برچسب: Results

  • Erratic results, high costs doomed this districtwide student improvement program

    Erratic results, high costs doomed this districtwide student improvement program


    Students in a Fresno Unified classroom.

    Credit: Fresno Unified / Flickr

    Top Takeaways
    • Fresno Unified and its teachers union reached an agreement in mid-June to attempt to mitigate the impacts of a long-standing program ending. 
    • The multimillion-dollar program was touted by the district as a way to close gaps between student groups less than three years ago. 
    • Finances, inconsistent program implementation and varied results are some of the reasons the district says the program was eliminated. 

    The Fresno Unified School District and its teachers union have reached an agreement to terminate a decade-old, once-promising student improvement program that expanded from a pilot in a handful of low-performing schools to 40 of the district’s 67 elementary schools and one middle school. 

    Faced with rising program costs, declining enrollment and cuts in revenue, the district decided that inconsistent results could not justify the program’s high expense of almost $30 million.

    “When you have finances crash with programmatic inconsistencies … just kind of created the perfect storm for us to go a different direction,” said David Chavez, district chief of human resources, who also worked for two former superintendents. 

    The Designated Schools program, which operated under three superintendents, was a district initiative to improve achievement through additional daily instruction by targeting the specific needs of students. The effort was extensive: 30 additional instructional minutes per day for students, 10 extra paid days of professional development for teachers, and either a math or reading coach in each school.

    Under the agreement with the Fresno Teachers Association, the coaches will return to the classroom as regular teachers, and teachers will see a phaseout of their 10-day training over the next few years. For students, aside from losing 30 minutes of instruction, there will be no transition. They can participate in the after-school program they are already entitled to attend, where they may receive intervention or instruction from teachers who choose to participate.    

    Dismantling the previously praised program raises questions about how and why it went awry. 

    The district blames inconsistent program implementation across schools, but it failed to set standards or hold schools accountable to the program’s tenets. 

    Going Deeper: Who Designated Schools served 

    Designated Schools, affecting 24,000 students and over 1,250 educators across 41 campuses, were intended to close academic gaps among students and were typically located in neighborhoods with large numbers of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In the extra 30 minutes, all students received additional instruction or intervention in some way.

    Reading specialists at Wilson Elementary, a Designated School, used those extra minutes on remedial instruction for struggling fifth graders who were unable to read even at a third or fourth grade level, said Drew Colburn, a fifth grade teacher. 

    During intervention time, Colburn and other teachers divided their classes into small groups by proficiency level and targeted students’ weak points, allowing all students to get additional support, without missing core instruction. 

    At Wilson, following slight improvements, 18.6% and 12.1% of students achieved reading and math proficiency in the 2023-24 school year, according to Ed-Data

    Teachers say they saw improvements, which may not have been as apparent on summative state tests that the district evaluated to determine program effectiveness. 

    “If you take that 30 minutes away from them, they’re going to come to fifth grade with even more of a deficit,” Colburn said. 

    Inconsistent implementation or lack of oversight?

    The first “Designated Schools” were actually three of the district’s lowest-performing schools. Fresno Unified gave teachers more time to plan, additional instruction time with students and extra support as part of the state’s turnaround model to reform persistently low-achieving schools.

    The schools started to see improved student performance, including double-digit gains in some instances, according to district Superintendent Misty Her.  

    “We thought, ‘Can we take what happened there and now replicate it into other schools?’” said Her, who was a school administrator at the time. 

    In 2014-15, under the label of Designated Schools, two schools, along with nine others, implemented the model. Over the last decade and multiple years of implementation, the program expanded with the district being the initiative’s biggest advocate.

    The model, when implemented as intended, supported improved student outcomes on state assessments for English and math, Fresno Unified said in May 2021 in its accountability plan for the 2021-22 school year, when the program cost $19.9 million across the 41 schools.  

    But, according to district leaders, schools implemented the program differently, undermining the effectiveness of the extra staff and extra 30 minutes, and leading to varying results. 

    Timeline of Designated School expansion, elimination

    2014-15: Fresno Unified implemented the Designed Schools initiative at 10 elementary schools and one middle school

    2015-16: 20 schools were added as Designated Schools

    2016-17: 10 more elementary schools became Designated Schools

    From 2017-2019: The model had improved scores on state assessments for low-income, foster youth and English learner student populations, according to district accountability plans.

