اینترنت

برچسب: Lets

  • The moment of the whole child is here; let’s not waste it

    The moment of the whole child is here; let’s not waste it


    Students rehearsing a dance routine in an expanded learning program in Fresno

    Photo: Jay Dunn/The Partnership for Children & Youth (PCY)

    The pandemic shed a bright light on something we already knew: The traditional school day is not enough to serve the whole child. Students in our school systems are struggling academically. From low test scores to low attendance rates, the pandemic recovery has left too many students behind. In response, California made a $4 billion commitment — part of the most significant funding increase in the state’s history — to fund quality expanded learning programs through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program in an effort to bridge critical gaps in the school day.

    To fully support students’ development, we must go beyond test scores and classroom performance. Students need experiences that support their minds, bodies and spirits, too. Programs before and after school, enrichment and summer learning offer safe spaces for students to spend time outside the classroom, where they can connect with trusted adults, catch up on schoolwork, engage with their friends and play in green spaces outdoors. These programs help boost students’ school performance, increase school day attendance and graduation rates and increase family engagement.

    The good news is that state leaders are paying attention to the benefits of these types of expanded learning programs across the state. Recently, state policymakers participated in events here in Los Angeles to celebrate Lights On Afterschool — an initiative that calls attention to the importance of after-school programs. They saw firsthand the positive impact that learning outside of regular school hours has on children, not only academically, but mentally, emotionally and physically.

    Through quality expanded learning, we see kids transform into their most authentic selves, and when there is a dedicated effort toward inclusion, experiences lead to self-discovery and a commitment to their communities. We believe that expanded learning programs help students understand their deeper place in the world, and the confidence they build here expands into their time in the classroom and in their communities.

    Expanded learning goes beyond just the academic benefits, to the social and emotional health of students, necessary building blocks for the development of happy and healthy children. Last year more than 94% of surveyed middle-school participants in local programming said they grew in key areas of social and emotional development, like self-management and positive identity. Additionally, 83% of elementary participants felt a sense of team or group identity, especially important for a generation still reeling from the aftermath of isolation due to the pandemic.

    From first graders playing violins in mariachi bands to young athletes learning skills and important life lessons on and off the court and young people finding new confidence after a few nights at a sleepaway camp, demonstrate the immediate and long-term results of confidence, collaboration, cultural pride and agency. When young people are given choice and opportunity to find what “sparks” them, they find a sense of self that gives them a foundation for school and life success.

    Expanded learning programs are an essential part of development for so many students across our city — and our state. Our daily interactions with students in these programs prove we are on the right track — but we aren’t done yet. We must continue to fund and support high-quality expanded learning programs to ensure all students across the state have access to these opportunities to set the whole child — and whole communities — up for success. 

    •••

    Julee Baber Brooks is CEO of Woodcraft Rangers, a major expanded learning provider that serves over 20,000 at 120 locations.

    Jessica Gunderson is co-CEO of the Partnership for Children and Youth, a nonprofit working to increase access and quality of expanded learning programs in California.

    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

  • Let’s carefully think about how we use AI in education

    Let’s carefully think about how we use AI in education


    Credit: Sanket Mishra / Pexels

    Could you navigate the roads without GPS? What about writing an essay error-free? Could you complete that task without spell check? Although many media reports describe artificial intelligence (AI) as a new innovation, it has been around for decades. GPS and spell check are just two examples of how AI is an integral part of the technologies we use on a daily basis.

    However, the introduction of ChatGPT shook the world. Possibilities for using generative AI to create content and deliver innovations in many fields and aspects of modern life are being developed and introduced quickly, and they are dramatically changing the way we use information. This is especially true in education.

    Students are using AI to complete assignments, teachers are using it to develop lesson plans, and schools are using it to provide individualized support to children. However, there is a lack of clear guidance on the use of AI, which could create new challenges far beyond concerns about cheating, plagiarism and data privacy. 

    One concern is what we refer to as digital amnesia. People tend to forget information that is easily obtained through search engines. Typically, people search for the same word, concept or fact several times, because for many, the brain does not register the information. This dilemma is known as the “Google effect,” and research shows that this often has a negative impact on one’s ability to retain critical information. 

    AI could amplify the amnesia of knowledge and skills on a new level. When an artificial intelligence tool is used to complete homework, the knowledge and skills that would have been developed by completing those activities are no longer acquired. Similarly, when AI is used to make problem-solving decisions, the development of critical cognitive skills and intellectual creativity may be put at risk. 

    The availability of a wide range of AI tools is also raising fundamental questions about what should be taught and emphasized in schools. When calculators were adopted, certain tasks, such as the multiplication and division of large numbers, could be completed efficiently to save time for developing other skills. However, it is still important for students to learn essential arithmetic skills because we know it is foundational to learning more complex math.  

    For this reason, policymakers and educators must know how the use of AI will affect long-term learning outcomes before it is utilized in the classroom. Without carefully thinking through the consequences of using AI in ways that short-circuit learning, it could produce adverse educational effects that we are presently unable to envision, and it could exacerbate existing inequities. 

