اینترنت

برچسب: says

  • RFK Jr. Cancellation of Vaccine Research Was “the Most Dangerous Public Health Decision,” Says Expert

    RFK Jr. Cancellation of Vaccine Research Was “the Most Dangerous Public Health Decision,” Says Expert


    PBS ran an important segment on Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in grants to study mNRA vaccine grants. These are the vaccines that broke the COVID pandemic.

    PBS interviewed scientists about this surprise decision. If you would like to see the interviews, open the link.

    Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to cancel nearly half a billion dollars in federal funding for mRNA vaccine development has left many public health experts and scientists stunned.

    mRNA technology was central in the battle against COVID and can be developed more quickly than traditional vaccines. But anti-vaccine communities and skeptics don’t trust its safety.

    Geoff Bennett spoke with Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, about the latest in mRNA vaccine research and the implications of Kennedy’s move. 

    “I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body,” Osterholm said.

    U.S. children’s health in decline

    As the Trump administration works to reimagine public health through its “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, a new study paints a stark picture of the challenges facing the nation’s kids.

    The health of American children has significantly worsened across several key indicators since 2007, according to a recent study published in JAMA.



    Source link

  • Lawmakers, Newsom and UC agree on new community college transfer plan, legislative leader says

    Lawmakers, Newsom and UC agree on new community college transfer plan, legislative leader says


    The Transfer and Reentry Center in Dutton Hall at UC Davis helps transfers get acclimated to their new environment.

    Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

    In an attempt to make it easier for students seeking to transfer to the University of California, the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom are in agreement on the framework for a new pilot transfer program between the community college system and UC, a top lawmaker told EdSource on Monday.

    “This is monumental,” Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, said in an interview Monday. “This is the biggest transfer bill in over a decade and the first time we’re able to get pretty darn close to having a universal transfer process for all community college students.”

    McCarty, the author of the bill, said the legislation was a negotiated compromise between the Senate, Assembly, Newsom’s office and UC. McCarty participated in the talks as chair of the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on education finance.

    Rather than immediately creating a systemwide transfer guarantee, the newly proposed pathway would start as a pilot at UCLA in a limited number of majors and then expand to more campuses in limited majors. The bill states that UC must “prioritize admission” to students who complete an associate degree for transfer in the selected majors but does not state they need to guarantee admission to them at their chosen campus. If a student is not admitted to their chosen campus, the student would be redirected and admitted to another campus.

    A UC spokesperson confirmed Monday that UC has been in negotiations with lawmakers and Newsom on “compromise legislation” but that UC has not yet taken an official position on the bill.

    The bill is expected to get floor votes this week in both the Assembly and the Senate, according to McCarty.

    Assembly Bill 1291 would first require that UCLA, beginning in 2026-27, prioritize admission for community college transfer applicants who complete an associate degree for transfer in certain majors. The specific majors have yet to be determined, but UCLA would need to designate at least eight of them. By 2028-29, it would expand to at least 12 majors, with at least four of them in a science, technology, engineering or math field.

    By 2028-29, the new transfer pathway would also expand to four additional UC undergraduate campuses that have also yet to be determined. UC would choose those campuses and, like at UCLA, designate at least 12 majors at each campus and prioritize admission for students who complete an associate degree for transfer in those majors. The Legislature then intends to expand the program by 2031 to UC’s remaining four undergraduate campuses.

    Earlier this year, McCarty introduced another bill, AB 1749, that would have required UC, beginning in 2025, to admit all eligible students who complete any associate degree for transfer, something the California State University system already does.

    But UC opposed that bill, with officials for the system arguing that it would have disadvantaged students in certain majors — especially in STEM fields — because they would have entered UC underprepared for their coursework.

    UC has yet to take a position on the latest bill because the university wants to be able to “review final legislative language” and evaluate “any potential last-minute amendments,” said Ryan King, a spokesperson for the system, in a statement to EdSource.

    Currently, UC does not have a systemwide transfer guarantee for community college students. There are separate transfer admission guarantees at six of the system’s nine undergraduate campuses — all except UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego. But those separate guarantees each have different requirements for admission. And students who consider transferring to Cal State have to also deal with separate and different requirements for that system.

    As EdSource has reported in a continuing series, “A Broken System of University Transfers,” the complicated process is a big reason why so few students successfully transfer from a community college to a four-year university in California and why many experts have called for a more streamlined transfer process. Most recently, a report published by the Public Policy Institute of California last month found that most California community college students who wish to transfer never do and states that “students would have an even clearer roadmap for transfer success” if UC were to participate in the associate degree for transfer as Cal State does.

    McCarty said he’s hopeful his bill will be “a game changer” for community college transfers.

    “Too often you have to have a doctoral degree to understand how to transfer,” he said. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We have this system that’s been working for the community colleges and CSU, and I’m excited that we’re going to be able to expand this to the UC.”





    Source link

  • Boosting student success after Covid is a team effort, panel says

    Boosting student success after Covid is a team effort, panel says


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyf4Q9kpjUs

    Two years after California schools reopened their classrooms to in-person instruction following the Covid-19 pandemic, students continue to struggle – both academically and emotionally. 