    2019: Annual funding for the program continued to increase, rising to over $18.6 million.

    2020-21: Hanover Research conducted its analysis, showing mixed results from the program.

    2021: Fresno Unified, in its accountability plan for the 2021-22 school year, said the initiative would “address the needs of students by providing extended time to accelerate learning and close the gap of learning loss resulting from the pandemic.” 

    2022: The district suggested expanding the program to its remaining two dozen elementary schools. 

    2023-24: Fresno Unified proposed phasing out the initiative before abandoning the idea later in the school year. 

    2024-25: The district announced the program’s elimination for the 2025-26 school year. 

    The district added a special assignment teacher to every Designated School, but gave schools the autonomy to use that position as they saw fit. Some schools used the position as an intervention teacher; others used the extra support to assist during class or pull students out for individualized or group instruction. A few schools required the specialists to take on multiple duties, consequently hindering their work in the classroom. 

    Laura Schwalm, chief of staff for California Education Partners, where she works with about 50 school districts on systemic change and improvement, said that before expanding an initiative, districts should have a plan, including how to fund it; set clear expectations; monitor the program and its results throughout the year to make adjustments; and invest in teachers and administrators to deliver the program. 

    An analysis of the program, conducted by Hanover Research in the 2020-21 school year, found that:

    • Academic outcomes were mixed
    • Program implementation varied across campuses, with only some schools aligning resources with data-driven practices 

    District administration had the authority and ability to address the program’s flaws. In fact, the Hanover report recommended that Fresno Unified establish a set of standards on how staff should use its additional time at Designated Schools. 

    The autonomy, alone, wasn’t the problem; a lack of district monitoring was. Schwalm said using different approaches could have led to improved student results and could have been used in other schools.

    “If you’re not monitoring and not adjusting what you’re doing to get better results, then you can’t be surprised when you don’t get good results,” she said.

    Former Superintendent Bob Nelson, who led the district from 2017 until 2024, said he and the district leadership “didn’t pay close enough attention to schools that were doing it well” to be models for other schools. 

    “The issue was we were not learning from the sites we had. That’s what was missing.”

    Bob Nelson, former superintendent of Fresno Unified

    According to a June 2022 accountability plan, the district still hailed the initiative as being “critical” to the achievement of English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students and foster youth.

    By November 2022, Fresno Unified wanted to expand the initiative to all elementary schools to improve academic outcomes for students, according to contract negotiation documents with the teachers union. 

    “Less than a year and a half after they proposed every school site become a Designated School, they’re saying, ‘This program doesn’t work,’” said Manuel Bonilla, teachers union president. 

    Chavez, the chief of human resources, said Fresno Unified had evaluated the program’s effectiveness every year since its inception and that its continuation, especially since it was meant to be a pilot, had been a part of conversations for years. 

    But was it effective? 

    Parents, teachers and administrators told EdSource they believe students benefit from more time with their teachers. The extra 30 minutes amounted to 90 additional instructional hours each year.

    “I believe it does give teachers a little bit more time to be able to work with each kid,” said Adriana Ramirez, a Wilson Elementary parent.

    But both the district and teachers union agreed that its effectiveness was not a simple yes or no answer. 

    “Depending on the situation, some components were really good at this site, some weren’t at this (school), and one component that could have been good somewhere wasn’t necessarily really good at another place,” Chavez said. 

    There were “pockets of excellence,” he and other district officials admitted, but students were not seeing the academic gains the district envisioned. 

    Though not school-specific, the district provided data measuring the yearly progress of students at Designated Schools compared to students at non-designated schools. 

    EdSource also evaluated school-specific data from a GO Public Schools 2024 student outcome report based on the 2023-24 school year.

    The district-provided and school-specific data is indicative that many schools were making progress under the initiative, as teachers say, while also depicting the district’s point that it was not across the board.

    Without data from a 10-year longitudinal study, Bonilla, the teachers union president, said he couldn’t say whether the Designated Schools initiative was effective. 

    “Some of our teachers felt that it was effective and some teachers felt that there were components that could make it even more effective because it wasn’t,” Bonilla said.

    Mitigating impact

    The district and teachers union spent six months negotiating how to maintain student support through other programs. 

    The agreement approved on June 18 dedicates an additional $4 million in the 2025-26 and 2026-27 school years for educators at Designated Schools to offer after-school literacy instruction or intervention. 

