اینترنت

برچسب: schools

  • Going police-free is tough and ongoing, Oakland schools find

    Going police-free is tough and ongoing, Oakland schools find


    Eddie Franklin, the culture and climate ambassador for Oakland Unified, stops a student while they are walking to class and asks how their day is going.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Across the Oakland Unified School District, the mantra for school staff is to call city police only as a last resort. If a disturbance occurs, they should rely first on in-house staff who don’t carry guns and can’t arrest anyone.

    Since voting in June 2020 to disband its police department, Oakland has pursued one goal — to defuse conflict and avoid bringing in police and exposing students to the possibility of arrest. Oakland’s preference is for restorative justice, which emphasizes circle-of-trust interactions to improve how students treat one another. 

    “Most of the time, it’s just having conversations with them (students),” said Eddie Franklin, a former security guard who is now part of the district’s new police-free staffing. “Let them authentically be themselves, and the goal becomes to chip away at the rough edges they might have.”

    It’s a strategy credited by the district with drastically reducing the 911 calls to city police from 2,128 during the 2019-20 school year, the last year the Oakland district had its own police department, to 200 in 2022-23.  

    But an EdSource analysis of data from the police shows a higher number of calls from just eight of the district’s 18 middle and high schools in half a year. The period from January to June 2023 shows those schools made 225 calls, with 105 considered “serious” for reasons including assault with a deadly weapon, suicide attempts, battery and terrorist/criminal threats.

    The Oakland data was part of a statewide investigation of school policing across California. EdSource gathered nearly 46,000 police logs of calls from and about 852 schools.  The data collection was designed as a representative sample of California schools.

    Police track all calls from and about eight of the district’s 18 middle and high schools, while the district’s data captures calls made to police from all 106 schools.

    Misha Karigaca, Oakland Unified’s director of student support and safety, could not fully reconcile the differences between the police call logs and the district’s record of internal calls to police for the same time period.

    “If a 911 call comes from a cell phone and the call doesn’t get reported to my department, we will not have information about the call which can also account for significant discrepancies,” he said.

    Karigaca and Board President Sam Davis acknowledged that while staff are trained when not to call 911 and to report any calls that they make, it doesn’t always happen. “We don’t capture every call in our data as (school) sites are required to notify us if law enforcement comes on campus; but we know of times when this hasn’t always happened,” Karigaca said.

    Davis said it’s also possible other staff are calling 911 for nonemergent reasons because “a lot of people reach the end of their rope for all sorts of reasons.”

    The Oakland schools included in EdSource’s data are McClymonds, Castlemont, Fremont, Oakland, Skyline high schools and Montera, West Oakland and Westlake middle schools.

    “We’re not in a place where we can have completely police-free schools. That is our goal and what we’re working towards, but unfortunately, there are times when we do need police support,” Karigaca said. “It was our conditioning, whatever we needed they (police) would respond. It’s almost similar to our communities and our society — there’s not many other options. Anything that revolves around safety, we’re conditioned to call police.”

    In place for two school years, the new police-free plan is being evaluated locally and nationally on whether it is achieving what it set out to do.

    The Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank, in describing its study, put Oakland on the “leading edge of an emerging violence-reduction practice” happening in schools across the country, according to Jesse Jannetta, a senior policy fellow at the institute. Study results are expected in August.

    Not everyone supports the decision to disband the district’s police department.

    Board member Clifford Thompson said it was wrong for Oakland to disband its police department. “There’s little benefit to not having police at schools,” he said. “Totally eliminating the force without having a backup for those who need that type of force, it might not have been the best thing to do.”

    Getting to police-free

    The Black Organizing Project, a Bay Area community organization focused on racial, social and economic justice, has been advocating for the end of the police department since 2011. It finally happened in June 2020 with a unanimous vote of the school board.

    Oakland has had a fraught and violent history of racism and police abuse of Black people for nearly 80 years, which factored greatly into the final push to disband the department following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020.

    The city’s Black population increased dramatically during World War II when slave descendants migrated west from Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. Police officers from those states were quickly recruited and stationed in Black neighborhoods. In 1950, a civil rights leader told the state Assembly that Black people lived “in daily and nightly terror” of Oakland police, according to a 1950 State Assembly report. The police department in Oakland Unified was born in 1957.

    After more than 60 years of having an embedded police department in Oakland schools, educators, city officials and community partners are working to untangle the decades of policing culture and running its own police department.

    There’s no contract or memorandum of understanding with the Oakland Police Department, but the district shares what staff are taught about when to call 911 and how to interact with police. 