    Responsible integration of AI requires creating opportunities for users to actively engage in learning activities. AI tools can be used to promote creative thinking and problem-solving skills, giving users learning opportunities that deepen engagement and empower them.   

    We recently documented the possibility of using AI in this way. Through an AI-supported professional development program, we asked math teachers to complete an activity related to their daily teaching tasks and then used an AI tool to analyze their work. The tool identified areas where teachers needed additional support and provided them with activities to acquire the skills needed by asking targeted questions. Teachers learned by doing rather than by simply using AI to show them how to do it. This approach not only improved teachers’ knowledge and skills, it also improved their students’ performance. 

    This research showed that AI can be used as a teacher’s aide. It can analyze students’ work and identify which students need additional help. It can also suggest evidence-based strategies teachers can use to modify subsequent instruction to meet students’ needs. 

    As AI tools become more widely available, it is essential that state and district leaders pay close attention to what vendors are selling. Will new AI tools enhance and empower teachers and learners, or will they contribute to passivity? To answer this important question, teachers must be given an opportunity to investigate how these tools will be used to support students before decisions are made. 

    The second major concern is that teachers and students may begin to over rely on the information provided by AI. Generative AI is based on the data it is trained to assimilate and distill. As we now know, AI makes mistakes that only a well-trained user can identify. The rubrics and data used in AI tools to grade student work, provide guidance on how to address gaps in learning, or to improve student skills, may not be adequate. It could easily reproduce biases and inequities that exist in our schools and society. 

    To avoid these potential problems, content experts from diverse backgrounds must be involved in the development of AI tools in education. These tools must be vetted carefully by subject matter and pedagogical experts who can provide feedback before they are introduced into classrooms. No AI tool should be used unless protocols for data privacy are well documented and there is real evidence that it will improve teaching and learning 

    We are not wary or opposed to using AI to enhance learning. In fact, we believe it has tremendous potential to support teachers and empower learners if used correctly. However, policymakers and educators must ask the right questions about its use and take precautionary steps to determine which tools will be helpful and which may harm teaching and learning. 

    •••

    Yasemin Copur-Gencturk is an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and a leading researcher on AI in education. 

    Pedro Noguera is dean of USC’s Rossier School of Education and a newly appointed member of the U.S. Department of Education’s committee on the use of AI in education.

    The opinions expressed in this piece 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

  • Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students 

    Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students 


    Two students with drill press

    A student uses a drill press to work on an engineering project.

    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    The design of California’s higher education system has been influential for its twin goals of high-quality undergraduate education and broad access to college. Though our public universities are renowned for their research prowess, the focal point for access has been our extensive network of community colleges — now comprising 116 — offering students first- and second-year courses with the opportunity to transfer and earn a four-year degree at a university.  

    But for students seeking to transfer in STEM fields, that opportunity borders on illusory: While 16% of community college students nationally complete a bachelor’s degree, only 2% earn a degree in a STEM field. Misaligned math policies play a role in unnecessarily narrowing that path. Absent a coordinated statewide approach, that is unlikely to change.

    It’s not just that a student seeking to transfer in, say, computer science has to take three to six semesters of math, depending on the transfer destination. Before even taking those courses, many community college students must first complete two or three math prerequisites. And, because the actual requirements may vary from campus to campus, some have to take extra courses to ensure they are eligible for junior status at more than one university. 

    To make matters worse, there are inconsistencies in whether four-year campuses articulate — or recognize — a given community college course. Plus, the tools available to students to navigate their options tend to be clunky and outdated. Some students have been forced to enroll at a different college to repeat an already completed math course when one of their prospective transfer campuses doesn’t accept the first college’s course. 

    This maze of inconsistent and opaque math requirements is among the barriers to STEM transfer identified in our recent report, “A Complex Equation: Confronting Math Barriers on the Path to STEM Transfer.” Because these barriers are often out of students’ control, it is up to institutions to fix them. But, under current state policies, the state’s higher ed systems have little apparent incentive to alleviate them and increase transfer access to some of the state’s most popular STEM majors. 

    In fact, it appears that at some campuses, it is not a priority to admit even those students who do clear the math hurdles and other STEM requirements, according to the California State Auditor. The education code requires universities to provide “adequate” space for transfer students — generally interpreted as meaning at least one-third of upper-division enrollments — in all “colleges or schools.” But some high-demand majors at some campuses are balanced heavily against transfer students. 

    In biology, for example, for academic years 2018-19 through 2022-23, only 14% of Cal State LA’s juniors and seniors were transfer students, with Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo enrolling just 12% and UC Santa Barbara 14%, the auditor found. UC Berkeley’s transfer enrollment in two highly ranked departments was even lower: 11% of enrollments in computer science and 9% in environmental science are transfer students. Many of these campuses appear to be turning away eligible students, the auditor found: For example, in 2022, Berkeley denied 95 transfer computer science applicants whose preparation was considered “best prepared” or “strongly prepared.” 