    Educators at Designated Schools, under the agreement, will have the right to refuse the work. If given the opportunity, Drew Colburn, a fifth grade Wilson Elementary teacher who was also a former after-school program coordinator, is confident educators are going to want to do that extra 30 minutes, if not more. 

    But if teachers decline the assignment, the after-school intervention won’t be as consistent or effective, he said. 

    And unfortunately, families won’t know the repercussions of the program’s elimination until this school year when it’s no longer in place, Ramirez said. “Parents,” she said, “won’t notice until it’s not there.”





    Source link

  • Erratic results, high costs doomed this district’s once-heralded student improvement program

    Erratic results, high costs doomed this district’s once-heralded student improvement program


    Students in a Fresno Unified classroom.

    Credit: Fresno Unified / Flickr

    Top Takeaways
    • Fresno Unified and its teachers union reached an agreement in mid-June to attempt to mitigate the impacts of a long-standing program ending. 
    • The multimillion-dollar program was touted by the district as a way to close gaps between student groups less than three years ago. 
    • Finances, inconsistent program implementation and varied results are some of the reasons the district says the program was eliminated. 

    The Fresno Unified School District and its teachers union have reached an agreement to terminate a decade-old, once-promising student improvement program that expanded from a pilot in a handful of low-performing schools to 40 of the district’s 67 elementary schools and one middle school. 

    Faced with rising program costs, declining enrollment and cuts in revenue, the district decided that inconsistent results could not justify the program’s high expense of almost $30 million.

    “When you have finances crash with programmatic inconsistencies … just kind of created the perfect storm for us to go a different direction,” said David Chavez, district chief of human resources, who also worked for two former superintendents. 

    The Designated Schools program, which operated under three superintendents, was a district initiative to improve achievement through additional daily instruction by targeting the specific needs of students. The effort was extensive: 30 additional instructional minutes per day for students, 10 extra paid days of professional development for teachers, and either a math or reading coach in each school.

    Under the agreement with the Fresno Teachers Association, the coaches will return to the classroom as regular teachers, and teachers will see a phaseout of their 10-day training over the next few years. For students, aside from losing 30 minutes of instruction, there will be no transition. They can participate in the after-school program they are already entitled to attend, where they may receive intervention or instruction from teachers who choose to participate.    

    Dismantling the previously praised program raises questions about how and why it went awry. 

    The district blames inconsistent program implementation across schools, but it failed to set standards or hold schools accountable to the program’s tenets. 

    Going Deeper: Who Designated Schools served 

    Designated Schools, affecting 24,000 students and over 1,250 educators across 41 campuses, were intended to close academic gaps among students and were typically located in neighborhoods with large numbers of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In the extra 30 minutes, all students received additional instruction or intervention in some way.

    Reading specialists at Wilson Elementary, a Designated School, used those extra minutes on remedial instruction for struggling fifth graders who were unable to read even at a third or fourth grade level, said Drew Colburn, a fifth grade teacher. 

    During intervention time, Colburn and other teachers divided their classes into small groups by proficiency level and targeted students’ weak points, allowing all students to get additional support, without missing core instruction. 

    At Wilson, following slight improvements, 18.6% and 12.1% of students achieved reading and math proficiency in the 2023-24 school year, according to Ed-Data

    Teachers say they saw improvements, which may not have been as apparent on summative state tests that the district evaluated to determine program effectiveness. 

    “If you take that 30 minutes away from them, they’re going to come to fifth grade with even more of a deficit,” Colburn said. 

    Inconsistent implementation or lack of oversight?

    The first “Designated Schools” were actually three of the district’s lowest-performing schools. Fresno Unified gave teachers more time to plan, additional instruction time with students and extra support as part of the state’s turnaround model to reform persistently low-achieving schools.

    The schools started to see improved student performance, including double-digit gains in some instances, according to district Superintendent Misty Her.  

    “We thought, ‘Can we take what happened there and now replicate it into other schools?’” said Her, who was a school administrator at the time. 

    In 2014-15, under the label of Designated Schools, two schools, along with nine others, implemented the model. Over the last decade and multiple years of implementation, the program expanded with the district being the initiative’s biggest advocate.

    The model, when implemented as intended, supported improved student outcomes on state assessments for English and math, Fresno Unified said in May 2021 in its accountability plan for the 2021-22 school year, when the program cost $19.9 million across the 41 schools.  

