اینترنت

برچسب: matters

  • Heather Cox Richardson: History Matters. Truth Matters. Here is a Plan.


    Heather Cox Richardson is a historian so naturally she recoils at the daily misuse and distortion of history by Trump and his appointees. They don’t know much about history, and they want to distort it for partisan purposes.

    She has a plan to set the record straight, based on evidence and facts. Read on.

    She writes:

    In April, John Phelan, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy under President Donald J. Trump, posted that he visited the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial “to pay my respects to the service members and civilians we lost at Pearl Harbor on the fateful day of June 7, 1941.”

    The Secretary of the Navy is the civilian head of the U.S. Navy, overseeing the readiness and well-being of almost one million Navy personnel. Phelan never served in the military; he was nominated for his post because he was a large donor to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. He told the Senate his experience overseeing and running large companies made him an ideal candidate for leading the Navy.

    The U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is famous in U.S. history as the site of a surprise attack by 353 Japanese aircraft that destroyed or damaged more than 300 aircraft, three destroyers, and all eight of the U.S. battleships in the harbor. Four of those battleships sank, including the U.S.S. Arizona, which remains at the bottom of the harbor as a memorial to the more than 2,400 people who died in the attack, including the 1,177 who died on the Arizona itself.

    The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States entered World War II.

    Pearl Harbor Day is a landmark in U.S. history. It is observed annually and known by the name President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called it: “a date which will live in infamy.”

    But that date was not June 7, eighty-four years ago today.

    It was December 7, 1941.

    The Trump administration claims to be deeply concerned about American history. In March, Trump issued an executive order calling for “restoring truth and sanity to American history.” It complained, as Trump did in his first term, that there has been “a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.”

    The document ordered the secretary of the interior to reinstate any “monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties” that had been “removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.” It spelled out that the administration wanted only “solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.”

    To that end, Trump has called for building 250 statues in a $34 million “National Garden of American Heroes” sculpture garden in order to create an “abiding love of country and lasting patriotism” in time for the nation’s 250th birthday on July 4, 2026. On May 31, Michael Schaffer of Politico reported that artists and curators say the plan is “completely unworkable.” U.S. sculptors tend to work in abstraction or modernism, which the call for proposals forbids in favor of realism; moreover, there aren’t enough U.S. foundries to do the work that quickly.

    Trump is using false history to make his followers believe they are fighting a war for the soul of America. “[W]e will never cave to the left wing and the left-wing intolerance,” he told a crowd in 2020. “They hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans,” he said. Like authoritarians before him, Trump promised to return the country to divinely inspired rules that would create disaster if ignored but if followed would “make America great again.” At a 2020 rally, Trump said: “The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control. This is a battle to save the Heritage, History, and Greatness of our Country.”

    Trump’s enthusiasm for using history to cement his power has little to do with actual history. History is the study of how and why societies change. To understand that change, historians use evidence—letters, newspapers, photographs, songs, art, objects, records, and so on—to figure out what levers moved society. In that study, accuracy is crucial. You cannot understand what creates change in a society unless you look carefully at all the evidence. An inaccurate picture will produce a poor understanding of what creates change, and people who absorb that understanding will make poor decisions about their future.

    Those who cannot remember the past accurately are condemned to repeat its worst moments.

    The hard lessons of history seem to be repeating themselves in the U.S. these days, and with the nation’s 250th anniversary approaching, some friends and I got to talking about how we could make our real history more accessible.

    After a lot of brainstorming and a lot of help—and an incredibly well timed message from a former student who has become a videographer—we have come up with Journey to American Democracy: a series of short videos about American history that we will release on my YouTube channel, Facebook, and Instagram. They will be either short explainers about something in the news or what we are releasing tonight: a set of videos that can be viewed individually or can be watched together to simulate a survey course about an important event or issue in American history.

    Journey to American Democracy explores how democracy has always required blood and sweat and inspiration to overcome the efforts of those who would deny equality to their neighbors. It examines how, for more than two centuries, ordinary people have worked to make the principles the founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence the law of the land.

    Those principles establish that we have a right to be treated equally before the law, to have a say in our government, and to have equal access to resources.

    In late April, in an interview with Terry Moran of ABC News, Trump showed Moran that he had had a copy of the Declaration of Independence hung in the Oval Office. The interview had been thorny, and Moran used Trump’s calling attention to the Declaration to ask a softball question. He asked Trump what the document that he had gone out of his way to hang in the Oval Office meant to him.

    Trump answered: “Well, it means exactly what it says, it’s a declaration. A declaration of unity and love and respect, and it means a lot. And it’s something very special to our country.”

