برچسب: Must

  • San Francisco schools must avoid state takeover at all costs, education veteran warns

    San Francisco schools must avoid state takeover at all costs, education veteran warns


    A sign in support of public school is seen outside a home next to Sutro Elementary School in San Francisco on Oct. 9, 2024. The school is among the 11 schools previously proposed for closure within San Francisco Unified School District amid decline in enrollment and budgetary woes.

    Credit: Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    San Francisco must do everything it can to avert a state takeover of its schools.   

    That’s the stark message brought by Carl A. Cohn, the only outside educator to be brought in to help the team of city administrators set up by Mayor London Breed to help the school district overcome multiple crises, including a looming budget shortage, declining enrollment, and the departure of its superintendent, the second in two years. 

     “I remain a huge fan of local control,” said Cohn, a revered figure in education circles in California and nationally. “I fundamentally believe that if historically underserved students are going to be rescued, it is going to be by locals, not by state government or higher levels of authority.” 

    Carl A. Cohn

    The challenges facing the 48,000-student district are being experienced to some degree by many others around the state. Just across the San Francisco Bay, Oakland Unified and West Contra Costa Unified, which includes Richmond, are grappling with comparable challenges. 

    San Francisco’s, however, seem especially acute. 

    “I think the loss of federal pandemic relief funds, coupled with declining enrollments will make things difficult for most districts, but San Francisco is probably ahead of the curve on this,” he said. 

    There’s little that Cohn, who projects calm and reassurance but can also be disarmingly direct, has not seen in his 50 years in an array of roles in public education.  

    He was superintendent of the San Diego and Long Beach school districts, the second- and third-largest in California after Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD). His 10-year tenure at Long Beach was especially noteworthy for fostering academic excellence and accountability, resulting in the district winning the prestigious Broad Prize For Urban Education.

    He was appointed to the State Board of Education by then Gov. Jerry Brown, who later recruited him to lead a new state agency, the California Collaborative for Education Excellence. 

    He has been brought in to deal with various trouble spots over the years. He co-chaired a commission of the National Academy of Sciences to look into whether District of Columbia schools had exaggerated their academic results under the leadership of Michelle Rhee, then arguably the best-known, and most controversial, school superintendent in the nation. 

    He was the court-appointed monitor overseeing a consent decree to improve special education in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Currently, he is co-leading an initiative with Harvard professor Jennifer Cheatham to prepare school superintendents to cope with the political polarization roiling school districts across the country.   

    He has also been a mentor to generations of school superintendents, and trained many of them as a professor at Claremont Graduate University,  and at the University of Southern California before that. 

    Cohn has never had to close schools himself and says that San Francisco must do everything it can to find alternatives to doing so. That is similar to a mindset Breed appears also to have embraced, and was a major reason behind the resignation of Superintendent Matt Wayne last week.

    For now, at least, school closure plans are on hold. “The challenge with closing schools from a symbolic point of view is that it can be seen as the beginning of the death of a community,” Cohn says.  

    “There are multiple ways to cut a school district budget,” he says. “And if you have to, there are ways to do it so it is not a huge negative.”   

    He recalls being sent to Inglewood Unified a dozen years ago by then-State Board President Michael Kirst to take stock of the deep financial hole the Southern California district was in.

    He found a lackadaisical attitude among school officials about the prospect of a state administrator with the power to overrule local decisionmaking. “They seemed to think the takeover wasn’t such a big deal, that after the bailout they would get their authority back,” he says. “And here we are, 12 years later, with the district nowhere near having an elected school board with any authority.”

    The district is still overseen by an administrator appointed by the county.

    Cohn has yet to meet Breed, but two weeks ago he came from Palm Springs, where he is based, to meet with the mayor’s School Stabilization Team made up of top San Francisco officials, co-led by Maria Su, the longtime head of the city’s Department of Children, Youth and Their Families. In an unexpected move last week, the school board appointed Su to be the new superintendent, at least until June 2026. 

    He points out that, unlike other large urban districts in California, the city of San Francisco commendably contributes funding to its schools, which means it has a more direct stake in their functioning.  

    What is essential is strict oversight over how the district spends its money, he says. He recalls the first day he was given a tour of the administration offices at Long Beach Unified as a 31-year-old educator in the district.

    On the second floor was a tiny office with a sign on the door reading “Position Control” right next to the budget office.  He was told it was the most powerful office in the district — one that determined what staff could be hired at a school.  “Even if you were the superintendent you could not get a position filled unless Position Control said it was in the current budget.”

    In addition, each year the district’s research office issued what was called a “quota bulletin,” which decreed how many employees a school qualified for based on its enrollment. Its edicts, he says, were “treated as a sacred document that had been handed down from Mt. Sinai.” 

    A similar parsimonious ethos is in place in parochial schools. “What is notable about these schools is that they are not over resourced,” said Cohn, who advises the California Catholic Conference on its schools. “You won’t find an assistant principal, a counselor, a reading specialist unless the school has the enrollment to support it.”