    Oakland’s Department of Violence Prevention recently reported to a joint council-district committee on the plan’s progress. The city of Oakland invested $2.4 million in the 2022-23 school year to address violence in schools by creating a School Violence Intervention and Prevention Program and hiring life coaches, violence interrupters and gender-based violence specialists to four comprehensive high schools and three continuation high schools. 

    Gender-based violence specialists are unique to Oakland, Jannetta said. The specialists have workshops about dating violence, stalking, sexual harassment, sexual assault and commercial sexual exploitation.

    Through surveys, officials found these extra staffers have more relatability to students, can focus on individual needs, and alleviate some of this work from teachers.

    It’s too early to evaluate whether it is working, but the district is going in a positive direction, said Jessica Black, director of administration for the Black Organizing Project.

    Getting to a police-free school environment also faces challenges. City and school officials say violence especially among 14 to 18-year-olds in the city bleeds into the school district. 

    During the 2022-23 school year, there were more than 600 high school suspensions and two shootings at OUSD high schools, according to the report. One of last year’s shootings was at Skyline High School, and just last month, another shooting occurred during the high school’s graduation that injured three people.

    The city’s analysis of school violence puts some of the blame on the heightened crime in the city. According to the report, there’s been an increase in violence on campuses “that is related to community conflicts as well as an increase in instances of non-students showing up at school campuses with weapons to fight students.”

    Despite the challenges, the school board has not considered reinstating the district’s police department, Davis confirmed. Oakland Unified Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell declined to comment through a district spokesperson.

    When to call police

    One of the Black Organizing Project’s goals was to “uproot the security structure,” said Jasmine Williams, development director. With community support, the project pushed to restructure campus police, including getting rid of badges or anything that emulates the police and installing new titles, training, and redesigning the shirts they wear.

    “The district is not coming up with this stuff on their own,” the project’s Jessica Black said. “We’re literally pushing the district to think differently.”

    Oakland administrators can call for “nonviolent de-escalation support” from staff known as culture and climate ambassadors when there are fights, a student is causing harm to themselves or others, or unwelcome visitors are on campuses, according to the School Administrator Guidance to Police Free Response. There’s a nonemergency line administrators can call to dispose of firearms or illegal drugs, when there’s suspicion of a crime, or during lockdowns. For mental health crises, administrators also have different people to reach out to depending on the situation. 

    Students can still be disciplined, including suspended, but that’s rarely the first option, Karigaca said. Most of the time, interventions take place.

    “It’s offering a conduit of other opportunities, such as a restorative session, once both parties are in a place to have a restorative session,” Karigaca said. “Sometimes it’s going to take a walk or going to a different office; sometimes it’s calling parents or connecting with a community resource.”

    District police-free guidelines give a variety of reasons when calling 911 is appropriate: active shooters, fire, medical emergencies, a person with a gun or explosive, bomb threats, serious injuries, hostage situations, abduction or kidnapping, violent crimes, death at a school site, emergency evacuations, or any situation posing danger to health or safety. 

    Students can be arrested for some of these incidents, Karigaca said, but usually students aren’t arrested as a result of staff calling 911. There are about four to five arrests every school year, and it’s typically because police are arresting students for something they did outside of school, he said.

    The district partners with organizations for alternative support, but sometimes they can’t immediately respond, Karigaca said. 

    “When we call CPS (Child Protective Services) or any other mental health crisis response folks, a lot of times their staff is also under-resourced and they aren’t able to respond,” Karigaca said. “Even they will tell us, ‘Call law enforcement.’”

    New titles for security guards

    As Eddie Franklin walked down the hallway of Bret Harte Middle School, it was as if every student knew who he was. Most would fist pump him or shake his hand and he knew every student’s name. 

    Eddie Franklin, the culture and climate ambassador for Oakland Unified, shakes a student’s hand while walking down the hallway.
    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Franklin has been at OUSD for seven years and used to be a security guard who worked with police and used handcuffs for detaining students. He became a culture keeper four years ago. Now he’s what’s called a culture and climate ambassador.

    Franklin said he brings “an unbiased approach” to every situation even if the student is acting negatively. “Your goal is to actually make them (students) see and critically think about what’s in the best interest of both sides.”

    Security guards were replaced with culture keepers and culture and climate ambassador who have leadership roles and assist culture keepers when needed, Karigaca said. The main priorities for all roles are to de-escalate violence and create positive relationships with students and staff.