    The Declaration of Independence is indeed very special to our country. But it is not a declaration of love and unity. It is the radical declaration of Americans that human beings have the right to throw off a king in order to govern themselves. That story is here, in the first video series of Journey to American Democracy called “Ten Steps to Revolution.”

    I hope you enjoy it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=videoseries

    —

    :



    Source link

  • Why knowledge matters for literacy: A Q&A with Natalie Wexler

    Why knowledge matters for literacy: A Q&A with Natalie Wexler


    Credit: Andrew Ebrahim / Unsplash

    Amid a deepening literacy crisis, there’s been a focus on how to close the achievement gap, but Natalie Wexler sees the key problem undermining the American educational system a little differently.

    The education author maintains that we can’t truly reach equity in achievement unless we first close “The Knowledge Gap.” 

    Natalie Wexler, literacy expert and author of “The Knowledge Gap.”
    Courtesy photo

    She also argues that, in the rush to embrace the science of reading, some have focused so intently on the need for phonics in the early years that they have overlooked the need for systematic knowledge-building, which is also a core part of structured literacy, as is vocabulary. There’s more to the science of reading than phonics, experts have long suggested.

    Wexler is best known for her book “The Knowledge Gap,” but she also has a podcast and newsletter on the subject. The frequent Forbes contributor recently made time to discuss with EdSource why background knowledge is so fundamental to reading, why it’s crucial to teach kids about the world, from science to history, if you want them to become deep readers.

    A rich sense of context is key to fueling both vocabulary growth and reading comprehension, the ability to make inferences and connections while reading, paving the way for critical thinking and analysis, cornerstones of higher education. 

    Why do you think there are so many misunderstandings about the science of reading, and why is it often getting boiled down to just phonics? 

    A large part of it is that the phonics issue is more familiar. We’ve been hearing about it for decades. Since the 1950s, if not before, and it’s less complicated than the whole comprehension message. Not to say it’s simple, but it’s easy to grasp. You want kids to be able to read, you have to help them sound out words, and you have to teach that explicitly, and you can see results pretty quickly when you do. Right? Whereas building knowledge is this very gradual process. The way we measure progress is mostly through the standardized reading comprehension test. And it takes a long time, years sometimes, to see the fruits of your labors reflected in standardized test scores. 

    Has the phonics debate overshadowed other aspects of how the brain learns how to read?

    I do think that the focus on just the problems with phonics instruction or decoding instruction has given rise to the assumption that the other aspects of reading instruction are lined up with science, that they accord with what scientific evidence tells us will work. And with comprehension, that’s actually not the case. 

    Why is there so little understanding of cognitive science in the classroom? What do we need to know about working memory, for example?

    I certainly didn’t know about working memory being only able to hold maybe four or five items of new information for about 20 seconds before it starts to become overwhelmed. And that’s the scientific explanation, but I also think once you give people concrete examples, it starts to make sense at a gut level. The goal is for kids to acquire enough general academic vocabulary and familiarity with the complex syntax of written language to enable them to read and understand texts on topics they don’t already know about. 

    At some point you have built up enough understanding of the world to learn through reading, is that right? 

    If you’re a proficient reader, that’s a very efficient way of learning, through reading. That’s the goal. But how do we enable students to acquire that kind of general knowledge? Really the only way is through teaching them about a lot of specific topics, because the vocabulary, the syntax, doesn’t stick in the abstract, it needs a meaningful context. But there are different ways for kids to acquire that general knowledge. 

    Why is background knowledge so important to reading comprehension?

    Vocabulary and background knowledge are inextricably linked. So, if you’ve got baseball vocabulary, you’re going to have a better chance of understanding a text on baseball. If you’re practicing finding the main idea and you’re reading a text about the solar system and you have no idea what the solar system is, your ability to decode the words is probably not going to be enough. You need to have some background knowledge in place in order to acquire more knowledge from that text. To understand a word like “dynasty,” you need to have some idea of monarchies. You can’t just memorize the definition and really understand it, right? But you could acquire that understanding by learning about African dynasties, Asian dynasties, European dynasties, indigenous dynasties. There are lots of different paths to that goal.

    Why is this an equity issue? Is it because we’re not really spending as much time on history and science in the classroom these days but you don’t notice that as much with higher income children because those families are better able to fill in the gaps outside of school?