    But, according to district leaders, schools implemented the program differently, undermining the effectiveness of the extra staff and extra 30 minutes, and leading to varying results. 

    Timeline of Designated School expansion, elimination

    2014-15: Fresno Unified implemented the Designed Schools initiative at 10 elementary schools and one middle school

    2015-16: 20 schools were added as Designated Schools

    2016-17: 10 more elementary schools became Designated Schools

    From 2017-2019: The model had improved scores on state assessments for low-income, foster youth and English learner student populations, according to district accountability plans.

    2019: Annual funding for the program continued to increase, rising to over $18.6 million.

    2020-21: Hanover Research conducted its analysis, showing mixed results from the program.

    2021: Fresno Unified, in its accountability plan for the 2021-22 school year, said the initiative would “address the needs of students by providing extended time to accelerate learning and close the gap of learning loss resulting from the pandemic.” 

    2022: The district suggested expanding the program to its remaining two dozen elementary schools. 

    2023-24: Fresno Unified proposed phasing out the initiative before abandoning the idea later in the school year. 

    2024-25: The district announced the program’s elimination for the 2025-26 school year. 

    The district added a special assignment teacher to every Designated School, but gave schools the autonomy to use that position as they saw fit. Some schools used the position as an intervention teacher; others used the extra support to assist during class or pull students out for individualized or group instruction. A few schools required the specialists to take on multiple duties, consequently hindering their work in the classroom. 

    Laura Schwalm, chief of staff for California Education Partners, where she works with about 50 school districts on systemic change and improvement, said that before expanding an initiative, districts should have a plan, including how to fund it; set clear expectations; monitor the program and its results throughout the year to make adjustments; and invest in teachers and administrators to deliver the program. 

    An analysis of the program, conducted by Hanover Research in the 2020-21 school year, found that:

    • Academic outcomes were mixed
    • Program implementation varied across campuses, with only some schools aligning resources with data-driven practices 

    District administration had the authority and ability to address the program’s flaws. In fact, the Hanover report recommended that Fresno Unified establish a set of standards on how staff should use its additional time at Designated Schools. 

    The autonomy, alone, wasn’t the problem; a lack of district monitoring was. Schwalm said using different approaches could have led to improved student results and could have been used in other schools.

    “If you’re not monitoring and not adjusting what you’re doing to get better results, then you can’t be surprised when you don’t get good results,” she said.

    Former Superintendent Bob Nelson, who led the district from 2017 until 2024, said he and the district leadership “didn’t pay close enough attention to schools that were doing it well” to be models for other schools. 

    “The issue was we were not learning from the sites we had. That’s what was missing.”

    Bob Nelson, former superintendent of Fresno Unified

    According to a June 2022 accountability plan, the district still hailed the initiative as being “critical” to the achievement of English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students and foster youth.

    By November 2022, Fresno Unified wanted to expand the initiative to all elementary schools to improve academic outcomes for students, according to contract negotiation documents with the teachers union. 

    “Less than a year and a half after they proposed every school site become a Designated School, they’re saying, ‘This program doesn’t work,’” said Manuel Bonilla, teachers union president. 

    Chavez, the chief of human resources, said Fresno Unified had evaluated the program’s effectiveness every year since its inception and that its continuation, especially since it was meant to be a pilot, had been a part of conversations for years. 

    But was it effective? 

    Parents, teachers and administrators told EdSource they believe students benefit from more time with their teachers. The extra 30 minutes amounted to 90 additional instructional hours each year.

    “I believe it does give teachers a little bit more time to be able to work with each kid,” said Adriana Ramirez, a Wilson Elementary parent.

    But both the district and teachers union agreed that its effectiveness was not a simple yes or no answer. 

    “Depending on the situation, some components were really good at this site, some weren’t at this (school), and one component that could have been good somewhere wasn’t necessarily really good at another place,” Chavez said. 

    There were “pockets of excellence,” he and other district officials admitted, but students were not seeing the academic gains the district envisioned. 

    Though not school-specific, the district provided data measuring the yearly progress of students at Designated Schools compared to students at non-designated schools. 

    EdSource also evaluated school-specific data from a GO Public Schools 2024 student outcome report based on the 2023-24 school year.

    chart visualization

    chart visualization

    chart visualization

    The district-provided and school-specific data is indicative that many schools were making progress under the initiative, as teachers say, while also depicting the district’s point that it was not across the board.