    Added oversight is currently the only mechanism for shifting such patterns. A legislated pilot program requires UC campuses, beginning with UCLA, to create paths to STEM transfer. But UCLA chose to focus the program on relatively low-enrollment majors — atmospheric sciences, geology, math, and environmental science — not popular ones such as biology, computer science or engineering that are already at capacity. 

    Barriers in articulation also prevent community college students from benefiting from pioneering instructional approaches. Take, for example, a redesigned math sequence at UCLA. The new course, which has been offered to UCLA undergraduates since 2013, covers some traditional calculus topics in the context of modeling dynamical biological systems. Students taking the innovative course earned “significantly” higher grades in subsequent STEM courses than students who took the traditional course, and their interest in the topic doubled. 

    The two-course sequence is the primary math requirement for UCLA’s biology undergrads. But community colleges have not been able to offer the course. Since it is not available within the CSU system or at other UC campuses, if a community college were to offer it, only students who successfully transfer to UCLA could apply it toward a life sciences degree. UCLA allows students to transfer with a traditional calculus course, but this means that transfer students are deprived of the benefits of the modernized curriculum. 

    Both UC and CSU can take steps to better prioritize transfer students in high-demand STEM majors, as the auditor recommends. But to set and achieve statewide goals for transfer participation and completion — including STEM-specific goals — and improve success for historically underrepresented groups requires a greater degree of coordination across all three higher education systems. 

    One step toward achieving that is establishing a coordinating body in line with a proposal currently circulating in Sacramento. Another is ensuring that students have up-to-date, accurate and actionable information about transfer and course articulation through modernized transfer planning tools. A third is supporting innovation in STEM education through the California Education Learning Lab. 

    These would be minor investments toward ensuring more efficient, transparent, and evidence-based use not only of the billions of dollars our state invests in education, but also of another precious resource: our students’ time.  

    •••

    Pamela Burdman, Alexis Robin Hale, and Jenn BeVard work for Just Equations, a policy institute dedicated to enhancing the role of math in education equity. 

    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

  • Let’s keep our promise to California students

    Let’s keep our promise to California students


    2024 Student Voices Arts Advocacy Day at Cal Arts

    Credit: Las Fotos Photography

    Middle school students eagerly swiping paintbrushes across canvases, a group of fifth graders rehearsing lines from their upcoming play, and a first-time high school cello player thrilled to be part of the orchestra — all beaming with confidence, excited to attend school, and developing critical life and career skills.

    These are scenes that California voters, who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 28 in 2022, expect in every school. Ensuring every student benefits from the power of the arts is why I joined Create CA, the arts education advocacy organization, as executive director six months ago. I firmly believe, and research has shown, that the arts are critical for a well-rounded education and student success.

    Unfortunately, student access to the arts is inequitable and often depends on the unpredictability of local fundraising, community advocacy and school districts prioritizing the arts. Voters passed Proposition 28 to address these challenges. 

    The promise of Proposition 28 is increased access to the arts for all California public school students by providing dedicated, ongoing funding to expand the number of arts education teachers. Regrettably, we’ve heard that some districts are not complying with the law and the voters’ mandate to use the new funds to supplement (i.e., expand), not supplant (i.e., replace), their existing arts education funding.

    Californians voted for more arts education for all students, not the status quo. Create CA has been in touch with school leaders, teachers, parents and students who have shared examples of success, which we celebrate. In contrast, others have disclosed suspected violations in their respective school districts. 

    Districts meeting the promise of Proposition 28 have several things in common: a dedicated district arts education coordinator, an arts education strategic plan developed with community input, and a Proposition 28 report (mandated by the law) that clearly describes how their school district used the new funds to expand arts education. A great example is San Gabriel Unified, which outlines in its Proposition 28 report the hiring of two new art teachers, more dance and theater instruction at its elementary schools, and other investments that further its arts strategic plan. 

    Another exemplary model is the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). The district formed a committee and implemented a plan that included creating job descriptions, arts curriculum planning, coaching and a Proposition 28 communication strategy. The result is that Long Beach hired itinerant teachers from all arts disciplines across its 35 elementary schools and added nine middle school positions and six high school positions. Because of these measures, every student will have access to the arts from K-12th grades, as the proposition intended. 

    On the other hand, some communities suspect their districts are willfully violating Proposition 28’s intention. Parents, unions and the author of the proposition are suing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for eliminating existing funding for the arts and replacing it with Proposition 28 funds. We’ve spoken with teachers at Chula Vista Elementary School District who allege that the district intended to fire arts education teachers with the plan of rehiring them with Proposition 28 funds, skirting the law’s intention. In Hayward Unified, one teacher noted that “5.8 positions currently funded from Proposition 28 are being cut.” One of Create CA’s student advocates wrote a story on South Pasadena Unified’s plan to move funding for their elementary visual arts and music teachers from a “temporary funding source to this Prop 28 restricted permanent resource.” These examples demonstrate that school districts statewide may be denying students the right to more arts education as voters demanded. 

    We know schools face multiple challenges, but students deserve better. Arts education can help schools meet many of their challenges and help save money by reducing dropout rates, increasing attendance, attracting more community support and improving academics and mental health. All school districts should follow the law of Proposition 28 to ensure all their students have access to all the arts, all year. It’s every student’s right.