    That’s right. But I’ve heard from educators and administrators these days that even higher-income kids are coming in with poor oral language skills because people are on their phones so much, and even more-affluent, more highly educated parents are not engaging in that kind of dialogue with kids that leads to rich oral language abilities. This has long been a problem with kids from less highly educated families. I think it really has to do with the level of parental education more than with socioeconomic status or race. If you have a poor kid whose parents both have Ph.D.s, but they’re struggling because they’re adjunct professors, that kid’s probably going to be exposed to a lot of academic language and vocabulary at home. But other kids rely on school for that. I’m not saying that education can completely level the playing field, but it could be doing way more than it is currently doing to give all kids the kind of exposure to academic knowledge and vocabulary that kids from highly educated families acquire more or less naturally.  

    So it’s more related to education than income. Is part of the issue also that schools prefer inquiry-based learning to direct instruction? We let the kids try to figure things out on their own instead of explaining it to them.

    Where this belief in discovery and inquiry has really taken hold is at the elementary level. I do think that this focus on comprehension skills and strategies, whether consciously or not, it’s connected to that idea that we shouldn’t be the ‘sages on the stages’ just pouring information into kids’ brains. If you teach them a skill, like finding the main idea or making inferences, then they can use that skill to discover knowledge on their own, acquire knowledge on their own. That’s the theory. But it often doesn’t work in practice. It’s hard to make an inference if you don’t really understand the subject matter. Some of these skills do need to be taught, but others really are just sort of natural outgrowths of knowledge. I want to make it clear, it’s not like you have to choose between building knowledge and teaching skills and strategies. It’s a question of what you put in the foreground. 

    Why are deep dives into a topic, say dinosaurs or mummies, more compelling for children than randomly chosen abstract passages, to drive comprehension?

    If you get deeply into a topic, it’s much more interesting than if you just skim the surface. … The power of narrative is really important. It doesn’t have to be fiction, it could be a story from history. I’ve seen second graders fascinated by the war of 1812. Teachers are like, how are second graders going to be able to deal with that? Well, if they’ve learned about the American Revolution and they have the background knowledge, they get fascinated by it because they understand what’s going on. They understand the issues, but they don’t know who won. They’re like, oh, no, America’s going to lose!

    Everybody loves a cliffhanger.





    Source link

  • With AI in schools, local leadership matters more than ever

    With AI in schools, local leadership matters more than ever


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    Last week, the Trump administration’s draft executive order to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into K-12 schools made national headlines. The order, still in flux, would direct federal agencies to embed AI in classrooms and partner with private companies to create new educational programs. The move comes as China, Singapore and other nations ramp up their AI education initiatives, fueling talk of a new “AI space race.” But as the world’s biggest players push for rapid adoption, the real question for American education isn’t whether AI is coming — it’s who will shape its role in our schools, and on whose terms.

    AI is not simply the next classroom gadget or software subscription. It represents a fundamentally new kind of disruptor in the education space — one that doesn’t just supplement public education but is increasingly building parallel systems alongside it. These AI-powered platforms, often funded by public dollars through vouchers or direct-to-consumer models, can operate outside the traditional oversight and values of public schools. The stakes are high: AI is already influencing what counts as education, who delivers it and how it is governed.

    This transformation is happening fast. For example, in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) the district’s ambitious “AI friend” chatbot project, meant to support students and families, collapsed when its startup partner folded, exposing the risks of investing public funds in untested AI ventures. Meanwhile, major tech firms are pitching AI as a “tutor for every learner and a TA for every teacher,” promising to personalize learning and free up educators’ time. The reality is more complex: AI’s promise is real, but so are its pitfalls, especially when it bypasses local voices and democratic control.

    The rise of AI in education is reshaping three core principles: agency, accountability and equity.

    • Agency: Traditionally, public education has empowered teachers, students and communities to shape learning. Now, AI platforms — sometimes chosen by parents or delivered through private providers — can shift decision-making from classrooms to opaque algorithms. Teachers may find themselves implementing AI-generated lessons, while students’ learning paths are increasingly set by proprietary systems. If local educators and families aren’t at the table, agency risks becoming fragmented and individualized, eroding the collective mission of public schooling.
    • Accountability: In public schools, accountability means clear lines of responsibility and public oversight. But when AI tools misclassify students or private micro-schools underperform, it’s unclear who is answerable: the vendor, the parent, the state, or the algorithm? This diffusion of responsibility can undermine public trust and make it harder to ensure quality and fairness.
    • Equity: AI has the potential to personalize learning and expand access, but its benefits often flow unevenly. Wealthier families and districts are more likely to access cutting-edge tools, while under-resourced students risk being left behind. As AI-powered platforms grow outside of traditional systems, the risk is that public funds flow to private, less accountable alternatives, deepening educational divides.

    It’s tempting to see AI as an unstoppable force, destined to either save or doom public education. But that narrative misses the most important variable: us. AI is not inherently good or bad. Its impact will depend on how — and by whom — it is implemented.