    Both of these factors are deeply connected and recovery requires a team effort, according to panelists at the EdSource round table Nov. 15 discussion, “Reenergizing learning: Strategies for getting beyond stagnant test scores.” 

    Getting California’s learners back on track, panel members agreed, involves the work of school administrators, teachers, parents and the students themselves. 

    “Students came back, not just with some of this delayed learning, but they lost a lot of opportunities for socialization, which has led to different kinds of behavior in school that make readiness to learn more difficult,” said Heather J. Hough, executive director of Policy Analysis for California Education. 

    Keeping students engaged 

    With chronic absenteeism soaring across the state from 12.1% in 2018-19 to  30% in 2021-22, the panelists said it is critical for schools to go beyond targeting specific causes for absenteeism – and create a culture where students feel excited to go to school. 

    “Kids need to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of being valued and cared about,” said Yolie Flores, president and CEO of Los Angeles-based Families in Schools.

    “…..But I don’t see as much of a focus on [social, emotional] side of the learning. And I wonder if it’s because we still don’t really understand how children learn and what sparks that fire to want to learn.”

    Members of the panel discussed programs that are used to gauge students’ concerns so they can be addressed. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District, for instance, holds more regular screenings to measure students’ sense of belonging through a partnership with UC Berkeley, in addition to the statewide California Healthy Kids Survey. 

    The district is also piloting a diagnostic tool that provides immediate feedback to teachers on students’ thoughts about belonging in their specific classrooms. 

    Further south, Adalberto Hernandez said ​​at George Washington Elementary School in Madera Unified School District, students recite affirmations: “I am loved; I am valued; I matter,” they declare each morning. 

    John Malloy, the superintendent of San Ramon Valley Unified, added that schools and educators need to do a better job of getting to know students’ needs as well as their “strengths, interests and passions.”

    A big part of why kids decide to come to school, Hough said, depends on answers to certain questions: “How does this fit into the future that I envisioned for myself? Am I getting the right kinds of training for my college or career goals, or the life that I want to live?” 

    Malloy added that the most impactful strategy “is listening to our students, creating the conditions for them to share their voice and their wisdom, whether it’s kindergarten or 12th grade.”

    Support for teachers

    Students aren’t the only ones affected by the pandemic: teachers need to be equally supported, because their jobs have gotten harder in the past couple years, panelists said.

    “Teachers have been tasked with the job of accelerating learning, but they’re facing much more difficult student needs and, maybe in some cases, students who aren’t in school,” Hough said, adding that there’s widespread vacancies because of problems in filling various school positions. 

    Parental involvement

    Parents, however, are not fully aware of the academic struggles their children may be going through – even though they can play a major role in their child’s achievement.

    Flores, the president and CEO of Families in Schools, said a nationwide Learning Heroes survey of families found that 92% of families believe their children are on track in reading and math.  

    “There’s confusion between what they see from the state. There’s confusion from the report cards that generally say that their kids are getting A’s and B’s, and yet they’re not reading at grade level,” Flores said. 

    “So what needs to happen is much more clarity and targeted information to families so that they can understand specifically how their children are doing.” 

    Some parents may want to be more present at their child’s school but may be limited by their work schedules, making involvement challenging. Even in cases where parents may take the time to visit their children’s classroom, they don’t always know what to look for in terms of effective instruction. 

    “It’s nice when parents are involved, but in a community like ours, we’re not depending on that for student success,” Hernandez said. “We communicate. We involve them. We invite them, and we do events like the Calenda traditional celebration in the state of Oaxaca in Mexico, and we had great parent involvement after hours. But during the school day, it’s on us.” 

    Classroom approach 

    Getting students to learn – and not just memorize material – is also vital, according to the panelists. 

    “I’ve been taught to take tests, but I’m not sure I know how to learn,” Malloy said a student told him during a Student Voice Circle, and that the statement has stuck with him, and that his district has since broadened their vision for success. 

    “If kids are thriving, it means that they are true, independent learners when they graduate from us,” Malloy said. “They have a confidence in their ability to think and to create.” 

    One strategy to help students really learn, panelists said, is to focus on teaching a few concepts thoroughly rather than covering a broader range of topics on a more cursory level. 

    If done properly, tutoring also helps, Hough said.

    “What makes tutoring effective,” Hough said, “is that those tutors are trained, that they’re being asked to do things that are aligned with the instructional strategies that the teacher is using, so that that’s….reinforcing what they’re learning in school.”





    Source link

  • State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says

    State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says


    Wards at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility talk at a table in Merced Hall in Stockton, Calif.

    Credit: Lea Suzuki / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    California is failing to provide a high-quality education to students in the juvenile justice system by not addressing the inadequacies of academic data collection practices, according to a recent report from the national Youth Law Center. Current collection practices, the report authors argue, do not accurately measure student needs and outcomes.

    “A failure to design better metrics would be a disastrous choice on the part of California stakeholders to keep these students out of sight and out of mind,” the report’s authors wrote.