    “My impression is that these types of controls were not present in the San Francisco school system,” he says. “It’s important for spending to be based on actual enrollment and not on wishful spending.” 

    He says it would be important to bring all key parties together — the mayor’s stabilization team, incoming Superintendent Su and her deputy, board representatives, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, a state-sponsored oversight agency — and put them all in the same room to have a “candid conversation.” 

    “Getting a handle on what exactly they need to do to retain local control seems like a real important value,” he said. 

    One thing schools can have no impact on is declining birthrates, Cohn points out. So other strategies to attract and retain students will be needed. 

    He notes that San Francisco has many private, parochial and charter groups — more than most communities. He suggests conducting focus groups with people who are opting out of more traditional public schools to find out more precisely “what it is that those schools are offering that San Francisco isn’t.” 

    That could suggest strategies that San Francisco could offer — from more child care to innovative magnet schools — to support families and to encourage them to enroll their children in district schools. 

    San Francisco schools are especially vulnerable to being taken over by the state. In recent years, when the state bails out a district financially, authority to appoint an administrator has been delegated to the county offices of education. But because San Francisco is both a city and a county, it would be subject to, in Cohn’s words,”an old-fashioned state administrator.”

    With Mayor Breed up for reelection in two weeks, and with four of seven school board seats also on the ballot, the district faces many unknowns.

    Regardless of what happens on Election Day, Cohn says a fundamental issue the district has to address is “what kinds of resources a school gets based on its enrollment so that future spending doesn’t spiral out of control because someone thinks ‘I need this’ or “I need that.’”





    Source link

  • Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive

    Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive


    School officials said they are currently working on dealing with the wave of new students coming from the Villages of Patterson development under construction. School officials and community members and school officials worry that the schools will not be able to handle another large-scale wave of development without a mitigation agreement.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    Education and housing are often inextricably linked, but policy decisions made in the two sectors are generally siloed, at times shaped and passed without considering how a housing policy might impact education and vice versa.

    Megan Gallagher’s research bridges the two, focusing on housing and educational collaborations that support students’ academic outcomes. Some of her latest work as a principal research associate at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on public policy, provides school officials and housing developers with ideas on how to partner together to desegregate schools by desegregating neighborhoods.

    Gallagher has also co-authored a report that compiled a list of key housing characteristics that impact children’s educational outcomes:

    • Housing quality
    • Housing affordability
    • Housing stability
    • Neighborhood quality
    • Housing that builds wealth

    In this Q&A, Gallagher details why those housing characteristics matter in a child’s education and the collaborations that can help children have a fair chance at achieving academic success. The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    How does housing policy impact children’s educational outcomes?
    It’s really important when we try to understand the influence that housing has on kids’ educational outcomes, that (we look at) its unique contribution.

    You could have families with the same income levels, (but) one is in a high-quality house and one is in a low-quality house. A low-quality house can influence a child’s health, ability to sleep, and feeling safe. And so, you could have a very different outcome for that child if they are in a lower-quality home.

    You have outlined five characteristics of housing that have an impact on children’s educational outcomes. Why are those five characteristics so important?
    Those five characteristics have been studied a decent amount in housing policy literature. I didn’t conduct all the original research that went into these findings, I just sort of pulled it all together into one place. It is possible that there are aspects of housing that have not been measured historically that could also have an influence on education.

    We know that low-quality housing — housing that has mold or electrical issues — is associated with lower kindergarten readiness scores. That causal relationship has been established. The relationship between spending too much on rent is connected to increased behavioral problems. Housing instability, and I would really put homelessness and housing insecurity into the housing instability bucket, really affects school stability and then has an effect on math and reading scores. We know that successful homeownership, so homeownership that allows families to build equity, increases the likelihood of attending college. We also know that neighborhood context, like violence, can disrupt academic progress and prevent children from succeeding in school.

    So there is evidence that connects each one of these housing conditions to a variety of aspects of kids’ well-being and educational outcomes.

    One of the things that we have not really done a very good job on is which of these aspects of housing matter the most or have the most influence. If we have a million dollars, what would we want to put that million dollars on to improve educational outcomes? I don’t think we have enough evidence right now to know exactly what would be the right pathway for that.

    Do all five characteristics need to be in place for children to have the best possible educational outcomes?
    There’s not enough data right now for us to understand which of the five need to be in place or what the likelihood of succeeding is if you have one or two or three or four of them in place.

    This is an area where we continue to need more understanding, more evidence, but I don’t think that we can wait to make policy decisions until we have all of that evidence.

    Is the lack of sufficient research one of the outcomes of the disconnect between housing and education policy?
    Absolutely. I think the sectors are so siloed, many of the giant data collection investments that have happened at HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) or at the U.S. Department of Education have not had data elements that capture aspects of the other sector.

    When we are looking at housing data in housing policy, there hasn’t been really detailed data collected about the children in the family — which schools they attend and how they’re doing — which could potentially allow data to be connected, likewise in the education world.