    •••

    Veronica Alvarez, EdD, is Executive director of Create CA, a nonprofit that advocates for high quality arts education for all students.

    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

  • Layered levels of support boost student achievement, reduce suspensions — let’s fortify the system

    Layered levels of support boost student achievement, reduce suspensions — let’s fortify the system


    Students work on homework during an after-school program in Chico, the largest city in Butte County. (File photo)

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    For nearly a decade, the Orange County Department of Education and the Butte County Office of Education have had the privilege of co-leading the implementation of the California Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) — a statewide framework that’s transforming how schools serve students academically, socially, emotionally and behaviorally.

    This work began with a simple but urgent goal: to ensure that every student in California — no matter their ZIP code, background or circumstance — has access to a responsive and coordinated system of supports that meets their individual needs. 

    Today, that vision is being realized in thousands of schools across the state, where educators are reporting measurable gains in academic performance, reductions in suspensions and absenteeism, and stronger alignment with initiatives like Universal Pre-kindergarten, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and Community Schools.

    In short, California MTSS is working. And now is the time to sustain and expand its impact.

    For those unfamiliar with the framework, the California Multi-Tiered System of Support is based on three levels of support: 

    1. Universal instruction and strategies for all students.
    2. Targeted help for those who need more.
    3. Intensive interventions for students with the greatest needs.

    What makes it so powerful isn’t just its flexibility or scalability — though those are important — but its ability to help schools work together more effectively and break down silos across California’s education system. 

    Our state has made historic investments in mental health, early learning, expanded instructional time and more. The multitiered system doesn’t replace those efforts — it ensures they work together. In other words, it’s the delivery system for every promise we’ve made to our students.

    Consider these scenarios, drawn from real-life practices, to see how the framework can support students across different educational settings:

    At an elementary school, a student who is reading below grade level benefits from universal supports built into the classroom for all learners. The teacher uses strategies like visual scaffolds — including maps, illustrations and diagrams to aid comprehension — along with flexible grouping based on reading levels and multiple ways for students to demonstrate understanding. These tools, part of a schoolwide commitment to Universal Design for Learning, help the student stay engaged and make steady progress without needing to be pulled out or referred for separate services.

    In a middle school, a student who begins to withdraw socially and fall behind in assignments is connected with supplemental support. A school counselor checks in weekly, and the student joins a small group focused on building organization and self-regulation skills. With these added layers of support, the student regains confidence and starts participating more actively in class.

    At an alternative high school, a student returning from an extended absence receives more intensive support. A personalized plan is created that includes one-on-one counseling, a flexible academic schedule, and regular collaboration between school staff and the student’s family. Over time, the student re-engages with learning and builds toward graduation.

    As county leaders, we’ve seen firsthand how California MTSS helps schools weave together fragmented programs and services into a single, integrated system that responds to the whole child. 

    In some schools, that has meant fewer students being referred to special education thanks to earlier, research-based interventions. In others, it has led to improved school climates, stronger teacher-student relationships and higher graduation rates.

    Crucially, this work has taken hold in settings as diverse as the state itself. California MTSS is driving progress in large urban districts, small rural schools and alternative education programs that serve some of our most vulnerable youth. 

    In Butte County, where educators often juggle multiple roles and resources are limited, the framework has provided structure and tools to meet local needs while maintaining alignment with statewide goals. These strategies have become a blueprint for many rural communities across California. 

    Meanwhile, in Orange County, the multitiered framework is helping schools tackle chronic absenteeism, expand mental health supports and ensure students are not just seen, but supported and successful.

    California has emerged as a national leader in this work. Our state was the first to embed social-emotional learning and mental health into the multitiered system of support framework, and we’ve launched online certification modules to build capacity for administrators, teachers, counselors and even higher education faculty. The annual California MTSS Professional Learning Institute, which draws thousands of educators each summer, has become a hub for sharing evidence-based practices and building cross-county collaboration.

    Yet like any systemic improvement effort, the long-term impact depends on sustained commitment. The current phase of statewide funding is set to conclude in 2026. Without additional investment, we risk stalling momentum — or worse, losing the progress we’ve made.

    That’s why we’re jointly requesting a new round of funding — approximately $18 million annually over four years — to ensure that the framework continues to evolve and expand. Two-thirds of every dollar would go directly to schools, districts, county offices and fire-impacted regions to support coaching, trauma-informed practices and professional development. It would also fund large-scale research efforts and deepen implementation in classrooms, where it matters most.

    The data speaks for itself. Recent studies show statistically significant improvements in reading and math scores in schools implementing the framework. Educators in rural communities report stronger collaboration and better outcomes. And thousands of students — including those with disabilities, those in foster care and those experiencing homelessness — are getting the supports they need, when they need them.

    We believe the foundation is strong. Now is the time to build on it.

    •••

    Stefan Bean, Ed.D., is Orange County’s superintendent of schools. Mary Sakuma, Ed.D., is Butte County’s superintendent of schools.