    The report, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” is a follow-up to a 2016 report that similarly found the state to be failing in its mission of providing students in juvenile detention with high-quality education via its disproportionate representation of multiple student populations, high rates of chronic absenteeism, low high school graduation rates, inaccurate or incomplete data, and more.

    The most recent report highlighted data from two school years — 2018-19 and 2021-22 — using publicly available data from the California Department of Education as well as public records requests sent to 10 county offices of education that oversee court schools, which are education facilities for youth in the juvenile justice system. Students enroll in court school as they await adjudication or disposition, after they’ve been committed to a juvenile facility, or if they’re in a home placement under the supervision of probation.

    During 2018-19, nearly 20,000 students attended court schools in the state. In the 2021-22 school year, the number dropped to 10,891. This decrease likely reflects the lower number of youth in the juvenile justice system, which has trended downward in recent years, per the report.

    California’s current academic data system does not capture one crucial data point — that the majority of students attend a court school for less than 31 instructional days, the report noted. This means that few students attend for an entire school year, which is typically the time frame that data collection practices are based on.

    What’s more, currently available data does not distinguish between academic needs and outcomes of students who spend days or weeks attending a court school versus those who attend for years.

    The report highlighted that it has long been anecdotally understood by researchers, probation staff and others working in education within the juvenile justice system that student attendance is often transitory given the dynamic nature of the legal system. The report’s authors argue that instructional programming should reflect this knowledge by calculating any partial credits earned by recording them in student transcripts once they leave juvenile detention. Students also need additional services to more seamlessly move back into their local schools.

    While the report’s authors acknowledge that less time in the juvenile justice system is most beneficial, they maintain that the time youth do spend attending a court school should be as minimally disruptive as possible to their education. Minimizing disruption, they said, could include a heightened focus on the transition process out of juvenile detention.

    An ongoing challenge with inadequate data collection is that improvements are difficult to highlight. For example, the report authors found that the college-going rate at 10 court schools exceeded the average for the state’s alternative schools.

    “The data doesn’t really care if it’s positive or negative. The limitations exist on both sides,” said Chris Middleton, an Equal Justice Works fellow at the Youth Law Center and a primary author of the report. “And I think here where a really positive story could be told, there’s still a set of limitations that’s very evident.”

    Much of the data contained in the report reflects a dire reality.

    For example, the overall number of youth in the juvenile justice system decreased significantly from 2018 to 2022, yet the number of students with disabilities rose from 20.1% to 29.8%.

    The report suggests a few potential reasons: improved screening and identification, improved communication between schools regarding disability status, or a failure to capitalize on the systemic changes that drove the decrease in youth detention statewide.

    The report’s authors also found that foster youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.

    While foster youth represent less than 1% of all students enrolled in California schools, in 2018-19 they made up 21.44% of court school enrollments; by 2021-22, they were almost 31 times overrepresented in court schools versus traditional schools. This data was either redacted or unavailable for 27 of 51 court schools.

    “The extremely high rate of disability status and the extremely high rate of foster care overlap,” Brady said. “We have long known that young people with disabilities are more likely to be impacted by the juvenile justice system. … The numbers for foster care were still surprising.”

    Similarly, high rates of students experiencing homelessness were found at some court schools, but the data for this population of students was particularly unclear; much was either redacted or unavailable. While foster youth status is centrally tracked by the state, homelessness is largely screened by school districts — an identification process that has only in recent years improved through legislation and enforcement.

    Regarding chronic absenteeism, the rate was 12.9% among court schools and 12.1% statewide during the 2018-19 school year, and by the 2021-22 school year, that rate was 16.8% among court schools and 30% statewide.

    Though lower than the state average, this was alarming for the report’s authors.

    Students who attend a local education agency for less than 31 days are not eligible to be considered chronically absent, which indicates that the true rate of chronic absences is much higher, given that most court school students attend for less than 31 instructional days, the report authors wrote.

    Additionally, the authors found while some students refuse to attend class, some cannot attend due to decisions made by probation staff. Two examples shared in the report include a practice in Los Angeles County “of barring entire living units of young people from attending school if one of them misbehaved” and refusal by probation staff to provide “timely transport” of students to school.

    According to the report, “A necessary element of addressing chronic absenteeism in court schools must include better documentation of missed instructional time and the reasons why students are absent from class.

    “Additionally, efficient and effective coordination between probation and school staff is critical to ensuring the basic educational responsibility of students being present in their classrooms is met.”

    While the rate of chronic absences was lower among court schools during the 2021-22 school year, it should be noted that the percentages across court schools varied. Some schools reported a rate of over 30% while other schools reported 0%.

    One recent allocation of $15 million toward post-secondary education programs for youth in the juvenile justice system might turn the tide on better understanding outcomes. The funding will create and expand community college programming inside juvenile facilities, and a portion is intended to go toward evaluating such programs.

    This ongoing funding “is the single most positive and exciting thing that’s going on in the area of juvenile justice and education right now,” said Lauren Brady, managing director of the legal team at Youth Law Center.