    We run into lots of challenges in research with privacy where just because you can connect data, should you? Is that what program participants have agreed to when they’ve decided to enroll their children in public school or when they’ve decided to enroll in a housing subsidy program? In a lot of cases, the answer is no.

    Some of the best data is really connected at the local level, where you have local policymakers that are working with local agencies that have asked permission and are connecting data to kind of fine-tune programs on the ground.

    How do we reach a point where we have the information necessary to ensure academic success for all children?
    It has to happen at multiple levels. The federal government needs to encourage the Department of Ed and HUD to collaborate and to really support or incentivize collaboration in their discretionary grant programs. I really see it as the feds have an opportunity to lead and really support this kind of work.

    But I also think that there are so many local organizations that are leading. I think a lot of the case study work that I have done can help to illustrate how flexibility and collaboration can really translate into a set of programs or practices that support kids’ education and stable, high-quality housing.

    I know that philanthropy is really supporting a lot of exploration around sector alignment.

    I feel really hopeful about this sort of broader vision for how we create policy that thinks about the way that multiple systems can influence how well a child is doing. But I also think that it’s not like there’s just all of this housing sitting there and kids are not living in it. A big part of this work is making sure that there continues to be a housing production pipeline that is developing housing to ensure that there’s enough housing at various price points so that everybody has the opportunity to live where they’d like to live.





    Source link

  • Thousands of LA students experience homelessness; we must act urgently to help them

    Thousands of LA students experience homelessness; we must act urgently to help them


    Encampments line the street that runs along Virgil Middle School’s lower field in Los Angeles County on November 30, 2022.

    Credit: Kate Sequeira / EdSource

    Homelessness and housing are at the center of political, policy and budget conversations across California, with indelible images of tents on sidewalks and people struggling against addiction and mental health often driving our understanding of the crisis.

    But homelessness is not only a story of encampments or shelters; it is a story of women, children and families, who are among the fastest-growing populations of people experiencing homelessness. These are too often the invisible faces of this crisis, and we must recognize them and act urgently to deliver solutions.

    According to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, students qualify as homeless if they lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. This includes children who live doubled or tripled up with other families, in hotels, motels, shelters or other temporary arrangements.  

    Today, Los Angeles County serves 1.3 million students across 80 school districts, with 47,689 students identified as experiencing homelessness in 2022-23.

    These figures do not include our earliest learners — children from birth to transitional kindergarten — or the many families on the brink of housing instability, often one emergency away from becoming unhoused. Young children in unstable housing situations are among the most vulnerable, with their development and well-being deeply impacted by housing insecurity.  

    In Los Angeles County, voters are weighing Measure A, a citizens’ initiative that would repeal and replace the existing ¼ cent homelessness sales tax, set to expire in two years, with a new, ½ cent sales tax. The measure, tied to accountability and results, is expected to bring in $1.1 billion annually to the county to fund affordable housing, mental health and substance abuse services.

    Crafted by a coalition of housing experts, mental health professionals, labor leaders and community advocates, Measure A applies lessons learned from past efforts to expand investments in mental health and substance abuse services to get unhoused Angelenos off the streets and into treatment, increase resources for housing to make it more affordable for everyone, require accountability with clear goal-setting, regular audits and spending reports, and move funding away from programs that do not show proven results. 

    Measure A also establishes a new governance approach to deploy resources into one unified plan for addressing homelessness and the housing crisis. This plan is also informed by a Leadership Table made up of a cross-section of community leaders who will make funding and policy decisions about how these critical resources are spent that includes seats for education agency leaders and experts. 

    We believe that the innovations in Measure A would help develop stronger collaborations between school districts, housing agencies and nonprofits to offer wraparound services for families and create systems that make it easier for families to self-identify without stigma. By expanding housing programs that prioritize families and include transitional housing options connected to schools, we can better ensure that no student falls through the cracks.

    On the ground, our dedicated teachers, administrators and campus staff are navigating the challenges of homelessness with our families every day. For example, recently we had a single mother facing homelessness send her older daughter who had special needs to live with relatives, while she tried to find housing with her younger daughter. They moved around often, and getting to school was difficult.

    The school worked with the family to arrange transportation for the younger daughter so she could stay in school and helped the mother find crisis housing. Once the family was in temporary housing, the mom brought her older daughter back home, and the school helped set up transportation for her as well, allowing both children to attend school consistently.

    Measure A would help provide the dedicated resources for housing programs and critical services that our communities need to weather these challenges without disrupting their education to break the cycle of instability. 

    Without stable housing, students struggle to succeed academically and emotionally, leading to long-term consequences for our communities. By shifting some of the county’s homelessness funding toward preventive and family-focused solutions, we can make a lasting difference in the lives of children and help break the cycle of poverty and homelessness. 