    The 63 culture keepers are spread around the district: up to three in middle schools; up to six in most high schools. Five elementary schools also have culture keepers. 

    When Franklin was a culture keeper, he said his day-to-day work evolved into understanding the different personalities on campus to get a better understanding of student behavior.

    “So you don’t overreact when they do some of the things they do,” Franklin said. “But also try to give them an idea of what they can do differently.”

    As a culture and climate ambassador, Franklin is deployed to different schools when extra support is needed, Karigaca said. Most of the time, they roam around different schools building relationships.

    Franklin said he oversees 13 middle schools and does check-ins with staff to talk about what kind of support they need. A big part is building trust, he said.

    When Franklin goes to a school, he said, his goal is “to act like a parent, a positive parent, let them know I actually care about you and support you in whatever you do, and I’m not going to be over the top if I react to something that you did negative.”

    To other districts looking at Oakland as an example, Williams, of the Black Organizing Project, said she doesn’t want the message to be “all you have to do is implement a policy.”

    “It took us 10 years of fighting to get here, and we are still fighting within the district,” Williams said. “It takes community to have even this much progress.”

    EdSource reporters Thomas Peele; Daniel J. Willis and Andrew Reed contributed to this report.





    Source link

  • Long-term English learners do worse on tests than peers with fewer years in U.S. schools, data shows

    Long-term English learners do worse on tests than peers with fewer years in U.S. schools, data shows


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    Long-term English learners who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than six years without becoming proficient in the language do worse on California’s math and English language arts tests than English learners who have been enrolled for fewer than six years.

    California released data for the first time on long-term English learners’ achievement in standardized tests in math, English language arts and science for the 2022-23 school year, after a bill signed in 2022 required it. Long-term English learners are students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for six years or more but have not advanced on the English proficiency test in two or more years. The state also released data for those “at risk of becoming long-term English learners,” defined as students who have been enrolled for four or five years and scored at intermediate level or below on the English proficiency test.

    In the past, California had separated achievement data for English learners by those who had been enrolled for less than or more than a year, but not for long-term English learners or those at risk of becoming long-term English learners.

    As a whole, students classified as English learners tend to do poorly on academic tests precisely because they are still learning English, and once they are reclassified, they tend to do much better. 

    Yet the data shows that long-term English learners do worse than their counterparts who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for fewer years.

    Only 5.4% of long-term English learners met or exceeded English language arts standards in 2022-23, compared with 10.9% of English learners as a whole. In math, only 2.1% of long-term English learners met or exceeded the standards, versus 9.9% of English learners as a whole.

    “There’s something really tragic that happens when students are not getting what they need every year, and they’re not feeling successful, and it really shapes their identity as a student,” said Nicole Knight, executive director of English language learner and multilingual achievement at Oakland Unified School District. 

    Knight said Oakland Unified has been separating the district’s own achievement data by the number of years English learners have been in school and found similar results. “The longer they’re in the system as long-term English learners, at least from a statistical standpoint, they tend to do worse and worse,” she said.

    Conor P. Williams, senior fellow at The Century Foundation, said the data is not surprising and is likely due to several factors. 

    In part, these scores may have to do with the way the state defines English learners. Students who do not do well on academic tests continue to be classified as English learners because California requires students to do as well as their English-speaking peers on English language arts tests, in addition to passing the English Language Proficiency Assessment, in order to be reclassified as fluent. 

    “The fact that long-term English learners do particularly worse on a lot of academic metrics likely reflects the fact that there is an academic indicator in California’s reclassification criteria. That is not standard in all states,” said Williams. In many states, he said, students only have to pass an English language proficiency test in order to be reclassified as fluent.

    Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser of Californians Together, said it’s important to note that most English learners do reclassify within six years. She said long-term English learners may not have received strong English language development support in their early years and probably no instruction in their home languages. She added that some English learners with fewer years of enrollment in U.S. schools may have arrived in the country already knowing how to read in their home languages.

    A study by Californians Together showed that more than a third of long-term English learners also have disabilities that qualify them for special education services.

    “Sometimes that is an excuse for folks, but those students can also reclassify, (though) it may take them a little more time,” said Knight. She said English learners with disabilities are less likely to receive quality instruction in English language development and quality special education services. “That’s a big issue that districts and schools need a lot more support and guidance with than what we currently have.”

    Knight added that being classified as English learners for many years can hurt students’ self-esteem and cause them to become disengaged with school and stop turning in assignments or attending class.