    Without data from a 10-year longitudinal study, Bonilla, the teachers union president, said he couldn’t say whether the Designated Schools initiative was effective. 

    “Some of our teachers felt that it was effective and some teachers felt that there were components that could make it even more effective because it wasn’t,” Bonilla said.

    Mitigating impact

    The district and teachers union spent six months negotiating how to maintain student support through other programs. 

    The agreement approved on June 18 dedicates an additional $4 million in the 2025-26 and 2026-27 school years for educators at Designated Schools to offer after-school literacy instruction or intervention. 

    Educators at Designated Schools, under the agreement, will have the right to refuse the work. If given the opportunity, Drew Colburn, a fifth grade Wilson Elementary teacher who was also a former after-school program coordinator, is confident educators are going to want to do that extra 30 minutes, if not more. 

    But if teachers decline the assignment, the after-school intervention won’t be as consistent or effective, he said. 

    And unfortunately, families won’t know the repercussions of the program’s elimination until this school year when it’s no longer in place, Ramirez said. “Parents,” she said, “won’t notice until it’s not there.”





    Source link

  • Nearly all school parcel taxes pass, but mixed results for school bonds in March election

    Nearly all school parcel taxes pass, but mixed results for school bonds in March election


    The March 5 primary proved to be a good day for passing school parcel taxes, but not so good for school construction bonds.

    With fewer than 1% of votes statewide remaining to be counted, it appears likely voters in 10 of 11 districts approved parcel taxes. Although a small sample size, the 91% passage rate beats the historic 65% pass rate for primary elections, according to Michael Coleman, who publishes election results at CaliforniaCityFinance.com (see note below). The sole defeat was the Petaluma Joint Union High School District’s eight-year proposed tax at $89 per parcel.

    Voters in 24 of 40 school districts passed school facilities bonds: 60% compared with the historic 73% primary election approval rate. And the winners include two tiny school districts in Sonoma County that looked like they would be defeated on election night but picked up enough mail-in or provisional votes to eke out a win.

    It takes a 55% majority vote to pass a bond, and in Fort Ross School District, two votes made the difference for the $2.1 million bond; the 158 to 126 vote was 55.6% to 44.3%.  Supporters of the $13 million bond in the Harmony Union School District picked up 6 percentage points since election night to end with 56.3% of the vote.

    School districts can choose the March primary or November general election for a parcel tax or school bond. Most traditionally choose November, when more voters cast votes. But others gamble on the primary election, when there’s less competition, with fewer state bond issues and many initiatives competing for dollars on the ballot.

    The most recent proposal for a state school construction bond, which would have provided matching funding for local school bonds, was also on the statewide primary ballot in March 2020, and it lost — the first in decades to lose. But it coincided with the emergence of the Covid pandemic, adding an edge of anxiety for voters. It also had the misfortune of coincidentally being designated Proposition 13, which likely caused confusion among voters with the 1978 anti-tax initiative that substantially restricted property tax increases and required a two-thirds voter majority to pass new taxes, including parcel taxes. (Voters lowered that threshold for school facilities bonds to 55% with Proposition 39 in 2000.)

    The Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s aides are negotiating whether to place a school facilities bond proposal on the November ballot. With student enrollment declining statewide, most of the money would be designated for renovations and repairs, not new construction.

    Brianna Garcia, vice president of School Services of California, a school consulting company, doubted that the lower-than-average passage rate for bonds would predict the outcome in November for local and state bond proposals. Many more districts will place bonds before voters, and the passage rate will revert to the norm for November elections, which is over 80%, she said.

    While agreeing with Garcia, Eric Bonniksen, superintendent of Placerville Elementary School District in El Dorado County, cautioned that people struggling financially “are looking at every avenue to fit within their budgets, including school bonds.”  A drop in interest rates, even if not large, which economists are forecasting, “may make people feel better about the economic outlook,” he said

    Voters, Bonniksen said, want to see something visible, like remodeling a building, reconstructing a field or painting a school. “If a bond only fixes sewer and electrical lines, they will question, ‘What did you do for this money?’” he said.

    Voters passed about $3 billion worth of projects, not including interest, generally paid over 30 years at rates of $15 per $100,000 of assessed property value in Sunnyvale to $60 per $100,000 of assessed property value in Benicia, Hayward, Culver City and Desert Sands unified districts. The largest bonds approved are for $675 million in Desert Sands, $550 million in Hayward, and $358 million in Culver City.

