    “This (was) another example of an institution protecting the abuser and not the victim,” she told EdSource. “What happened on our campus should not have happened, and there should have been other structures in place.” 

    Boroujeni told EdSource in an interview that he also faces complaints from three female employees of the college for what he described as gender discrimination. 

    He was also reprimanded last year by Cyndie Luna, dean of the school’s Fine, Performing and Communication Arts Division, for unprofessional conduct that included allegedly referring to a colleague with an apparent racial slur and threatening “to get” the colleague, according to a copy of the reprimand letter EdSource obtained. Boroujeni claimed Luna fabricated the slur and threat she attributed to him, adding, she “makes things up all the time.” 

    He also claimed that a Fresno State professor was lying when she told an investigator that she did not consent to sex with Boroujeni in her apartment on June 21, 2015, and that he “pinned down her upper region” and that she “zoned out” during what followed.

    EdSource does not identify victims of sexual abuse or violence. The woman declined to be interviewed.

    Boroujeni told EdSource the woman made up the assault allegation in retribution for a sexual harassment allegation he brought against her, claiming she seduced him into a relationship he didn’t want but entered into out of fear that she would undermine his ability to earn a master’s degree and become a Fresno State instructor.

    That claim, which Bouroujeni linked to his removal in 2020 as coach of the school’s nationally prominent debate team, was dismissed by a university investigator.

    It was during the probe of his claim that the alleged victim told the investigator about what happened at her apartment on June 21, 2015. The investigator determined she was credible and found that Boroujeni committed what Fresno State has called “an act of sexual violence.”

    The university couldn’t discipline him because he was a graduate student when the alleged violence occurred. Boroujeni resigned from Fresno State last year after officials said a report on the matter would be placed in his personnel file when he was up for a performance review. 

    In his resignation, he agreed to not seek or accept work in the California State University system again.  

    But the matter had no immediate impact on his teaching a few miles away at Fresno City College, where the victim teaches part-time in addition to her tenured position at Fresno State.

    A State Center Community College District document obtained by EdSource shows that “in August 2021, (the victim) sought a ‘no contact order’ from Fresno City College against Tom Boroujeni… as a result of a sexual misconduct investigation at CSU Fresno.” The ‘no contact order’ was granted, the document, titled an “Administrative Determination,” states.

    The district granted Boroujeni tenure in March. He assumed the academic senate presidency in May, after a two-year term as president elect.

    Jill Wagner, spokesperson for SCCCD, told EdSource that Boroujeni’s tenure committee “considered multiple factors in favor of granting tenure, and areas of concern were not identified” at the time of the review. Asked if the committee that considered Boroujeni’s tenure had access to or was of the district’s administrative determination which confirmed Fresno State’s finding that an act of sexual violence had occurred, Wagner did not respond directly, writing instead that the district followed state law and the district’s union contract, “which prescribes what information can be included in tenure review.”  

    Boroujeni told Edsource that he “got tenured with the district’s knowledge of everything that had happened.”





    Source link

  • Now Will They Leave Joe Biden Alone?

    Now Will They Leave Joe Biden Alone?


    As I was scrolling through Twitter on Sunday, I read a bunch of anti-Biden tweets, so I added my two cents.

    I tweeted:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I would rather have Joe Biden (surrounded by highly competent people) asleep than Donald Trump at his best (surrounded by Fascists, haters, and law-breakers) on his best day. @jaketapper @AlexThomp

    I once wrote on this blog that I would never criticize Joe Biden because he was running against a man who was totally unfit for the job. Several Trumpers has since written to complain about that statement, saying that it demonstrated my bias, but time has confirmed my view.

    Regardless of his mental state, Biden would never have appointed a crackpot to run the National Institutes of Health. He would never have defunded USAID, NPR, PBS, FEMA, the Voice of America, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Department of Education. Nor would he have let loose Elon Musk’s DOGS to ransack federal agencies, fire thousands of expert career officers, mess with the Social Security Administration, and hoover up all our personal data, for whatever nefarious purposes he chooses. Unlike Trump, Biden would not have terrorized institutions of higher education and threatened academic freedom and freedom of speech. Unlike Trump, Biden respected the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI and did not put political lackeys in charge of them or treat them as his personal attack dogs.

    Frankly, I can’t keep track of the many federal programs and agencies that Trump has recklessly destroyed. If anyone knows of such a compilation, please share it. Trump and Musk have vandalized our government, and despite the thousands of injudicious, capricious firings, have not saved any money at all.