    We must recognize the invisible faces of homelessness and prioritize their needs. We owe it to our students and families to ensure sustained funding, accountable spending, and a holistic, regional approach that expands our understanding of homelessness beyond individuals on the street to include students and families living in unstable housing situations. We must center on preventive and family-focused solutions, or risk losing the potential of an entire generation. It’s not just a matter of education; it’s a matter of equity, compassion, and justice, and a thriving future for California. 

    •••

    Debra Duardo, M.S.W., Ed.D., is the Los Angeles County superintendent of schools. Miguel A. Santana, is the president and CEO of the California Community Foundation.

    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

  • For a true meritocracy, education must not be one-size-fits-all

    For a true meritocracy, education must not be one-size-fits-all


    A student in Oakland’s Skyline High School Education and Community Health Pathway sculpts a clay model of the endocrine system.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    It’s time to balance out our lopsided education system. Millions of parents and students have long struggled with our one-size-fits-all model, which primarily teaches to, tests for and celebrates students as theorists, not practitioners.

    Our current system acts as a gatekeeper to the middle class by doling out opportunity based on grades and test scores in a traditional classroom setting, but rarely recognizes competencies and interests beyond standardized exams and essays.

    Fifty years ago, students could opt into publicly funded trade schools and apprenticeships or enroll in practice-based classes like home economics and shop in traditional academic schools, which taught skills that led to well-paying jobs in carpentry, culinary arts and other trades. But over time, public funding for such programs dried up. The share of federal spending on vocational instruction as part of elementary and secondary education dropped from roughly 30% in 1970 to just 7.5% in 2022. Even as elementary and secondary education spending ballooned from $5.8 billion a year to $96 billion during this period, the vocational component grew only from $1.8 billion to $7.2 billion.

    Most publicly funded instruction now happens at desks, with grading based on written exams, essays and problem sets rather than demonstrations and hands-on learning. Some students are more prepared than others to succeed in such a system, exacerbating existing inequalities. 

    Research by the Economic Policy Institute found that social class, as defined by parental income, education and job, is the leading predictor for a student’s school readiness: Kindergartners from the highest social class possess more theory-based skills and perform an entire standard deviation higher on math and reading tests than kindergartners from the lowest social class. The gaps are particularly high for Black and Hispanic students, who are more likely than white children to live in poverty. When some students inevitably falter, the system tells them they are failures and offers trade schools and technical colleges as second-tier alternatives they often must pay for themselves.

    It didn’t have to be this way. The United States originally based its system on a German/Prussian model, which prioritized efficiency by tracking students into “academic” or “vocational” tracks at age 10. In that model, still in place in Germany today, students are expected to know what they want to do by adolescence, and many simply end up in the same track as their parents. 

    The United States, hoping to advance a true meritocracy, did not want a system that limited intergenerational mobility in this way, and over the 20th century we adopted a liberal arts approach that was supposed to prioritize economic and social mobility. But in a myopic attempt to get rid of tracking, we inadvertently eliminated vocational education and simply tracked all our students into the academic model. The result? The worst of both worlds for less traditional students who struggle in a sink-or-swim academic system.

    Student outcomes now depend a lot on parents’ backgrounds, just like in Germany.

    There is another possibility. Consider Finland, which in the 1970s switched from the German model to one that teaches a combination of academic and technical subjects until age 16, when students choose a track. The vocational path for students interested in highly -skilled trades includes carpentry and culinary arts, but it also offers applied sciences, health care, and social services, which in the United States would require attending traditional academic universities. 

    Finland’s vocational path is highly competitive and includes matriculation at rigorous polytechnic universities with high-level training in subjects like business, engineering and nursing and quality instructors with connections to actual companies — not an alternative education. With a system that celebrates the value of highly skilled thinkers and workers, Finland recently ranked first out of 143 countries on the World Happiness Report for the seventh consecutive year, and as of 2021, its income inequality is eighth lowest among 37 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the United States ranks 23 on the World Happiness Report, and its income inequality is down at 33, beating only Turkey, Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica).

    Of course, the United States is not Finland, and we cannot simply adopt its system. (Though before you discount Finland because of its smaller or more homogeneous population, consider that its size and composition are comparable to many U.S. states, and much of U.S. education policy is decided at the state level.) What we can do is stop deciding who is educated, intelligent and successful based on only one type of student. Instead, we should recognize the value of all students, and offer more mainstream career and technical opportunities across K-12 education. 

    States and the federal government should fund more career and technical education, including apprenticeships, hands-on learning courses and training and recruitment for vocational teachers. They should work with employers, schools, training organizations and other groups to tie education to the workforce needs of their region. 

    Everyone should be given the opportunity to pursue a traditional academic education, but they should also be able to pursue an equally rigorous vocational one, equipped with public resources and support. Only then will the middle class truly be open to all.

    •••

    Eric Chung is a lawyer, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project. His work focuses on law and policy related to economic mobility and educational opportunity.

    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

  • We must do more to ensure college is worth it for all students

    We must do more to ensure college is worth it for all students


    Credit: People Images / iStock

    The national rhetoric regarding the value of attending a college or university has reached a fever pitch. Being “better off” goes well beyond politics and the price of milk and eggs or an understanding of how tariffs work. Let’s face it: Education provides opportunity, and making higher education work for everyone must be a priority if we are to be a thriving, civilized society. 