    The largest bond that failed was for $517 million in Tamalpais Union High School District in Marin County; as of March 22, it was 1.25 percentage points shy of 55%. Opponents, led by the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, questioned the scale of the work and said the money would disproportionately go to Tamalpais High, with not enough to two other high schools. The district last approved a construction bond two decades ago.

    Parcel taxes

    Only about 1 in 8 school districts, primarily in the Bay Area and districts with wealthier families in the Los Angeles area, have passed one. Parcel taxes are one of the few sources of funding for districts to supplement state or local funding. Because Proposition 13 bans tax increases based on a property’s value, parcel taxes must be a uniform amount per property, regardless of whether it’s a cottage, a 10-bedroom house, or an apartment building.

    Courts have ruled, however, that parcel taxes can be assessed by the square footage, and three of the 11 on the ballot (54 cents per square foot per year in Berkeley Unified, 55 cents in Albany Unified, and 58.5 cents in Alameda) passed. School boards in high-cost Bay Area districts argue that parcel taxes are critical because state funding under the Local Control Funding Formula doesn’t take regional costs into consideration.

    The approved parcel taxes range from $75 per year for eight years in Martinez Unified to a $768 per year extension of an existing parcel tax, with an annual cost of living adjustment, in Davis Joint Unified.

    Note: Updated data indicated that parcel taxes in Manhattan Beach Unified and Petaluma City Elementary School District, along with bond proposals in Fort Ross and Harmony Union school districts picked up enough support to pass.





    Source link

  • California CAASPP Smarter Balanced Test Results


    EdSource’s daily email newsletter delivers free updates on key education issues, reforms and innovations right to your inbox.

    By submitting this form, you are granting: EdSource, 436 14th Street, Oakland, California, 94612, United States, http://www.edsource.org permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email. (See our Email Privacy Policy for details.) Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.





    Source link

  • School board results show wins on conservative and progressive sides

    School board results show wins on conservative and progressive sides


    Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.

    Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed

    Election results for California’s school boards are still not final in most counties, but the dust is settling in some of the state’s most hotly contested races.

    This year, California teachers unions and conservative groups intensified efforts to get their favored candidates elected to district school boards. Their primary difference of opinion — educational policies on gender identity and racial equity.

    In June, voters recalled Temecula Valley Unified school board President Joseph Komrosky — one of a three-member conservative block that passed controversial policies to reject textbooks with materials that included references to gay rights activist Harvey Milk, ban critical race theory and require teachers and school staff to notify parents if a child appears to be transgender. 

    But Komrosky and a new conservative majority could be back in January. As of Thursday evening, he and candidates Melinda Anderson and Emil Roger Barham — all endorsed by the Riverside County Republican Party — were winning their races.

    Komrosky is narrowly edging out opponent David Sola in the race for Trustee Area 4, with 51.21% of the vote — a little more than 300 votes — as of about 5:30 p.m. Thursday. Sola is endorsed by the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union.

    “During this historic election season, I’m confident Temecula will choose trustees devoted to prioritizing academics, honoring parents, protecting children, and (keeping) divisive ideology out of the classroom,” said Jennifer Wiersma, who was part of the board’s conservatively held majority, in a statement to EdSource. Wiersma represents Trustee Area 3.

    Riverside County still had 350,000 mail-in and conditional ballots to be counted on Wednesday.

    The seats of the two board members who pushed back against the conservative majority — Steven Schwartz and Allison Barclay — are also up for election. Currently, Schwartz leads challenger Jon Cobb with 51.64% of the vote in Trustee Area 5, while Barclay is losing with 41.50% of the votes to Anderson’s 58.50% in Trustee Area 1.

    The Area 4 and Area 2 seats have been empty since Komrosky’s recall in June and the resignation of board member Danny Gonzalez last December.

    Both Cobb and Komrosky are supported by the Inland Empire Family PAC, a conservative Christian political action committee. Cobb is also endorsed by the Riverside County Republican Party.

    Barclay, Schwartz and Gary Oddi are endorsed by the teachers union. Oddi is running against Barham and Angela Talarzyk for the Trustee Area 2 seat.

    San Jose Unified results mixed

    Nicole Gribstad, endorsed by the Santa Clara County branch of Moms for Liberty, could take the Trustee Area 5 seat on the San Jose Unified school board, despite heavy campaigning against her by the teachers union. 