    The data is a call to action for districts, said Spiegel-Coleman. She said beginning next year, districts will have to include plans for long-term English learners in their local control accountability plans, or LCAPs. These are plans that every district and charter school must write every year, explaining how they will use state funds to improve educational outcomes for certain groups of students.

    “When they’re writing their LCAPs, they need to look at those kids and say what is it we need to do for them?,” Spiegel-Coleman said. “Now that will happen. It will heighten their visibility, for sure.”

    Knight said districts also need to offer more training and support for middle and high school teachers to incorporate explicit instruction in the English language, no matter what subject they teach. For example, she said Oakland Unified has worked to train middle school math teachers on how to teach students the language they need to understand in order to figure out a math problem.

    She said districts can also help long-term English learners become more engaged in school, for example with internships or career education where they can use their skills in their home language.

    The data also shows districts need to do more to help students learn enough English to reclassify as fluent in their first six years of school, before they become long-term English learners, both Spiegel-Coleman and Knight said.

    “The number of long-term English learners in our system is really an indictment on our system as a whole, in Oakland and outside of Oakland,” Knight said.

    She said some schools in Oakland reclassify almost 30% of their English learner students every year, while other schools reclassify almost none of them. 

    “That tells us that it’s really about the experiences they’re getting,” Knight said. “So how do we make sure more and more of our classrooms and schools are doing what these schools that have high reclassification rates are doing?”





    Source link

  • Students in small districts deserve better than decaying, outdated schools

    Students in small districts deserve better than decaying, outdated schools


    This high school wood shop, built in 1954, will not qualify for modernization funding until the district brings an outside entranceway added in the 1970s up to code – an additional expense that Anderson Valley cannot afford, according to Superintendent Louise Simson.

    Courtesy: Anderson Valley Unified School District

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are wrestling over how to dole out facilities funding for the projected November ballot bond initiative, and my fear is that when all is said and done, small rural school districts will not get their fair funding share at the table. The result will be that students attending schools that have the least political power and the highest facility needs will be, once again, left behind.  And more often than not, those are students who are socio-economically disadvantaged and of color.  Sadly, the quality of a student’s educational facilities experience in California has become defined by a student’s ZIP code. 

    Too often, our small rural school systems, which are facing extreme enrollment decline and a lack of bonding capacity, lag far behind nearby more populated school districts. It is unfathomable to me why a student 45 minutes away can receive one educational experience, while students in a small rural district receive another.

    During my superintendency at Anderson Valley Unified School District, a 70-year-old school system in rural Mendocino County, I was faced with facilities that were in an extreme state of deterioration. An unincorporated town of just 1,650 people had passed a bond measure back in 2012; but the $8 million they were able to get out was nowhere near enough to remediate the aging infrastructure.

    When I arrived in 2021, the community stepped up again, passing an additional $13 million bond with an overwhelming 71% of the vote. With assessed valuations so low and with no real estate development on the horizon due to a lack of a municipal water and sewer system infrastructure, we were only able to pull out $6 million. Throw in on top of that two failed septic systems requiring replacement that topped$1 million with the indignity of students and staff using porta-potties for four months; a plethora of classrooms that hadn’t been touched since Dwight Eisenhower was president; and buildings that were out of compliance with mold and seismic codes, and you have the picture of instructional facilities inequity that just made the instructional divide even greater. And we are not alone. Similar conditions are common for those that don’t have a powerful voice in the Legislature and the lobbying community.

    Small, rural districts like mine are run by a district office of three or four people. We are just trying to keep up with the tsunami of reports that the California Department of Education expects us to produce and, in our spare time, do what is best for kids. Wealthier districts exacerbate the disparity with their massive education foundations that create endowment programs that provide even more opportunity for those that need it the least.

    It is time for the governor and the Legislature to give students in these crumbling school systems their fair share and create some educational equity on the facilities side. The bureaucracy of the hardship application process is not doable for small rural school systems to navigate by themselves. Small districts end up taking what little money they have for facilities and spending it on expensive consultants that know their stuff but cost the equivalent of a monthly teacher’s salary, to move the applications through the process.

    Governor, if you want educational equity, this is how you create it:

    • I don’t need technical assistance. I need money to navigate the process. Allocate a funding stream for small rural schools systems to contract with architects and consultants to move applications through the facilities-hardship process outside my existing budget.
    • If a facility is more than 50 years old and hasn’t been remodeled, let’s use some common sense and engage in a different process.  I shouldn’t have to demonstrate mold, seismic or structural hazards. This building is not an equitable learning environment for kids. Let’s get it done and stop the busy work.