    Let’s start with the current disruptive notion that poses the discomfiting question: Is a college degree worth it?

    Many of us working in postsecondary education felt that question didn’t go far enough in looking for the opportunity to improve in new and better ways when the stakes are higher than ever.  

    So, we took that question on as a challenge and expanded it to ask: What is college worth, and how do we measure and improve its value, especially for low- and moderate-income learners? Answers to such questions should prove fruitful, especially given that a new Gallup survey reports Californians overwhelmingly value postsecondary degrees or credentials, particularly because of their career-related benefits. Yet, we know that many are hesitant to enroll in college or university because of the perceived unaffordability of earning a credential or degree.

    This led our organizations to explore what kind of return on investment higher education institutions — part of a stale, antiquated system that does not always deliver on its promise of economic mobility and equity — provide to their learners. The ensuing report produced more nuanced data to inform continuing conversations on the value of postsecondary education, which, frankly, helps learners and their families make decisions on where they want to make a higher education investment from a value and return-on-investment perspective.

    Our first step was to look at the value that California institutions offer their low- and moderate-income learners. We also wanted to know if certain college programs or credentials made a difference.

    After all, learners who choose a postsecondary education should end up better off for it, right? 

    The good news we found was, yes, most students were better off for the most part. The troubling news, though, was that for some students, it was not always, and sometimes, never. 

    We’ve also learned that sometimes a student’s college major can matter just as much for an economic return-on-investment — if not more — than the institution itself. Some programs provide a strong return, but some offer none whatsoever, even leaving some degree or credential graduates making less than a high school graduate.

    For example, we found that almost all programs (97%) offered at public institutions in California show their graduates being able to earn back the costs of obtaining a degree or credential within only five years. Essentially, these graduates earn enough of an “additional income” because of their college degree to make their college program worth it.

    And, also impressive, nearly half of public college programs (48%) allow this within one year’s time. Programs at private nonprofit colleges in California generally take students longer, as only 7% enable graduates to recoup their costs within 12 months. And worrisomely, for-profit colleges show their graduates struggling to recoup their college costs, and nearly a fifth of their programs (17%) show no economic return whatsoever.

    This work is not a denouncement of any specific program or desired area of study, but rather an opportunity for further research to understand why and how these institutions and college programs produce these outcomes and where there may be policy and practical implications.

    A simple example of such a practical change may be for institutions to provide a clearer picture to students before they enroll of how much a specific program will cost — and provide information on how much former students typically earn. Another may be more geared toward college administrators to ensure that they are equipping students with the right skills — and necessary credentials — to pursue and succeed in careers within the geographic region where the institution is located.   

    Institutional leaders and elected officials must lean into discussions that are happening right now about the value of a college education and how it ties to learners’ futures and where improvements can happen.

    While more questions must be answered — and more research will follow — one thing has become abundantly clear: Our higher education system can no longer be enabled by a “this is the way we do things” mentality in places where it is not working.

    Postsecondary attainment must be tied to value, economic mobility and equity, as this is essential to creating a higher education system that drives a robust, inclusive economy that works for all Californians. 

    •••

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley is president and CEO of College Futures Foundation, whose mission is based on a belief in the power of postsecondary opportunity.

    Michael Itzkowitz is founder and president of the HEA Group, a research and consulting agency focused on college access, value, and economic mobility.

    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.

    EdSource receives funding from many foundations, including The College Futures Foundation. EdSource maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage. 





    Source link

  • California must put money, mandates behind promises of bilingual education, researchers say

    California must put money, mandates behind promises of bilingual education, researchers say


    Photo courtesy of SEAL

    California needs to mandate bilingual education in districts with significant numbers of English learners and invest much more to support districts to offer it, according to a new report released Thursday.

    The report, “Meeting its Potential: A Call and Guide for Universal Access to Bilingual Education in California” was published as part of a package of research and policy proposals on civil rights in education by the UCLA Civil Rights Project.

    The authors said California is far behind other states in enrolling students in bilingual programs, despite having published documents like the English Learner Roadmap and Global California 2030, that lay out a vision for significantly expanding bilingual education in the state.

    “It’s particularly significant because of the loud promises the state has made on behalf of bilingual education,” said Conor P. Williams, senior fellow at The Century Foundation and one of the authors of the report. “When it comes down to actual resources devoted, they’ve come so far short.”

    The authors of the report recommend three main actions for California state leaders to take: Expand bilingual education programs with more funding and requirements for districts to offer them; prioritize enrollment of English learners in bilingual programs; and invest more in bilingual teacher preparation programs.

    In order to expand bilingual education programs, the authors said California should follow the lead of Texas and pass legislation that requires districts to offer bilingual education if they have at least 20 students in any grade level that speak the same home language. In addition, they recommend the state provide districts more funding for every student enrolled in a bilingual program.