    Many of the issues with data collection that researchers found were due to unavailable data or redactions — when a group includes fewer than 10 students, data is withheld to protect student privacy.

    “We can’t tell the complete story. That’s where we’re at right now. … In order to truly transform the experience for students and to give them the best chance to have a brighter future, we have to be able to measure what they’re experiencing,” report co-author Middleton said. “And I think that we have the capability. I have faith in California and our institutions that we are able to properly develop these measures and ensure that the data’s actually being reported.”





    Source link

  • State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says

    State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says


    Wards at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility talk at a table in Merced Hall in Stockton, Calif.

    Credit: Lea Suzuki / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    California is failing to provide a high-quality education to students in the juvenile justice system by not addressing the inadequacies of academic data collection practices, according to a recent report from the national Youth Law Center. Current collection practices, the report authors argue, do not accurately measure student needs and outcomes.

    “A failure to design better metrics would be a disastrous choice on the part of California stakeholders to keep these students out of sight and out of mind,” the report’s authors wrote.

    The report, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” is a follow-up to a 2016 report that similarly found the state to be failing in its mission of providing students in juvenile detention with high-quality education via its disproportionate representation of multiple student populations, high rates of chronic absenteeism, low high school graduation rates, inaccurate or incomplete data, and more.

    The most recent report highlighted data from two school years — 2018-19 and 2021-22 — using publicly available data from the California Department of Education as well as public records requests sent to 10 county offices of education that oversee court schools, which are education facilities for youth in the juvenile justice system. Students enroll in court school as they await adjudication or disposition, after they’ve been committed to a juvenile facility, or if they’re in a home placement under the supervision of probation.

    During 2018-19, nearly 20,000 students attended court schools in the state. In the 2021-22 school year, the number dropped to 10,891. This decrease likely reflects the lower number of youth in the juvenile justice system, which has trended downward in recent years, per the report.

    California’s current academic data system does not capture one crucial data point — that the majority of students attend a court school for less than 31 instructional days, the report noted. This means that few students attend for an entire school year, which is typically the time frame that data collection practices are based on.

    What’s more, currently available data does not distinguish between academic needs and outcomes of students who spend days or weeks attending a court school versus those who attend for years.

    The report highlighted that it has long been anecdotally understood by researchers, probation staff and others working in education within the juvenile justice system that student attendance is often transitory given the dynamic nature of the legal system. The report’s authors argue that instructional programming should reflect this knowledge by calculating any partial credits earned by recording them in student transcripts once they leave juvenile detention. Students also need additional services to more seamlessly move back into their local schools.

    While the report’s authors acknowledge that less time in the juvenile justice system is most beneficial, they maintain that the time youth do spend attending a court school should be as minimally disruptive as possible to their education. Minimizing disruption, they said, could include a heightened focus on the transition process out of juvenile detention.

    An ongoing challenge with inadequate data collection is that improvements are difficult to highlight. For example, the report authors found that the college-going rate at 10 court schools exceeded the average for the state’s alternative schools.

    “The data doesn’t really care if it’s positive or negative. The limitations exist on both sides,” said Chris Middleton, an Equal Justice Works fellow at the Youth Law Center and a primary author of the report. “And I think here where a really positive story could be told, there’s still a set of limitations that’s very evident.”

    Much of the data contained in the report reflects a dire reality.

    For example, the overall number of youth in the juvenile justice system decreased significantly from 2018 to 2022, yet the number of students with disabilities rose from 20.1% to 29.8%.

    The report suggests a few potential reasons: improved screening and identification, improved communication between schools regarding disability status, or a failure to capitalize on the systemic changes that drove the decrease in youth detention statewide.

    The report’s authors also found that foster youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.

    While foster youth represent less than 1% of all students enrolled in California schools, in 2018-19 they made up 21.44% of court school enrollments; by 2021-22, they were almost 31 times overrepresented in court schools versus traditional schools. This data was either redacted or unavailable for 27 of 51 court schools.

    “The extremely high rate of disability status and the extremely high rate of foster care overlap,” Brady said. “We have long known that young people with disabilities are more likely to be impacted by the juvenile justice system. … The numbers for foster care were still surprising.”

    Similarly, high rates of students experiencing homelessness were found at some court schools, but the data for this population of students was particularly unclear; much was either redacted or unavailable. While foster youth status is centrally tracked by the state, homelessness is largely screened by school districts — an identification process that has only in recent years improved through legislation and enforcement.

    Regarding chronic absenteeism, the rate was 12.9% among court schools and 12.1% statewide during the 2018-19 school year, and by the 2021-22 school year, that rate was 16.8% among court schools and 30% statewide.

    Though lower than the state average, this was alarming for the report’s authors.

    Students who attend a local education agency for less than 31 days are not eligible to be considered chronically absent, which indicates that the true rate of chronic absences is much higher, given that most court school students attend for less than 31 instructional days, the report authors wrote.

    Additionally, the authors found while some students refuse to attend class, some cannot attend due to decisions made by probation staff. Two examples shared in the report include a practice in Los Angeles County “of barring entire living units of young people from attending school if one of them misbehaved” and refusal by probation staff to provide “timely transport” of students to school.