    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

  • Teaching performance assessments strengthen instruction and improve student outcomes; let’s not change that  

    Teaching performance assessments strengthen instruction and improve student outcomes; let’s not change that  


    A kindergarten teacher helps a girl and boy with a class activity.

    Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

    Learning the art and skill of effective instruction starts long before a teacher’s first job in the classroom. Aspiring educators begin honing their craft in preparation programs that tie clinical practice to coursework on best teaching methods, including how to teach students to read.  

    Since 2002, this process has been reinforced in California by an embedded teaching performance assessment (TPA) as a key measure of professional readiness. A TPA directs teacher preparation candidates to provide evidence of their teaching knowledge and skills. This is accomplished through classroom videos, lesson plans, student work, and analysis of teaching and learning for English learners, students with disabilities, and the full range of students they are teaching.  

    The tasks TPAs require are the core work of teaching. Studies over the last two decades show that TPAs are educative for candidates and predictive of future effectiveness. Furthermore, the feedback they provide focuses educator preparation programs on preparing teachers in ways that are formative and learner-centered.  

    Thus, it is deeply concerning to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and many in the field that this rich measure of teacher preparation would be eliminated with the passage of Senate Bill 1263, which would repeal all requirements relating to teaching performance assessments, including that future teachers demonstrate their readiness to teach reading.   

    The TPA is California’s only remaining required measure of whether a prospective teacher is ready to teach prior to earning a credential. All other exam requirements for a teaching credential have been modified by the Legislature to allow multiple ways for future teachers to demonstrate basic skills and subject matter competence. These legislative actions have been supported in large part by the requirement that student teachers complete a TPA to earn a credential. 

    Elimination of the TPA would leave California with no consistent standard for ensuring that all teachers are ready to teach before entering our classrooms. We would join only a handful of states that have no capstone assessment for entry into teaching. Passage of SB 1263 would also result in the state losing a key indicator of how well educator preparation programs are preparing a diverse and effective teaching force. 

    In 2021, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 488, which revamped how teacher preparation programs will instruct candidates to teach reading. As a result, the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) is slated to be replaced by a newly designed literacy performance assessment currently being piloted for incorporation into the TPA by July 1, 2025.  

    Participant feedback on the new literacy performance assessment (LPA) piloted this spring is optimistic. One teaching candidate shared that the LPA “was a vital learning experience when it comes to implementing foundational literacy instruction with young learners. I enjoyed that it’s a more hands-on experience for the students to be engaged and promotes full participation of the student and teacher.” A teacher said that the LPA “provided multiple opportunities for my candidate to reflect and observe exceptional moments as well as missed opportunities in the lesson. It encouraged conversations about how to implement direct, explicit instruction.” A university faculty member observed that the LPA pilot “has been a learning experience for the candidates and the program. … It shows what we are doing well and what other areas we need to create or enhance to support our candidates’ knowledge and skills in teaching literacy.” 

    If the TPA and RICA are eliminated, California will no longer have an assessment of new teachers’ capacity to teach reading, and we will have lost a valuable tool that can inform programs about how they can improve. 

    Recent Learning Policy Institute research demonstrates that TPA scores reflect the quality of teacher preparation candidates have received in terms of clinical support and preparation to teach reading and math (for elementary and special education candidates). Most programs support their candidates well. The study found that nearly two-thirds of teacher preparation programs had more than 90% of their candidates pass a TPA and showed no significant differences in passing rates by race and ethnicity. 

    As Aaron Davis, teacher induction director at William S. Hart Union High School District in Santa Clarita noted, “The TPA serves a very necessary purpose in creating a sound foundation for which a new teacher’s practice can grow with the mindset of having a positive impact on every student.”  While the TPA requires time and effort to implement, it ensures that new teachers are prepared to start their career as an educator on day one, he said. 

    While the pandemic made it challenging to administer TPAs, most programs now ensure that more than 90% of candidates pass the TPA. The CTC is working with the small number of programs that struggle to adequately support their candidates.  

    The elimination of TPAs would unravel decades of progress to focus teacher education on clinical practice and ensure programs consistently meet standards for preparing teachers who are ready to teach.  

    Rather than eliminate the last common measure of an aspiring teacher’s preparedness, we recommend the Legislature uphold the future of a well-prepared teacher workforce by supporting the commission’s commitment to continuously review and update the TPA and to work to support program improvement. Doing so will maintain the quality and effectiveness of new teachers as they embark on their journey to provide the most effective and equitable learning experiences for all students. 

    •••

    Marquita Grenot-Scheyer is chair of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and professor emeritus in the College of Education at California State University, Long Beach.

    Mary Vixie Sandy is executive director of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, an agency that awards over 250,000 credential documents per year and accredits more than 250 colleges, universities, and local education agencies offering educator preparation programs.

    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

  • Let’s learn how well California’s efforts to attract and keep teachers are working

    Let’s learn how well California’s efforts to attract and keep teachers are working


    Courtesy: Eric Lewis / SFUSD

    An important bill making its way through the Legislature could help California’s schools better recruit and retain teachers.