    The authors said this “carrot and stick” approach in Texas has helped the state enroll a much higher percentage (36.7%) of English learners in bilingual programs. In contrast, California has enrolled only 16.4 % of English learners in bilingual programs.

    The report cites research that shows bilingual education improves academic achievement, progress in learning English, retention of home language, high school graduation and college attendance, in addition to other benefits.

    “Bilingual education should not be a partisan issue, because of the vast and wide-reaching benefits of it,” said Ilana Umansky, associate professor of education at the University of Oregon and one of the authors of the report. “It’s very telling that a state like Texas mandates bilingual education in a lot of circumstances and incentivizes bilingual education and has twice the enrollment of English learners in bilingual education as California.”

    In addition to expanding the number of bilingual programs, the authors also called on state and district leaders to make sure there are spaces set aside in bilingual programs for English learners, that they are located in neighborhoods where English learners live or that they can easily reach by transportation.

    “It’s critical to prioritize English learners, because it’s English-learner-classified students that most need and benefit from bilingual programs,” Umansky said.

    Umansky said many dual-language immersion programs are often located in neighborhoods where most families speak English, because English-speaking parents are often the loudest advocates pushing for them. And she said some districts outright bar recent immigrant students from enrolling in bilingual programs, incorrectly assuming they are not beneficial for them.

    Finally, the report’s authors are recommending the state also invest more in bilingual teacher preparation programs and in making such programs more affordable for students. They pointed out that after voters passed Proposition 227 in 1998, limiting bilingual education in California, many bilingual teacher preparation programs were closed.

    “Prop 227 had such a devastating effect on traditional bilingual teacher programs, we have got to invest in them. They have to be bigger, they have to be stronger, and we have to have support for the programs and support for the students,” Umansky said.

    Proposition 227 was overturned in 2016, when voters passed a separate measure, Proposition 58.

    “California has put its foot down about saying, ‘We believe in multilingualism, we’re going to get students to be multilingual,’” Umansky said. “Now is the moment to really start putting money and efforts behind those intentions.”





    Source link

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

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


    Photo courtesy of SEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •••

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

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





    Source link

  • California leaders must keep their promise by funding ethnic studies

    California leaders must keep their promise by funding ethnic studies


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Decades of institutionalized racism and inadequate funding have left California with a racial achievement gap in its schools. All of our students deserve the chance to learn and succeed, but all too often, students of color have been failed by an education system that still bears the marks of a long history of racism and inequality.

    To address this persistent structural problem, Gov. Gavin Newsom has allocated funding that will be directed toward the poorest schools, to be used specifically to help all student groups improve academic achievement in this year’s proposed budget.

    The governor did not, however, explicitly allocate funding to support Assembly Bill 101, the mandate that all public high schools offer an ethnic studies course in the 2025-26 school year and require all students to complete a one-semester ethnic studies course for graduation, beginning with the school year 2029-30. The lack of explicit funding has emboldened opponents of ethnic studies education, who now argue that the ethnic studies requirement must be delayed or withdrawn.

    Delaying or abandoning the state’s commitment to ethnic studies would not only break the promise that the governor and the Legislature made to the people of California at a time when this kind of education is more important than ever, but also threaten efforts to close the racial achievement gap. Although ethnic studies isn’t designed with the specific goal of reducing or closing racial achievement gaps, it has a track record of doing exactly that.

    For example, Stanford researchers Thomas S. Dee, Emily K. Penner and Sade Bonilla found San Francisco’s ninth-grade ethnic studies course to improve students’ GPA, school attendance, and graduation rate. University of Arizona researchers Nolan L. Cabrera, Jeffrey F. Milam, Ozan Jaquette and Ronald W. Marx found that participation in Tucson’s Mexican American studies program raised students’ achievement on the state’s reading, writing and math achievement tests and virtually closed racial achievement gaps.

    San Francisco State University researchers found that students who major in ethnic studies graduate within six years at a much higher rate (92%) than students in other majors and students in other majors who take at least one ethnic studies course boost their graduation rates compared with students who do not. At the University of Louisville, researcher Tomarra A. Adams found that Black students who major in Pan-African studies have a higher graduation rate than Black students who major in something else.

    Ethnic studies has consistently positive impacts on the academic achievement of students from racially marginalized backgrounds. By offering a relevant curriculum that speaks to issues of concern to their lives and communities, ethnic studies taps into and engages the knowledge students bring to the classroom, allowing them to draw from and recognize their own expertise.

    Ethnic studies classes offer an environment where important and relevant issues related to race and ethnicity can be addressed openly rather than be belittled or ignored. Further, as students come to see education as relevant to addressing problems and needs in their communities, and themselves as academically capable, they gain confidence to thrive in school more generally.

    Ethnic studies benefits all California students while helping to close the racial achievement gap and preparing the workforce of tomorrow for the multicultural reality of our state. It was in recognition of these benefits that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 101, declaring as part of the signing statement that “these courses boost student achievement over the long run — especially among students of color.”