    Then I came across this post by Julie Roginsky, which appeared shortly after the nation learned that former President Biden has prostate cancer, which has metasticized to his bones. She is writing about the new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that aims to prove that President Biden was experiencing severe mental and physical decline while he was in office and that his family and staff collaborated to conceal that decline from the public.

    She wrote:

    Maybe now they’ll leave Joe Biden alone — or, better yet, spend some time assessing his actual presidency, both in isolation and in comparison with what has followed.

    Stick it to legacy media, which has consistently beaten up on a decent man.

    Was Biden operating at half-capacity throughout his term? Was he operating at 10%? Here are some facts, regardless of the opinions rendered by amateur neurologists all over media these days.

    “Biden inherited an economy that was flat on its back because of the pandemic, and he’s bequeathing an economy that’s flying high,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s, which just lowered the credit rating of the United States for the first time in history under Donald Trump. 

    Biden’s economic tenure was marred by the inflation that was a hangover of the Covid pandemic. But the numbers don’t lie about the rest of it. On his watch, the Dow Jones rose by over 40%, while the Nasdaq rose by almost 50%. The economy expanded by 11% during his four years in office (compared with under 9% during Donald Trump’s first term). Despite inflation, retail sales grew by more than 20%. Household net worth was 28% higher when Biden left office than when he took over from Trump. Unemployment was 2% lower at the end of Biden’s tenure than when he entered the White House. 

    Most importantly, no one was predicting the demise of our 250 year American experiment while Biden was in charge.

    Now, Biden is diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. You don’t need to be an oncologist to know that the prognosis is not great.

    So maybe now is a good time to reflect not just on Biden’s tenure but on what this obsession with his mental health means for the future of this country. Reporters who have spent the past several weeks on the fainting couch about “the cover up” of his mental condition in the Oval Office have consistently failed to acknowledge the successes of his tenure. They have failed to compare that tenure, both in economic and in governance terms, to what has followed. They have never stopped beating up a man who is no longer in the White House to take stock of the mental health of the current occupant of the White House.

    Trump’s mental decline (which is apparent to anyone who has lived in the New York media market for the past four decades) is not happening, you see — because he does not stutter, because he shouts with vigor, because he “truths” at all hours of the night, unlike a septuagenarian who might require more rest. 

    In short, all this is just “Trump being Trump.” It cannot be that he is stark raving mad. 

    And Trump’s economic record, the one that is driving inflation ever higher, the one that is destroying consumer sentiment, the one that has driven both the stock and bond markets crazy? Never mind all that. Have you listened to Biden’s conversation with Robert Hur? Now that’s a scandal. 

    Look, I really don’t care if Biden was confined to a gurney for four years. The facts speak for themselves. The country was more prosperous, the democracy was more stable, the nation was more respected, the people were less terrified, when he was in charge. 

    Yes, Biden’s staff may have covered up his medical condition while he was in the Oval Office. But the real scandal is the cover up happening now. The media so obsessed with kicking Biden now that’s gone that it is ignoring the very real danger that his successor poses to us all. 

    I am not a religious person but I hope that whatever higher power exists will look out for Joe Biden. He is a good man, who did well on behalf of the people who entrusted him with the presidency. That is a hell of a lot more than could be said about his successor.

    I repeat:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I would rather have Joe Biden (surrounded by highly competent people) asleep than Donald Trump at his best (surrounded by Fascists, haters, and law-breakers) on his best day. @jaketapper @AlexThomp



    Source link

  • High school math placement is too important to leave to subjective recommendations

    High school math placement is too important to leave to subjective recommendations


    A student practices graphing in Algebra I at Rudsdale Newcomer High School in Oakland.

    Anne Wernikoff for EdSource

    Enrolling students in high school math courses is a high-stakes endeavor with an outsize effect on students’ college opportunities and even on their entire careers.

    The pressure to reach Calculus by a student’s senior year of high school often translates into pressure to take Algebra I, the first course in a five-course sequence, by eighth grade. Algebra I (or Integrated Math I) is considered a ninth grade course, but taking it on that schedule typically doesn’t allow students to meet the prerequisites for Calculus in their remaining three years of high school. This is important when we consider that advanced math classes on a student’s transcript can boost their chances of admission to certain colleges.

    But the benefits of eighth-grade math acceleration are neutralized when students who perform well in Algebra I are nevertheless required to repeat that course in ninth grade.