    The U.S. education system’s greatest strength is its tradition of local control and community engagement. As national and global pressures mount, local leaders — school boards, district administrators, teachers, and parents — must drive how AI is used. That means:

    • Demanding transparency from vendors about how AI systems work and how data is used.
    • Prioritizing investments in teacher training and professional development, so educators can use AI as a tool for empowerment, not replacement.
    • Insisting that AI tools align with local values and needs, rather than accepting one-size-fits-all solutions from distant tech companies or federal mandates.
    • Building coalitions across districts and states to share expertise and advocate for policies that center agency, accountability, and equity.

    As Dallas schools Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde put it, “It’s irresponsible to not teach (AI). We have to. We are preparing kids for their future”. But preparing students for the future doesn’t mean ceding control to algorithms or outside interests. It means harnessing AI’s potential while holding fast to the public values that define American education.

    The choices we make now — especially at the local level — will determine whether AI becomes a tool for equity and empowerment, or a force for further privatization and exclusion. Policymakers should focus less on top-down mandates and more on empowering local communities to lead. AI can strengthen public education, but only if we ensure that the people closest to students — teachers, families and local leaders — have the authority and resources to shape its use.

    The world is changing fast. Let’s make sure our schools change on our terms.

    •••

    Patricia Burch is a professor at the USC Rossier School of Education and author of “Hidden Markets: The New Educational Privatization” (2009, 2020).

    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

  • Why bringing children to the voting booth matters

    Why bringing children to the voting booth matters


    Billie Montague, 2, puts a vote sticker on her nose while watching her mom, Ashley Montague, vote in Newport Beach in 2020. Credit: Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Polaris

    Children are not merely passive recipients of voting outcomes; they are capable participants in building a future shaped by informed civic values and active community involvement. We must foster responsible use of their civic knowledge and power for a better future.

    Introducing children to voting from an early age — as young as 5 or 6 — can instill in them a sense of civic responsibility, sparking curiosity about how individual actions influence the broader community, and shaping informed, engaged citizens for the future.

    In my work on diversity, equity and inclusion, I spend much time thinking about misinformation, access barriers and participation roadblocks.

    Voting processes are vulnerable to misinformation tactics aimed at suppressing marginalized voters, including Black, Latino, disabled, rural residents, and the elderly. Voting with children is no exception to this insidious campaign to bar access and participation for every eligible voter. Child care access issues can even act as an indirect form of voter suppression. When parents, particularly single parents or those in underserved areas, are unable to find or afford child care, voting in person may become challenging or impossible. These barriers are compounded in areas with limited polling locations, long wait times, or fewer resources for early or mail-in voting, which are essential accommodations for parents who may otherwise be prevented from casting their vote due to lack of child care. Even when voting accommodations ­— voting by mail or surrendering early ballots at polling places — are available, misinformation around these options can impact parents’ ability to participate.

    Every Californian must be well-informed about the Voter Bill of Rights. We are fortunate to reside in a state that actively implements legislation to enhance accessibility and participation for voters, including future voters. An example is the provision allowing California teens aged 16 and 17 to preregister online, with automatic registration upon turning 18.

    Recognizing the significance of civic engagement among Gen Z (the youngest of whom are 12 years old), it’s noteworthy that they exhibit higher voting rates than previous generations. In 2024, a staggering 41 million Gen Z youth are eligible to vote, with millions more set to join the electorate by 2028.

    Efforts to expand access and participation are crucial because civic engagement, including voting, is essential and has widespread impact. Ultimately, it’s a fundamental right that touches each of us deeply; it’s the sole avenue for every citizen to participate in the democratic process.

    Political socialization is how people learn about politics, form beliefs and understand their civic role. While parents typically pass political views to their children, research shows influence can also go the other way: Children’s awareness of civic issues can shape their parents’ views, a process known as “trickle-up socialization.” As children engage with topics affecting their communities — through school, social media, and peers — they may prompt discussions that lead parents to consider new perspectives. Bringing children to the voting booth reinforces this process, offering them hands-on exposure to democracy, sparking meaningful questions, and fostering family engagement, especially in marginalized communities where awareness and representation are vital.

    However, it’s concerning that American knowledge of civic engagement has declined, with significant gaps in understanding fundamental aspects of government and constitutional rights, as revealed by the Annenberg study released annually on Citizenship Day. The study noted 1 in 3 Americans cannot name the three branches of government, and less than a third can name the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment beyond freedom of speech.