    Moms for Liberty is a national group that has supported efforts to bar schools from teaching about race, gender and sexuality. If Gribstad wins, she will be the only conservative member of the board, said San Jose Teachers Association President Renata Sanchez.  

    Gribstad is leading with 44.93% of the votes, only 870 votes more than union-endorsed candidate Lenka Wright.

    “We are not quite ready to call the race yet,” Sanchez said.  

    The county had about 284,000 ballots left to count at 10 a.m. Thursday, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

    “(If she wins) we will continue to do everything we can to protect our students from these policies, including working with the board to make sure they understand how policies impact the work at the site level, ensure that our policies and processes are in alignment with those from CSBA (California School Boards Association),” Sanchez said. 

    “The parental rights policies, book bans and anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are coming from a loud minority, and are not indicative of what the community as a whole desires for their children,” she said.

    Teresa Castellanos, the union’s other endorsement in the San Jose Unified race, seems likely to take the Trustee Area 1 seat with an overwhelming 59.47% of the vote compared to 40.53% for Chris Webb.

    Orange Unified incumbents winning

    Orange Unified School District incumbents Ann Page, Sara Pelly and Stephen Glass seem to have handily won re-election in Orange County. All three incumbents had between 72% to 80% of the votes in their trustee areas by 5 p.m. Wednesday.

    The county reported there were about 364,000 ballots left to process on Thursday evening.

    Pelly, in Trustee Area 4, and Glass, in Trustee Area 7, completed the terms of Madison Miner and Rick Ledesma, who were recalled in April, after Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen was abruptly fired without explanation. Neither Miner nor Ledesma sought re-election.

    Orange Unified recall organizer Darshan Smaaladen said interest in local races has grown since culture wars made their way into school district boardrooms. 

    “We have seen greater interest in the high quality and motivation of school board candidates, which is a great thing,” Smaaladen said in a statement to EdSource. “Greater interest equals greater engagement; public schools shine brighter in the light of transparency and truth from this interest.”

    Santa Ana Unified surprise

    In what could be an upset, special education teacher and conservative candidate Brenda Lebsack is edging out incumbent Rigo Rodriquez for the Trustee Area 1 seat on the Santa Ana school board, 52.16% to 47.84%. 

    The district has three seats up for election. Valerie Magdaleno is handily beating opponent Lloyd Boucher-Reyes, 72.5% to 24.75% in Trustee Area 2, while incumbent Alfonso Alvarez has 59% of the vote in a three-way race for the Area 3 seat.

    Recalled Sunol Glen trustee losing

    School board policies focusing on gender identification and LGBTQ+ rights continue to be a hot-button issue in some districts this election season.

    Ryan Jergensen played a role in passing conservative policies associated with gender identity and the display of flags, including the Pride flag, while a trustee for the Sunol Glen Unified School District in Alameda County. Now, he is trying to reclaim his board seat.

    On Wednesday at 1 a.m. he was losing to Erin Choin, 41% to 59%.

    LA Unified filling three seats

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board will go through a drastic change in leadership this election cycle — with three of its seven seats up for grabs. 

    Board President Jackie Goldberg, representing District 5, along with board member George McKenna from District 1, announced their retirement last fall after decades in education. Their seats — along with the District 3 seat currently occupied by board Vice President Scott Schmerelson, are on the ballot this November. 

    United Teachers Los Angeles, the district’s teachers union, and charter school organizations have been battling over board seats. The union mobilized its 39,000 members and ran campaigns in two of the districts, said Julie Van Winkle, vice president of the union.

    As of 4:34 p.m. Thursday, all three union-endorsed candidates — Sherlett Hendy Newbill, Schmerelson and Karla Griego — were winning their races. Only the District 3 race between Schmerelson, 51.91%, and Dan Chang, 48.09%, was close.

    District 7’s seat was on the ballot last March — and board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin secured her next term with support from 55.91% of voters. 

    In addition to deciding the makeup of LAUSD’s school board, voters determined the fate of a substantive $9 billion school construction bond to upgrade LAUSD school facilities. It needs at least 55% of the vote to pass, and has secured just over 66% of the vote so far. 

    West Contra Costa race close

    Early returns in the West Contra Costa Unified race show incumbent Otheree Christian trailing challenger Guadalupe Enllana by about 400 votes, according to results published early Wednesday morning. Enllana had nearly 53% of the vote. 