    Recently, Assembly Bill 1468 was introduced to authorize the development of content standards for high school ethnic studies. This bill is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Ethnic studies is a highly contextual approach to curriculum and teaching because it connects with the local cultures and issues of specific communities in which it is being taught.

    For that reason, there can be no standardized ethnic studies curriculum. Within the current Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, we already have a set of six guiding values and principles that are broad enough to allow for diverse contextualized approaches to ethnic studies, while they are also sufficiently direct as standards.

    I worry that further specification of what should be in an ethnic studies curriculum will authorize one version of ethnic studies to the exclusion of others. This has been my experience with content standards for decades. In addition, ethnic studies is interdisciplinary, which means that the standards for that subject (such as history or English) should be used along with the seven ethnic studies guiding principles. AB 1468 unnecessarily adds layers to the standards we already have.

    Ethnic studies needs to be a part of the curriculum offered to California’s students, and it is incumbent on the governor and the Legislature to make good on that promise by resolving any ambiguities about the funding of AB 101.

    •••

    Christine Sleeter is professor emerita in the College of Education at California State University Monterey Bay, known for pioneering research into multicultural education and anti-racism.

    The opinions in this commentary are 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.

    A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee.





    Source link

  • Why California must champion community college bachelor’s degrees

    Why California must champion community college bachelor’s degrees


    Cerritos College students honing their skills in ironworking during hands-on training.

    Credit: Courtesy Cerritos College

    A college degree or certificate is a proven pathway to higher earnings, job stability and economic mobility. Yet, nearly half of California’s adults have not pursued higher education due to barriers like cost, rigid schedules and a lack of local options.

    California set an ambitious goal: By 2030, 70% of working-age adults should hold a college degree or certificate. However, instead of making it easier to achieve this, public universities are blocking one of the most promising solutions — community college bachelor’s degree programs.

    Cerritos College is leading the way with its first-of-its-kind field ironworker supervisor bachelor’s degree, which was developed with the California Field Ironworkers. The program creates a direct path from apprenticeship to high-paying supervisory roles. Designed for working professionals, it offers flexible online coursework that fits the schedules of full-time ironworkers.

    With over 1,300 supervisor job openings annually in Los Angeles County alone, this program helps close critical workforce gaps while fostering regional social and economic mobility. First-line supervisors with a bachelor’s degree earn an average of $34,000 more in their annual salary than those with a high school diploma or associate degree. At under $11,000 in total tuition costs — less than half the price of even the most affordable public universities, our students can recoup their investment in as little as four months, making this program a powerful tool for upward mobility.

    Beyond the numbers, programs like these change lives. Rocio Campos, an ironworker and mother, defied societal expectations to pursue a career in construction. While balancing work, family and education, Rocio gained the training and resources to grow her career in ironworks through the field ironworker apprenticeship program at Cerritos College. She aims to earn a bachelor’s degree in ironworker supervision once the program receives full approval, giving her a chance to advance into a supervisory role.

    Community college bachelor’s degrees are game-changers, especially for underrepresented communities. At Cerritos College, 73% of students in the ironworker apprenticeship program come from diverse backgrounds, and active recruitment efforts are bringing more women into this historically male-dominated field. These programs don’t just increase wages; they provide economic mobility by helping workers build stability, advance their careers, and lift their families into greater financial security.

    Several community colleges have received provisional approval to launch bachelor’s degree programs in health care, technology and public safety — fields where California urgently needs skilled professionals. However, many of these proposals remain under review because of objections from public universities, particularly within the CSU system. Despite meeting workforce demands and serving students who might not otherwise pursue a four-year degree, these programs face unnecessary roadblocks. The final approval ultimately rests with the California Community Colleges board of governors, but these initiatives risk being delayed indefinitely without broader policy support.

    California cannot rely on four-year universities alone to meet its growing workforce needs. Expanding community college bachelor’s degree programs will strengthen industries, create more opportunities and solidify California’s leadership in workforce innovation. It’s time for policymakers, industry leaders and educators to support these programs and invest in the future of our state.

    •••

    Jose Fierro is the president/superintendent of Cerritos College in Norwalk. Cerritos College serves as a comprehensive community college for southeastern Los Angeles County.

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





    Source link

  • Pandemic-era push to ‘build solutions’ must continue, panel says

    Pandemic-era push to ‘build solutions’ must continue, panel says


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemKlBPWB2E

    The Covid-19 pandemic, which first shuttered schools five years ago, disrupted learning, disengaged students and harmed their mental health, amplifying the long-standing inequalities in their achievement.  

    Recovering from the effects of the pandemic has proven difficult for most California schools, and the challenges that defy easy fixes, such as chronic absenteeism, require partnerships with families, community members and organizations to develop support systems that will focus on student academic success, as well as a willingness to analyze and change those approaches, according to panelists at EdSource’s Thursday roundtable, “Five years after Covid: Innovations that are driving results.”