    According to the report, “A necessary element of addressing chronic absenteeism in court schools must include better documentation of missed instructional time and the reasons why students are absent from class.

    “Additionally, efficient and effective coordination between probation and school staff is critical to ensuring the basic educational responsibility of students being present in their classrooms is met.”

    While the rate of chronic absences was lower among court schools during the 2021-22 school year, it should be noted that the percentages across court schools varied. Some schools reported a rate of over 30% while other schools reported 0%.

    One recent allocation of $15 million toward post-secondary education programs for youth in the juvenile justice system might turn the tide on better understanding outcomes. The funding will create and expand community college programming inside juvenile facilities, and a portion is intended to go toward evaluating such programs.

    This ongoing funding “is the single most positive and exciting thing that’s going on in the area of juvenile justice and education right now,” said Lauren Brady, managing director of the legal team at Youth Law Center.

    Many of the issues with data collection that researchers found were due to unavailable data or redactions — when a group includes fewer than 10 students, data is withheld to protect student privacy.

    “We can’t tell the complete story. That’s where we’re at right now. … In order to truly transform the experience for students and to give them the best chance to have a brighter future, we have to be able to measure what they’re experiencing,” report co-author Middleton said. “And I think that we have the capability. I have faith in California and our institutions that we are able to properly develop these measures and ensure that the data’s actually being reported.”





    Source link

  • Billionaires Are Running Our Country, Says German Data Firm

    Billionaires Are Running Our Country, Says German Data Firm


    The German data company Datapulse released a report showing the vast and growing power of billionaires in the U.S. The report confirms your and my suspicions about the rigging of our economy and our politics. Surely it’s no surprise that Trump’s Cabinet is packed with billionaires. Guess who they are looking out for? Not you.

    They cheered on Elon Musk’s ignominious DOGS as they slashed vital government programs. They didn’t complain when Musk closed USAID, causing the ultimate deaths of millions of children and parents because of the halt in US food, medicine and health clinics.

    They are thrilled to see Trump send in the troops to halt protests against ICE tactics.

    A democracy is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people. We are rapidly devolving into an autocratic regime where the rich run the show.

    Here is what Datapulse found:

    The report, “The Rich Aren’t Just Getting Richer—They’re Running the Show” moves beyond familiar headlines to provide fresh, specific data points on wealth, power, and policy.

    Key findings include:

    • The Myth of “Tax Flight”: Contrary to popular narratives, the mega-rich are not fleeing high-tax states. Our data shows that California and New York, states with progressive tax codes, are home to 40% of all U.S. billionaires.
    • Explosive Growth: The number of U.S. billionaires has nearly tripled since 2007, growing from 329 to 877 today. This trajectory is unique to America; China’s billionaire class, by comparison, is stalling.
    • The Rise of the Billionaire Political Class: In the post-Citizens United era, the top 10 political donors, all billionaires, contributed over $420 million in the 2024 cycle alone, directly translating wealth into political influence.
    • Policy for the Few: The study analyzes the direct impact of billionaire-backed policy, such as the House’s 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” which could see billionaires gain over $390,000 in annual after-tax income while households earning under $51,000 see their incomes shrink.
    • Concentrated Wealth: Tech and Finance now account for nearly half of all U.S. billionaires, with tech titans alone commanding 37% of total billionaire wealth.

    The full study with all 10 interactive charts is available here:
    https://www.datapulse.de/en/billionaires-usa/ 

    This data provides a new lens through which to view the intersection of wealth and power in America.

    The report was compiled by Datapulse.


    https://www.datapulse.de/en/
    (+49) 30-75437064

    Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Corporate Reformers, Data, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Freedom, Garfield High School, Research



    Source link

  • California needs to do more to ensure teachers can teach kids to read, national study says

    California needs to do more to ensure teachers can teach kids to read, national study says


    Melissa Ramirez, a first grade teacher at Lockeford Elementary in Lodi, holds up a flashcard while students say and spell the word ‘water.’

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Despite a newfound national focus on the science of reading, states, including California, aren’t doing enough to support and train teachers to effectively teach literacy, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Council on Teacher Quality. 

    Thirty-two states have passed laws or implemented policies related to evidence-based reading instruction in the last decade. Despite that, nearly every state could do more to support literacy instruction, according to the report, “Five Policy Actions to Strengthen Implementation of the Science of Reading.“

    “While states are rightly prioritizing literacy, they are not focusing enough attention on teacher effectiveness and teacher capacity to teach reading aligned to the science,” council President Heather Peske told EdSource. “If these efforts are to succeed … the state needs to ensure that teachers are prepared and supported from the time that they are in teacher preparation programs to the time that they enter classrooms.”

    The report rated states as strong, moderate, weak or unacceptable, based on whether they have policies to ensure students receive science-based reading instruction that includes teaching them to sound out words, a process known as phonics. Only 12 states, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia, were rated as strong.

    California received a moderate rating.