    Senate Bill 1391 would require the state’s new Cradle to Career (C2C) Data System to provide data that answers critical questions about California’s teacher workforce, including trends in teacher training, credentialing, hiring, retention, and the effectiveness of key programs aimed at addressing the teacher shortage.

    I think about this bill as I prepare to lead a summer science workshop for nearly two dozen new middle and high school science teachers from diverse backgrounds. We will be working through our core science curriculum before the next year starts.

    I know these teachers’ first few years in the classroom will be challenging, and their first year is the most challenging. They are often overwhelmed by time management issues: planning their lessons, grading students’ work, attending many meetings at their school site and in the district, all while trying to build relationships with their students.

    These first-year challenges show up clearly in our data. In my district last year, about 17% of our pre-K-12 teaching staff left their positions. This means that we need many new teachers, and especially teachers from diverse backgrounds, to work with our heterogeneous students. 

    The good news is that California is attempting to stem the loss of teachers through a variety of innovative programs and resources. There has been an effort to bring more people into the profession through the Golden State Teacher Grant, which pays teacher candidates a stipend while they get their credential, and a variety of teacher residency programs run in partnership with our school districts. The National Board Certification grants for teachers will also help keep many teachers in the profession through opportunities for additional professional learning and the possibility of additional funds once teachers become certified.

    In my district, like many others, we have built teacher housing in our city and have had recent wins for pay raises. We have also been using state incentives for teachers working in difficult-to-fill subjects and schools.

    All of these programs are great and are clearly part of the solution, but are they working? How can we know? Is all of this money and support actually getting to the teachers and populations that need it? Is the state doing enough to provide us with the data to help us make the right decisions? Currently, we don’t have the information to answer those questions.

    The Cradle-to-Career dashboard could provide critical data on how effective our teacher grant programs and teacher training pipelines are, but it has not yet lived up to its potential. As the governor and Legislature are debating difficult choices about our state resources, including SB 1391, we cannot back off investing in the future of our workforce — first understanding clearly which programs work and which don’t, and then doing everything we can to maintain the programs that ensure every student has access to a well-supported teacher who reflects the diversity of our state. 

    Once we know what works, we should play the long game and really focus on what our new teachers need to be well-prepared and supported. We need to be targeted in how we recruit diverse populations into the teaching profession. Our teacher education programs need to help link our newest teachers to mentoring programs and affinity groups to help them through the challenges of their first few years. We need to identify and support programs that provide mentors or provide pay for new teachers to have an extra prep period (these programs are few and far between but help keep our newest teachers from burning out quickly). Through all this, we need to remain laser focused on what helps our incredibly diverse student population to be successful. Let’s ensure that the Cradle-to-Career database informs us on how to make this future come to pass.

    So, while I don’t know how many of the teachers I work with at my summer science institute will still be in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) next year, I’m hopeful that they will be. And I hope we’ll have the data to better understand why they’ve stayed, so we can know what to do better next year and into the future.

    •••

    Eric Lewis is a secondary science content specialist in the science department of curriculum and instruction in the San Francisco Unified School District, where he supports middle and high school science teachers. He is a 2023-24 Teach Plus California Policy Fellow. 

    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

  • As we expand universal preschool access, let’s ensure teachers mirror their students’ ethnicity

    As we expand universal preschool access, let’s ensure teachers mirror their students’ ethnicity


    Preschool students build a structure from plastic interlocking tubes.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Author’s original hed: As Universal Preschool Access Expands to Reach More Families of Color, So Do Inequitable Practices Such as Racial Bias, Exclusionary Discipline and Lack of Cultural Representation, Leading to a Crisis for Black Boys

    As California progresses toward universal preschool access, the need increases for training, hiring and retaining early childhood male educators who are racially and ethnically representative of the children in their classrooms. A study examining preschool teachers’ implicit biases and expulsion rates found that teachers spent significantly more time watching Black children, especially boys, than other-race children when anticipating problematic behaviors. Further, researchers found that public preschool teachers’ systemic use of exclusionary discipline, such as suspensions and expulsions, disproportionately impacts Black children, with Black boys being expelled more than anyone else.

    In efforts to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions, last year the California Department of Education released a bulletin announcing new requirements for the California State Preschool Program (CSPP) that no longer allowed contractors to suspend, expel, or coerce parents and guardians to pick children up early from school due to their behavior. This is a step in the right direction. However, not all California preschool programs are funded by the state program and, therefore, many do not have to abide by those guidelines.

    The good news is that the positive effects of ensuring that students have teachers of the same race as them can happen across all programs, despite their funding sources. I propose that schools and agencies recruit and train male educators who match the racial and ethnic background of the communities they represent.

    As a Black woman and a credentialed early childhood educator for more than 15 years in San Joaquin and Sacramento counties, I’ve witnessed Black children aged 3 to 5 years old be sentenced to in-school or out-of-school suspension because a teacher lacked the necessary skills or cultural competencies to work with them. I would often be the one who other teachers would send their children to when they were struggling. Though I did not have any extra or special training, I was often able to successfully help children reset and return to their classrooms at peace. Once, I worked with a Black male teacher who was more effective than I in this aspect, especially when dealing with boys.