    “The pandemic showed us that schools are so much more than just places to teach our students in the classroom,” said Lorena Solorio, associate director of the Care Corps Program at Rocketship Public Schools, a group of TK-5 charter schools, mostly in East San Jose, that enlisted care coordinators during the pandemic. “We have to support our students and their families to get them to school, but also that they’re prepared to learn because our students can’t learn if they’re coming to school hungry.”

    While the pandemic is mostly defined by the personal loss and academic setbacks that most experienced, it presented opportunities for some communities to become creative and innovative in igniting change to improve the conditions that the pandemic magnified. 

    The policy and advocacy work of Oakland REACH, for instance, wasn’t improving student outcomes before the pandemic. The pandemic became an opportunity for the parent advocacy group to “build the solution around education that we really know that our families wanted and needed,” co-founder and CEO Lakisha Young, a panelist, said. 

    Oakland REACH created a virtual family hub that trained parents and caregivers to tutor their children in early literacy — “a model that takes parents off the sidelines and to the front lines in an academic way.” 

    “Parents set the tone for how kids decide they want to engage in education,” Young said. 

    After five weeks of remote learning with the virtual hub, long before anyone realized school closures would last for at least a year, students in grades K-2 saw significant gains, as 60% improved by two or more reading levels and 30% increased by three or more reading levels on Oakland Unified’s assessment.

    Since the return to in-person learning, REACH has partnered with the school district to train parents, caregivers, and community members to go into classrooms as tutors teaching reading and math. 

    Rocketship Public Schools was inspired at the height of the pandemic to work directly with families and connect them with resources and services through care coordinators in all of its charter schools, according to Solorio. 

    The care coordinators, for example, connected families struggling with housing with community partners and hosted on-campus resource fairs and health, vision and dental screenings, referring students for additional services, as necessary, and allowing them to “show up and learn in the classroom,” Solorio said. 

    Today, the coordinators’ roles have expanded to help school leaders address chronic absenteeism. 

    “Helping support a culture of learning, a culture of coming to school is important,” Solorio said about coordinators helping families, “whether it’s changing mindsets or it’s driving out core root causes of some of these obstacles.” 

    Finding, providing and sustaining innovation

    Districts have used one-time pandemic relief funding and/or their own resources to address the persistent challenges facing students during and since the pandemic, including the fact that California schools have more staff now than at any time in history. 

    Federal pandemic relief and recovery funds from the state put California’s spending at over $18,000 per student, said panelist Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab, an education finance research center based at Georgetown University. 

    “While the state was seeing some growth in scores earlier in 2014, 2016, there’s some decline during the pandemic,” she said. “But the part that frustrates us, I think, is the continued decline, on average, even after these investments were happening.”

    The high spending and low test scores make the state one of the nation’s worst in its “returns on investments,” the Edunomics Lab found. 

    There are districts, such as Compton and Milpitas Unified, that defy the average and show a rapid recovery for their students, Roza said. 

    Now, billions in pandemic-era funding have expired. California districts still have $6 billion in state funding to replace the federal relief, but as the Edunomics research shows, the spending alone won’t address student success. From now on, schools must know when to change their approach, panelists said. 

    Compton Unified exemplifies the importance of doubling down on a strategy that works. Compton Unified Superintendent Darin Brawley said that consistently assessing student performance to determine the academic strategies that schools use has led to the district being No. 1 in California in terms of growth in English and math test scores.

    “We’re measuring everything,” including graduation rates, core graduation requirements and chronic absenteeism rates that are also improving, Brawley said.  “It’s all about data: reflecting on that data, coming together as teams to reflect on how each individual school is doing, receiving that feedback.” 

    The common characteristic of districts nationwide that beat the odds for their kids, Roza said, is “they really focused on reading and math.” 

    Roza attributed the reading and math focus of Oakland REACH to its success. 

    Although the group will soon end its partnership with the district, Oakland Unified can continue the approach Oakland REACH started, much like 12 Denver schools recently did by replicating the model.

    “REACH exists out of a problem,” Young said about not knowing if the literacy and math it brought into the homes of low-income families would work, at first. Whether we think something is good or not, let’s test it. We cannot be so vulnerable to system disruption. When we’re vulnerable to disruption, our families are vulnerable to disruption.”

    Panelists echoed the importance of finding a method that works — and being unafraid to try things. 

    “If it doesn’t work, you’ve got to try something else, including nontraditional strategies,” especially in addressing attendance, Roza said. “I think we hear from district leaders all the time: ‘I would love to do these great ideas, but we can’t because dot, dot…”

    It’s that fear that leads to the status quo, Brawley said. 

    Cheryl Jordan, superintendent at Milpitas Unified, which developed an Innovation Campus that offers students real-world work and life experiences through internships, apprenticeships and project-based learning, said that it is only through looking at the opportunities that a crisis provides that schools and districts can “develop something that’s better and meets the needs of our learners in a way that is innovative and really excels them to become the leaders and creators of the future.” 





    Source link