    Enllana, a member of the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) committee, has been critical of the district’s financial management and the school board’s failure to adopt an LCAP, which in turn prevented the district from passing a budget by the deadline.

    Otheree, a graduate of the district’s Kennedy High School and a substitute teacher, was elected in 2020. As trustee, he abstained from voting on the accountability plan because the document lacked transparency and failed to include parent feedback.





    Source link

  • First PBL Project Modest in Scope Achieve Best Results

    First PBL Project Modest in Scope Achieve Best Results


    PBL Project Scope Image

    Scope

    First PBL Project needs to be modest in scope to achieve the best result. Andrew Miller stresses that if you are just getting started with Project Based Learning, “Don’t Go Crazy”. Miller’s article “Getting Started with Project-Based Learning (Hint: Don’t Go Crazy)” suggests a few things to consider if you are just started with PBL:

    Limited Scope:

    Try to focus on two or three priority standards for your first project. Concentrate the learning on one subject rather than multiple disciplines. Aim for a two-to-three-week project, or approximately 10 to 15 contact hours.

    In addition to limiting the time, you might consider narrowing choice. Instead of many product options, offer a short menu. Allow students to choose how they want to work but choose the teams for the project yourself. There are many ways to build voice and choice into a project, but these aspects can be limited.

    By narrowing the scope of a project, teachers and their students can have short-term success that builds stamina for more complex projects later.

    Plan Early:

    One of the challenges of PBL, but also one of the joys, is the planning process. In PBL, you plan up front, and it does take a significant amount of time. You need to plan assessments and scaffolds and gather resources to support project learning.

    While you might be able to do some of this during scheduled planning time, ask your leadership for creative structures to carve out time for planning. Perhaps staff meetings can be used for this time, or release days can be offered.

    It is important to get ahead and feel prepared for and confident about a project. By using the backward design process, you can effectively map out a project that is ready to go in the classroom.

    Once you plan, you can differentiate instruction and meet the needs of your students, rather than being in permanent crisis mode trying to figure out what will happen tomorrow.

    Gather Feedback:

    When you have a great project planned, contact colleagues both digitally and in person to get feedback. This can be done through posting an idea on X or having a gallery walk of ideas, where teachers walk your project gallery and leave feedback on Post-its. If you can, have a 30-minute conversation with a teacher colleague or instructional coach.

    Main Course, Not Dessert:

    It is easy in a short-term project to fall into the trap of a “dessert” project that isn’t necessarily inquiry based. With PBL, the project itself is the learning- it’s the “main course.” In fact, many teachers who think they are doing PBL are actually doing project. In PBL you are teaching through the project-not teaching and then doing the project.

    Use an effective PBL project checklist to ensure a high-quality experience, while still keeping a narrow focus and timeline. It helps ensure that you focus on aspects such as inquiry, voice and choice, and significant content.

    Commit to Reflection:

    We are all learners, and when we start something new, we start small, limiting our focus to help us master the bigger thing step by step. A key aspect of this is that when you finish a project, you should take time to reflect on it.

    Consider journaling, having a dialogue with an instructional coach, or following a structured reflection protocol with a team of teachers.

    Through reflection, projects become better and may live on for many years, so that reflection time pays off with time saved on subsequent runs through the project.

    Tips From the Classroom

    From PBL in the Elementary Grades Step-by-Step Guidance book provides the following tips:

    First Project? Modest is Best

    A project ambitious in scope might last a month or more. It would involve multiple subjects and complex products, community outreach, presentations to a large public audience, advanced technology…but if this is your first project, you don’t need to go there yet. You might want to get comfortable with the basics of PBL first. Here’s what we advise for a modest first project:

    • 2 weeks in duration
    • 1 curricular area of focus (with integrated literacy standards)
    • limited complexity and number of student products
    • takes place completely in the classroom, does not include trips into the community

    Hallermann, Sara; Larmer, John; Mergendoller PhD, John. PBL in the Elementary Grades: Step-by-Step Guidance, Tools and Tips for Standards-Focused K-5 Projects (p. 28). Buck Institute for Education. Kindle Edition.

    Reminder:

    If you have no idea for your first Project Based Learning, you can read my post Explore Project Idea with 5 Tips for Authentic Learning.

    You can read my next post PBL Project Design Focus on Content Knowledge & 3Cs Students Need



    Source link