    Overall, our success was evidence of the mutual understanding and respect that the same-race teacher-child dynamic has. Perhaps from the child’s perspective, there’s a familiarity in our looks or mannerisms. Whatever the reason, such experiences speak to why Black children need educators who they can identify with.

    As it stands, in many places the public preschool curriculum, like that of the public K-12, has long ignored Black history and culture. The state preschool curriculum framework developed by the California Department of Education in alignment with the K-12 Common Core State Standards attest to this. Writers of the California Preschool Learning Foundations, Volume 3, History-Social Science admit that “the developmental research on which these foundations are based is full of studies of English-speaking, middle-class European American children” and that “fewer studies focused on children who speak other languages or come from other family, racial, or cultural backgrounds.”

    Training and hiring teachers and staff who represent the racial and cultural communities they serve is beneficial because they connect better with the students through incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy, which is generally not offered in typical school curriculum. This was my approach upon opening a child care facility specifically for Black families. I found that children engaged more with the learning content when they could relate to it. For example, children expressed an increased interest in reading materials and spent more time in the classroom library browsing through books when they saw characters they could identify with. And the boys in my program took a special liking to my teenage son.

    Findings from a 2023 early childhood longitudinal study observing more than 18,000 students in the U.S. suggest that children in the classroom with a teacher of the same race performed better academically, in math and reading, and on working memory tasks. Besides the increased positive benefits of race-matching teachers and students, a decrease in negative outcomes has also been observed. According to scientists from the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University who analyzed 10 years of data, Black students were less likely to be suspended when they had a teacher of the same race.

    We cannot ignore the fact that Black children are disproportionately suspended and expelled from preschools. It’s also true their communities are underrepresented in the curricula and with regard to same-race educators. For better social and academic outcomes for this vulnerable group, early childhood educational spaces need more Black male teachers.

    This is a call for state agencies and schools to put resources into the community by training and hiring educators who reflect the student population they serve. This is a call for families and community members to volunteer their time at local preschools and early childhood centers.

    With universal preschool access becoming a reality in California, the rest of the country is sure to follow. To support all preschool children, diversifying the teaching workforce is of the utmost importance right now.

    •••

    Sajdah Asmau is owner of an African-centered child care facility. She is in her first year as doctoral student in education student at UC Davis and serves as a Public Voices fellow on Racial Justice in Early Childhood with the OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

    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

  • AI in schools: Let’s not rush to judgment

    AI in schools: Let’s not rush to judgment


    Students at Davis Middle School in Compton.

    Credit: Courtesy of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

    In the clamorous debates about artificial intelligence (AI) in education, there is an unfortunate tendency to make bold proclamations about its role in teaching and learning, either as a panacea or the final nail in the coffin of human knowledge. The noise is puzzling and not helpful. Too many components of AI are still emerging, and no outcomes are predictable with certainty. No one knows how this will shake out.

    As two people involved in education technology — a university professor who runs ed-tech accelerators and a K-12 public affairs and communications executive director — we believe folks should stop the extremist predictions. Instead, we argue that our teachers, staff, students, parents and leaders need to explore AI.

    A recent needs assessment conducted in partnership between the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the nonprofit Project Tomorrow showed that administrators and teachers want and need more information about the potential risks and benefits of generative AI. Armed with training, support and responsible guidelines such as those developed through Los Angeles COE’s artificial intelligence guidelines, teachers using AI in the classroom can help develop new frontiers of learning.

    It’s helpful to understand the context: Artificial intelligence has existed in education for years. AI for learning is simply software that harnesses data to support or replace human activities to help people understand, experience or conceptualize the world around them. It is a learning technology. In economics, we think of technology as something that enhances the productivity of the process. A learning technology is simply anything that makes learning cheaper, better, faster or simpler to produce.

    If one uses this definition, there are reasonable arguments that AI is not the most disruptive of learning technologies. Indeed, more impactful learning technologies include curriculum and pedagogy (both meet the definition), as well as the invention of language itself, arguably the most crucial learning technology. Throughout human history, technological advancements have evolved alongside us, influenced by cultural contexts, and have often impacted us at a slower rate than anticipated. Today’s variations in teaching and curriculum will likely have a greater impact on educational outcomes than the adoption of AI.

    Much of the positive talk around AI centers on its potential to provide scale solutions to support students, educators and district staff at lower costs. In these conversations, AI can enhance personalized learning through the deployment of chatbots as tutors and advice dispensers. The scenario where each student has an individual tutor is one way to think about AI in education. But that view is limited. There could be unintended consequences if students spend excessive time isolated with a chatbot and not engaging with other humans. This brings us back to the point that technology evolves with us. The pandemic taught us we need humans in the room, particularly since employers tend to want people who can work with other people.

    Rather than focus on the technology alone, we should give attention to bold experiments that explore how AI technologies can support learners as they mature into adults skilled at critical thinking, communication, empathy and collaboration.