    As parents, we can inspire an informed and engaged generation of citizens. If you haven’t made a family voting plan for the Nov. 5 election, there’s still time to register and participate together. Preparation is critical; here are practical considerations for voting with children in California: 

    Voting with kids in the November presidential election is not only allowed but purposeful, serving as a primer for future elections and instilling democratic values early on.

    •••

    Amira K.S. Barger, MBA, CVA, CFRE, is a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant and an adjunct professor at California State University, East Bay.

    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 redefine student success to measure what really matters

    Let’s redefine student success to measure what really matters


    Anaheim Union High School District students discuss their work with Superintendent Michael Matsuda.

    Courtesy: Anaheim Union High School District

    Traditional measures of academic success, long dominated by elite universities, have often perpetuated systems of exclusivity rather than fostering true opportunity.

    As the superintendent of a high school district in Southern California, I have frequently heard major employers express concern that graduates from top UC and private universities often lack essential skills in project management, basic interpersonal abilities and the capacity for creativity and innovation. This reveals a significant mismatch between K-12 education, higher education and the demands of the modern workforce.

    Elite universities have long depended on rigid criteria — high test scores in math and English, advanced coursework like calculus and AP classes, and curated extracurricular activities — to determine which students gain admission. But these metrics often favor those with access to private tutors, well-funded schools and the insider knowledge of the admissions process provided by college admission coaches. As a result, this system excludes many students who possess extraordinary talents but lack the means to navigate these traditional pathways.

    The narrow definition of success currently used by elite universities creates two major problems. First, it reduces student potential to a set of numbers and polished narratives, ignoring qualities like resilience, emotional intelligence and social impact. Second, it fails to recognize students who may excel in less conventional but equally critical domains, such as interpersonal skills and the ability to creatively solve problems. By relying on these outdated measures, the current system not only limits individual opportunities but also deprives society of the diverse perspectives needed to solve complex challenges.

    In response, districts like Anaheim Union High School District are pioneering new ways to assess and celebrate student success through what we call the 5Cs: critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication and compassion. This approach challenges outdated definitions of “college and career readiness” and offers a more holistic vision for the future.

    In collaboration with UC Irvine professor June Ahn and the nonprofit education technology organization eKadence, Anaheim Union is developing and piloting an AI-enhanced learning strategy that redefines how student talent is measured.

    Much as a student driver reflects on what went wrong after failing a driving test or how a coach has a team analyze their mistakes after losing a big game, the district is embedding structured reflection into student learning. After completing a major unit or project, students engage in written or oral reflection, considering what they did well, where they struggled and how they can improve. These reflections are then fed into an artificial intelligence (AI) analysis, designed and tested by Ahn’s team, that immediately generates a summary for both the student and the teacher. The AI not only highlights the main reflection points but also provides actionable advice for growth.

    Going Deeper

    See an example of the student input and AI analysis of one student’s project work here.

    For example, if a student works on a community-based project to address food insecurity and later reflects on how they struggled with organizing team meetings but excelled in presenting their findings, the UC Irvine AI tool will capture these insights. It might suggest strategies for better time management or offer communication techniques to improve team coordination. This iterative process ensures that students are not only gaining subject knowledge but also developing essential life skills.

    One of the most promising aspects of this AI-enhanced learning strategy is its potential to influence college admissions. Universities are increasingly questioning the efficacy of traditional criteria, especially in light of decisions to eliminate SAT/ACT test requirements. The tool we are developing provides a scalable addition to current criteria: a portfolio of AI-summarized reflections that highlight a student’s strengths that cannot be measured by test scores or in an essay.

    Imagine a college admissions officer reviewing an applicant’s portfolio. Instead of a single GPA or test score, they see a dynamic narrative of growth and impact — how a student led a community project addressing food insecurity, demonstrating compassion and collaboration, or how they developed an innovative solution to a STEM challenge, showcasing critical thinking and creativity. Such a system not only makes admissions more equitable but also better aligns with what colleges and employers increasingly value: adaptable, motivated and socially conscious individuals.

    The future of education depends on dismantling systems that reward the old factory model — which benefits some students and sidelines others — and replacing them with models that recognize and nurture diverse forms of excellence. This approach offers a road map for how school districts across California can empower all students to transcend traditional barriers and realize their full potential. If adopted widely, it could transform not only K-12 education but also college admissions, workforce development and society at large.

    The question is no longer whether change is necessary, but how quickly we can scale up innovations like this to ensure that every student has the opportunity to thrive. By embracing this shift, we can create a more just, dynamic and inclusive educational system — one that values every student for who they are and what they contribute to the world.

    •••

    Michael Matsuda is superintendent of the Anaheim Union High School District. June Ahn is a professor of learning sciences and research-practice partnerships at the UC Irvine School of Education.

    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