    The state gets high marks for setting reading standards for teacher preparation programs, adopting a strong reading licensure test for teachers, and requiring districts to select high-quality reading curricula. California scored lower on whether it requires ongoing literacy training for teachers and on its oversight of teacher preparation programs to ensure they are teaching the science of reading.

    Not all teachers are trained in the science of reading

    While California provides funds to school districts to offer literacy training to teachers, it does not require all elementary school teachers to be trained in the science of reading, as other states do, Peske said, adding that without proper training, teachers often flounder when teaching literacy, despite having access to high-quality instructional materials.

    Effective teaching is critical to improving students’ reading skills. More than 90% of students would learn to read with effective reading instruction, according to the report.

    About 40% of students entering fourth grade in the United States can read at a basic level, according to the research. The latest California test scores show fewer than half of the students who were tested were proficient in reading. These results have not changed much in the past decade. 

    “Why do we see staggering numbers of children, especially children of color and from low-income backgrounds, without fundamental literacy skills? said Denise Forte, president and CEO of The Education Trust. “Because in many districts and schools nationwide, outdated teaching methods and curricula that have been proven ineffective, and even harmful, are still being used.” 

    The report comes as California and other states are renewing their focus on the science of reading, which is based on over 50 years of research that provides a clear picture of how effective literacy instruction can produce a skilled reader, Peske said. 

    Only two of the 41 teacher preparation programs reviewed in California adequately cover all five components of the science of reading, according to the report. The five components include phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

    California puts renewed emphasis on reading

    But that could change soon. By July 1, California will require teacher preparation programs to provide literacy training based on the science of reading and the state’s new literacy standards. The new standards include support for struggling readers, English learners and pupils with exceptional needs, incorporating dyslexia guidelines for the first time.

    The state is also eliminating the unpopular Reading Instruction Competence Assessment in 2025. It will be replaced with a performance assessment based on literacy standards and a new set of Teaching Performance Expectations.

    “This latest set of standards and TPEs are probably the strongest statements we’ve had about reading and literacy in teacher preparation,” said Mary Vixie Sandy, executive director of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. “We are going gangbusters to get them in the field.”

    More than half of the states use outside accreditors to review teacher preparation programs, which researchers say is not ideal. The report includes California as one of those states, but Sandy says that is not the case. Teacher preparation programs in California must be reviewed every seven years by a commission-approved institutional review board made up of university faculty and practitioners across all credential areas, Sandy said. Members are trained on the standards, or have a background or credential in the subject being reviewed, she said.

    Teacher preparation programs that want a national accreditation can choose to use an outside accreditor, but it is not required for state accreditation, Sandy said.

    California should also include data it collects on teacher pass rates on the state reading licensure test as part of the review of teacher preparation programs, Peske said.

    California’s changes to teacher preparation and emphasis on the science of reading were taken into consideration by National Council on Teacher Quality’s researchers when evaluating the state, Peske said. The research was also sent to the California Department of Education at least twice for review. No one at the department said the research was in error, according to the council.

    The council has provided a guide to help states implement and sustain strong reading instruction.

    “Helping all children learn to read is possible when you have teachers who’ve been prepared in the science of reading,” Peske said. “Much like an orchestra needs each section of instruments to come together to successfully create music, states need to implement multiple teacher-focused reading policies that work together to improve student outcomes.”





    Source link

  • Colleges overlook the potential of students who didn’t finish their degree, study says

    Colleges overlook the potential of students who didn’t finish their degree, study says


    Shasta College serves students in Shasta, Tehama and Trinity counties.

    A new study detailing how California colleges often overlook the value of students who drop out explains what colleges can do to help these students, called “comebackers,” complete their degree successfully. 

    Instead of simplifying the return for these students, colleges often complicate the process and create obstacles, according to a report, “From Setback to Success: Meeting Comebacker Students Where They Are” by California Competes, a nonpartisan policy and research organization.

    “If you didn’t make it, it’s your fault. If you want to come back, good luck to you,” said Su Jin Jez, CEO of California Competes, about the convoluted process that comebackers go through to re-enroll in college.

    Based on interviews with over 50 students who returned to college and successfully completed their degree at Sacramento State and Shasta College, the report released on Feb. 5 identified factors that may impede a student’s attempt to return to college, including owing for overdue library books and parking, having to redo the entire enrollment process and being disqualified for financial aid because of poor grades from years prior. 

    More than 6 million Californians have attended college without ever receiving a degree, according to a 2021 report by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Jez said that reaching out to these students is an equity issue because many comebackers are low-income people or people of color. 

    Overlooking these students has major implications, not just for students themselves but for the state’s economy, the report states. Students without a degree or certificate may not be able to make progress in the workplace, and in turn, employers won’t be able to find qualified workers. Jez said reaching these students can stimulate economic growth.

    Jennifer Liberty, one of the co-researchers who helped design the study, is a comebacker herself; she is now working on a master’s degree in psychology.

    Other reasons contributing to students dropping out of college are having to work, taking care of children or family members, as well as institutional barriers like a loss of financial aid or an inflexible schedule — all of which may make balancing school with other priorities a struggle.