    Students of color and low-income students face that predicament disproportionately under their schools’ placement practices. This glaring inequity was highlighted more than a decade ago by civil rights advocates in California — and confirmed in multiple research studies since then, including this one by our organizations last year.

    Legislation targeting this unfair practice was passed in 2015. It requires the use of multiple objective measures to place students. “Successful pupils are achieving a grade of ‘B’ or better, or are testing at proficient or even advanced proficiency on state assessments. Nevertheless, they are held back to repeat 8th-grade mathematics coursework rather than advancing to the next course in the recommended mathematics course sequence,” the legislation noted.

    But nine years since the bill’s passage, we still lack a clear picture of its impact — if any — on equitable ninth-grade math placement. In the meantime, numerous states have adopted policies that have demonstrated preliminary success in expanding access to acceleration opportunities in middle and/or high school.

    California cannot afford to leave this equity issue to chance — especially because what we know to date about the implementation of California’s policy is not encouraging.

    The law, the California Math Placement Act of 2015, requires a “fair, objective, and transparent” math placement policy using multiple objective measures of student performance to determine placement. It discourages the use of subjective measures such as teacher recommendations, because of the risk of bias. In particular, it says that teacher recommendations may be used only to advance students, not to hold them back.

    But, according to a recent report from Rand Corp., high schools in California are more likely than schools elsewhere to use teacher recommendations to inform how students are placed into math classes.

    In fact, data from the survey of high school principals analyzed in the report suggest that 95% of California high schools that track students into different math courses use teacher recommendations as part of their placement process. That’s more than the national average of 86% and far more than other large states such as Florida (56%), New York (78%) and Texas (70%).

    In what appears to be a violation of the law, almost a third (31%) of California schools — more than twice the national average of 14% — use recommendation data exclusively.

    Put another way, only 69% of California principals report using some form of assessment data — whether grade-level tests, diagnostic tests, in-class tests, or classroom assignments — to inform placement decisions. Nationally, the proportion was 85%, the researchers found.

    Without further research, we won’t know why these teacher recommendation practices prevail. More importantly, we won’t know whether the past decade has brought any improvement in access to accelerated course sequences for students of color and low-income students. The available research on 12th grade course-taking before the Covid-19 pandemic shows continued inequities in access to advanced math for students who are Black, Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged or English learners.

    The issue of teacher recommendations is a nuanced one, as researchers from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) pointed out in 2016. If bias is addressed, teacher input can have benefits — by accounting for factors such as students’ motivation and persistence, which metrics such as test scores may obscure. But no research suggests they should be used to the exclusion of objective measures.

    The provision that teacher recommendations can be used only to advance students creates opportunities for students who perform better in class than on standardized assessments. PPIC noted that schools need better guidelines to comply with that provision. Many schools using recommendations may be doing so appropriately. But without further research, it’s hard to imagine how the 31% of schools that are relying solely on teacher recommendations and no assessment data could be doing what the law envisioned.

    That is why we need clear measures of how students are being placed into math classes across the state.

    While California has been in the dark about students’ math enrollment patterns, numerous other states have adopted automatic enrollment policies. Under such policies, students who meet a certain benchmark in math are automatically enrolled in an advanced math course the following year. Such enrollment policies have shown promise to address the very problem California lawmakers set out to fix nearly a decade ago.

    • Beginning in 2014, districts in Washington state widened access to more rigorous math for Black and Latino students, whose enrollment in accelerated sequences increased by 3.1 percent more than their peers. As a result, Washington mandated automatic enrollment across the state in 2019.
    • North Carolina adopted similar legislation in 2018, guaranteeing accelerated math opportunities for students who score at the highest level on an end-of-grade test.
    • Schools in Dallas have also demonstrated success with this approach. From 2019-20 to 2022-23, the proportion of Black and Latino students who met fifth-grade standards and subsequently enrolled in sixth-grade honors math increased from 58% to 92% and 69% to 94%, respectively. These results led Texas to adopt its own statewide automatic enrollment policy last year.

    Given the major role math placement exerts on students’ future opportunities, California leaders similarly should insist on rigorously measuring access to advanced math courses to ensure that it is equitable regardless of race or socioeconomic background.

    •••

    Pamela Burdman is executive director at Just Equations, a policy institute that reconceptualizes the role of math in education equity.

    Rachel Ruffalo is senior director of strategic advocacy at EdTrust-West, an evidence-driven advocacy organization committed to advancing policies and practices to dismantle racial and economic barriers in California’s education system.

    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