    And we should do so neither as product salesmen nor muckrakers.

    Deploy AI as a tool, with humans as the focus. Imagine groups where half the collaboration resides with human interaction and the other half with AI guidance. In this scenario, students are grouped within the scaffolding that AI provides to support their abilities to engage in problem-solving and critical thinking, aligned with a hands-on activity. They reap the benefits of personalized learning and gain lessons from listening to other opinions, responding to diverse viewpoints, and navigating relationships critical to success.

    Experimentation can be difficult in an educational setting. If we hope to meet the demands of tomorrow’s AI-powered society, experimentation for growth and learning must occur responsibly. We need to support our schools and districts as they work to understand how the complexities of education coexist with the thoughtful use of technology. We must give them room and encouragement to sustain wonderful learning environments, with AI and beyond.

    Let’s experiment and learn before we proclaim AI as a savior or apocalypse. Along the way, we can usher in the next generation of adults prepared to steer society along paths that uplift and support humanity for a better tomorrow.

    •••

    Doug Lynch is on the faculty at USC, where he teaches innovation and economics to doctoral students. He has been a leading voice in education technology for more than 30 years and founded three ed-tech accelerators, including one at USC.

    Elizabeth Graswich is executive director of public affairs and communications for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

    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

  • Let’s ensure ‘Recess for All’ law really does apply to all

    Let’s ensure ‘Recess for All’ law really does apply to all


    Recess at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland.

    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    When one of our sons (then a third grader) lost recess privileges for a week last school year, he came home cranky and irritable. As he put it, “Recess is the only time I can actually really play with my friends without so many rules.” Research in education, psychology, physiology, and brain science consistently points to recess as a vital part of the school day. There’s a reason most kids claim recess is their favorite subject in school.

    As students across California return to their classrooms, they will step back into healthier learning environments thanks to the landmark Senate Bill 291, known as Recess for All, which requires elementary schools — for the first time in the state’s history — to provide students with at least 30 minutes of daily recess, while also prohibiting withholding recess as punishment.

    The law is a response to the growing concerns about inactivity and the mental health crisis among our youth — challenges exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As public-school parents and professors who study recess and school health, we applaud the effort to not only increase students’ opportunities for school-based play but also to help address the traumas and social isolation our children faced during the pandemic.

    Now we must ensure that schools implement these changes so all children have the access to recess they need and deserve.

    Unfortunately, many still see recess as simply fun and games. This view — a vestige of the No Child Left Behind era, which ramped up school testing and created disincentives for developmental activities like recess, arts, music, and civics — had led some localities to reduce or eliminate regular breaks for children. This was a major issue post-pandemic when concerns about learning loss were pitted against the healing power of play in school. Research supports the importance of taking recess breaks from traditional academic subjects like math and reading; stepping away from classroom learning to move and play can help improve students’ test scores.

    Why is recess so essential for California’s more than 3 million public school students? The play, teamwork, socialization, leadership and self-regulation that happen at recess are critical for child and youth development. Recess is the only unstructured time in the school day when students can acquire and practice these skills. Young children learn a tremendous amount through organized and imaginative play — how to create and follow rules, be inclusive, make good decisions and collaborate.

    The physical activity that occurs at recess is important for many reasons, including helping students to get their wiggles out. But brain science tells us there is more to it than just wiggles. Physical activity and social connection at recess help students regulate their behaviors and emotions. Supporting these executive functions improves students’ abilities to concentrate and learn throughout the school day. 

    Providing students with daily recess can help students deal with trauma. With the distress and isolation they experienced through remote learning, coupled with the escalating mental health concerns, we need low-cost solutions to reach as many students as possible. Research shows that people under stress act reactively, and they behave poorly as a result. Recess allows students time to practice their executive functioning skills, which can help them cope better with stress and reduce anxiety. 

    Importantly, Recess for All is an anti-racist and equitable policy. It has the potential to close the gap in access to recess that exists in California and across the country.

    Students of color and those in low-income areas routinely have less recess time than students in wealthier and whiter areas. Additionally, children of color are disproportionately more likely to be disciplined in school. By abolishing the practice of withholding recess, schools can create restorative practices that support appropriate behavior, rather than punishing students by forcing them to sit out and miss essential growth time. 

    Recess for All is vitally important for California’s youth. As California public school parents, we plan to speak directly to our principals, PTAs and school boards to show our educators how much we value school-based opportunities for play and socialization. We encourage other parents to do the same. Schools respond to the issues most important to parents and their communities. Talk to your school administrators about their plans for ensuring kids get the newly mandated 30 minutes of recess a day. Our children, and our communities, will be healthier for it.

    •••

    Rebecca A. London, Ph.D., is professor of sociology and faculty director of Campus + Community at the University of California Santa Cruz. She is author of the book “Rethinking Recess: Creating Safe and Inclusive Playtime for All Children in School” (Harvard Education Press, 2019).

    Hannah R. Thompson, Ph.D., MPH, is assistant research professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health. She works with school districts to study the impact of improved school-based physical activity and nutrition opportunities on student health.

    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