    Comebackers bring ‘so many skills’

    The report urges colleges to offer more flexibility in classes, do more to encourage students to return and reframe how comebackers are viewed.

    The conversation about students who stop attending college tends to be framed around their problems, said Buffy Tanner, director of innovation and special projects at Shasta College. They are discussed as students who lack recent academic experience, who have rusty math skills or have financial aid issues.

    “The reality is they come to us with so many skills,” Tanner said during a webinar on the report.

    People who stop coming to school typically have a lot of work experience that other kinds of students lack. They know how to work in groups and how to work for different bosses; they have professional experience; and sometimes professional development. These are all assets in college, Tanner said.

    Many comebackers may give up their studies after their grades start to slip and they are put on what is often called “academic probation.” The report recommends using language that isn’t associated with criminality. 

    “‘Academic probation’ sounds like, ‘You are a criminal, and we are going to keep an eye on you,’” Jez said.

    The report also recommends offering extra support to comebackers who struggle academically. Many of those who left on academic probation said that they were not offered help and that the term itself made them feel like they weren’t cut out for college. 

    Tanner said focusing on the needs of students who return to college after stopping has benefits for the broader population of students because they would also benefit from more flexible class schedules, such as classes that are offered outside the traditional workday. 

    Restructured academic calendars could also benefit other kinds of students. The report recommends offering shorter, more frequent classes, such as an eight-week intensive program, in contrast to a longer 16-week program, or a fall or spring term. This makes it easier for students to fit classes into their schedule and gives them more opportunities to jump into college.

    Enrollment at California’s community colleges has not fully rebounded from the pandemic, Jez noted. This pool of students with some college experience but no degree or certificate is potent as the state faces its big goals around issues such as climate change and housing.

    “We can’t meet our goals,” Jez said, “unless we allow marginalized people to access and complete college degrees.”





    Source link

  • Increasing access can raise number of California students eligible for 4-year colleges, panel says

    Increasing access can raise number of California students eligible for 4-year colleges, panel says


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhH3-SDb0Io

    California high schools can increase the number of students completing college prep courses if they raise awareness and support student success, according to panelists at EdSource’s roundtable, Keeping options open: Why most students aren’t eligible to apply to California’s public universities.

    Throughout the discussion on Tuesday, the panelists explored why a majority of high school students fail to complete A-G requirements — courses they need to qualify for admission to the University of California or California State University systems — and offered ways that schools can help change that.  

    “I think we have a responsibility to raise the expectations and then lean in to making sure that we have the support in place for students to be successful in those expectations,” said Sherrie Reed Bennett, executive director of the California Education Lab at the UC Davis School of Education.

    Panelists agreed that the more options students have, the better their situation after graduation and that increasing access to college prep courses is crucial. 

    Michael R. McCormick, superintendent of Val Verde Unified, said that awareness should start well before students enter high school and that schools should create a college and career culture with events such as College Days or elementary school lessons on A-G courses. 

    But beyond awareness, high school students are not getting the support they need to complete the A-G coursework, and parents and students, who often know little or nothing about these requirements, are left to figure it out on their own, panelists said.  

    “To expect people to go out and figure it out on their own is really difficult,” Delilah Brumer, a student at Los Angeles Pierce College, said about high school students not having the resources to learn about A-G requirements.

    Some schools also struggle with offering the A-G coursework or doing so in a way that supports students. In 2018-19, 2.5% of schools offered no A-G courses, and another 6% only offered some A-G courses.

    Although Brumer met her A-G requirements at a Los Angeles Unified school, she said the process was stressful and confusing. Her Career Technical Education courses often conflicted with her A-G courses, and she could only take some courses online. 

    Taking A-G and CTE courses shouldn’t be a matter of “either or,” Reed said, adding that districts should work to prevent those conflicts. For example, Val Verde Unified offered 42 career pathways and ensured that every course within each pathway was also A–G approved, according to Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) research in which Reed co-authored and cited during the roundtable.

    Whether college or career, the A-G courses are important for all students, no matter what their plans are after high school, panelists said.

    Systemic changes needed 

    Students planning to attend UC or CSU must complete the college preparatory courses known as A-G requirements — 15 courses in seven areas that overlap with the requirements for a high school diploma but are more rigorous.  

    More than half, 56%, of high school seniors failed to meet these requirements in 2023, meaning they were ineligible to apply to a California public university and may struggle at a community college.

    Research indicates that enrollment and completion rates on A-G courses vary across student groups and schools. In 2023, 68% of Black students and 64% of Latino students did not meet A-G requirements, compared with 26% of Asian students and 48% of white students, according to EdSource’s analysis. The highest non-completion group was foster students at 88%, followed by disabled students at 85% and English learners at 82%.

    It’s a multifaceted problem that requires systemic changes at a district, and possibly, statewide level, panelists said. 

    Aleka Jackson-Jarrell, program coordinator for the Heritage program at Victor Valley Union High School District, said schools must evaluate support through an equity lens because there are systemic barriers keeping African American and Latino students from qualifying for four-year universities. 

    With just 6% of Black students graduating with A-G courses at Adelanto High, Victor Valley started Heritage, an equity program that helps place students in A-G courses.  The program also educates families about college applications, financial aid and housing, spearheading school and districtwide changes, such as career advisers helping all students with UC and CSU applications. 

    “So many system changes needed to be made in order for all of our students, not just the African American students, to benefit,” Jackson-Jarrell said. “So a lot of things have changed because of this one equity program; they’re mirroring and changing the systems.” 

    PACE research found that at the school or district level, routine data analysis, such as comprehensive A-G course audits, can also help inform school and course-level changes to support students with meeting the requirements. 

    McCormick suggested that a default enrollment process in the A-G courses would guarantee all students have access and the opportunity to reach their dreams. 

    “If we can, through a policy solution or the stroke of the governor’s pen, decide that we need to teach cursive writing, why can we not do some sort of a policy solution for A-G?” he said.  “It seems like a viable path is there.”





    Source link

  • Is Harvard Teaching Remedial Math? Trump Says It Is.

    Is Harvard Teaching Remedial Math? Trump Says It Is.


    In his epic battle to punish the nation’s most prestigious university, Trump claimed that Harvard is teaching remedial math. That was his way of saying that its standards of admission are very low because Harvard wants to recruit unqualified nonwhite students.

    Trump has refused to release his own academic record but his public statements indicate that he is in no position to tell Harvard whom to admit or what to teach.

    Only 3.6% of the students who applied to Harvard last year were admitted.

    The Boston Globe took a close look at the course that Trump–the stable genius–calls “remedial.”

    A star student at her small Alabama high school, Kyra Richardson graduated confident in her academic prowess in all but one subject: math.

    By the time she arrived at Harvard in the fall of 2024, it had been more than 12 months since Richardson‘s last math class. Even though she passed a college-level AP calculus course as a high school junior, Richardson said it felt more like she was memorizing formulas than truly understanding the concepts behind calculus.

    So when it came time for her to begin fulfilling the math requirement associated with Harvard’s pre-medical track, the university recommended (and Richardson agreed) she should take an intro-level calculus course called Math MA.

    Even with her previous calculus experience, she said, the Harvard course was far from an easy A. “I’m glad that I took a class that pushed me,” Richardson said.

    In recent months, amid the White House’s ongoing battle with Harvard, the Trump administration has used that class to questionthe university’s academic rigor. In what has become a familiar refrain, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Josh Gruenbaum, a top US General Services Administration official, and President Trump himself have all labeled a modified version of the calculus course Richardson completed — known as MA5 — “remedial math.” 

    “I want Harvard to be great again,” Trump said in the Oval Office last month. “Harvard announced two weeks ago that they’re going to teach remedial mathematics. Remedial, meaning they’re going to teach low grade mathematics like two plus two is four. How did these people get into Harvard if they can’t do basic mathematics?”

    Richardson said she laughed when she heard the remedial math comment because “MA5 is the exact same class [as MA]. It just meets five times a week” as opposed to four. 

    According to an online course description of MA5, the extra day of instruction time “will target foundational skills in algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning that will help you unlock success in Math MA.” The homework, exams, and grading structure of MA5 are the same as MA, a course Harvard has offered for decades. Even MA5’s format is not entirely new. Five days of instruction was previously required for all students taking Math MA in 2018.

    “If you look at academic support and a college trying to help their students, and you think that’s unnecessary or it’s embarrassing that they have to provide that kind of support, then it’s coming from a place of ignorance,” said Richardson. “You have no understanding of how, not just college, but how learning works. You can’t learn without help.”

    All Harvard freshmen take a placement exam in mathematics prior to their arrival on campus. Based on how they score, the university suggests which course they should be placed into. Math MA5, MA, and its companion course, MB, make up Harvard’s most basic introductory calculus courses known as the M series. MA5 was introduced last year by Harvard to combat pandemic learning losses, which saw students show up to campus with gaps in their math knowledge, especially in early high school courses like algebra, as a result of virtual learning. 

    “When this first came out about us teaching remedial math, I was like, ‘Well, this is news to me and I wouldn’t even know how to do it,’” said Harvard’s director of introductory math Brendan Kelly. “Thinking about how to explain addition to somebody is an expertise that your elementary school teachers and middle school teachers have. … We focus on much more advanced mathematics.”

    Only 20 students took MA5 this past academic year according to Kelly. The course was taught across two sections, each with 10 students, Kelly said, all of whom have declared majors like economics or biology that necessitate a strong foundation in calculus…

    Remedial math courses in higher education are typically defined as “non credit bearing courses that cover middle school and high school content below that of college algebra,” said Chris Rasmussen, a professor of mathematics at San Diego State University. “So we’re talking fractions or some basic algebraic manipulation.” Rasmussen — who was part of a team of outside professors that recently conducted a full review of Harvard’s math department — said “in no way is MA5 a remedial math course. It’s a rigorous calculus course.”

    The article includes a PDF with the course syllabus. How many members of Congress could pass it? Not many. Certainly not Trump or Secretary McMahon.



    Source link