    I hope that the governor and legislative partners hear the plea of our rural students and leaders and don’t leave us behind again.  What has gone on in the disproportionality of school facility funding for decades and decades will eventually be tested in the court systems, if something doesn’t change, and the poor condition of the deteriorating rural sites will attest to a judgment that will prevail.

    Education in California should be based on equal opportunity to access quality programs and facilities, no matter where you live or whether your parents pick crops or work in tech. Something has got to change on the funding and facilities side if we want to talk about real equity for all kids. 

    •••

    Louise Simson is superintendent of Anderson Valley Unified School District in rural Mendocino County.

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





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget

    Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom answers a reporter’s question about his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    True to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise, the 2024-25 budget compromise that the Legislature announced Saturday and will pass this week will spare TK-12 and community colleges from cuts that other state operations will bear.

    TK-12 funding will be flat and will continue Newsom’s major commitments to multiyear, multibillion-dollar programs, including community schools and before- and after-school expansion.

    Update: State Budget Signed

    On June 26, Gov. Newsom signed Assembly Bill 107, the main budget bill, and Senate Bill 154, the Proposition 98 suspension bill. On June 28, Newsom signed SB 153, the education trailer bill.

    The budget will even throw in a couple of billion in new revenue that Newsom didn’t call for in January or in his May budget revisions. Newsom and legislators, meanwhile, struggled to squeeze an additional $28 billion out of a $211 billion general fund spending.

    But protection for schools and community colleges will carry risk. To balance the budget, Newsom and legislative leaders rely on budget maneuvers that would give a button-down accountant acid reflux.

    They include creating a $6 billion debt that won’t be fully repaid to the state treasury for a dozen years, and draining the $8.4 billion education rainy day fund.

    The deal also requires delaying payments to schools and community colleges and suspending — for only the third time in its 36-year history — Proposition 98 obligations for the current school year, on the assumption the money will be repaid quickly. Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988, established a formula for determining the minimum level of general fund spending on transitional kindergarten through grade 12 and community colleges — generally about 40%.

    Rather than punish schools for money already spent, the budget bill creates a $6.2 billion debt that the general fund, not schools and community colleges, will repay the state treasury over a decade, starting in 2026-27. The remaining $2.6 billion will be a Proposition 98 obligation pushed ahead to 2023-24; that unfunded amount is called a deferral.

    The California State University and the University of California won’t fare as well in the budget deal, although better than Newsom had proposed in January, even with a drop in state revenues since then. Both will get a 5% budget increase in 2024-25 that Newsom had proposed delaying, equal to $227.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU, to support enrollment growth of California residents this fall. 

    Another promised 5% budget increase for both systems in 2025-26, however, will be put off a year. UC and CSU also face one-time cuts in 2024-25 of $125 million and $75 million, respectively, which will be restored in 2025-26.

    Both CSU and UC will also face a 7.95% cut in their administrative expenses in 2025-26.

    There will be no reforming the Cal Grant program in 2024-25, but, at the Legislature’s insistence, the $637 million ongoing funding for middle-class scholarships will continue, with a $289 million one-time increase.

    Late spending changes

    The final budget will also restore some TK-12 and child-care cuts that Newsom had proposed in his May budget revision while maintaining others. They include:

    • Restoring $60 million for the Golden State Teachers Program, which provides $20,000 in scholarships to teacher candidates, although a new means test may pare back $10 million in eligibility.  
    • Restoring $100 million in funding to help preschools prepare classrooms and train teachers in order to enroll more children with disabilities, while withdrawing larger plans to expand the program.
    • Continuing the existing agreement to serve 200,000 more children in the state-subsidized child care system but pushing back the timetable for full compliance to 2028.
    • Rescinding $895 million in one-time spending on electric-powered school buses that Newsom had made a priority. Instead, the money will be used to reduce some of the late payments in state funding for schools.

    School districts receive the bulk of their funding through the Local Control Funding Formula, which is based on daily student attendance and a yearly cost-of-living adjustment. So, even though overall state funding won’t be cut, many districts with declining enrollments and high absenteeism rates will face financial challenges.

    The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is based on a federal formula tied to the cost of goods and services but does not factor in regional costs, including housing, will be only 1.07% for 2024-25, forcing further belt-tightening. One option for school districts, giving layoff notices to staff, will be off the table. State law allows an additional round of layoffs in August in years when the COLA is less than 2%, but, at the urging of public employee unions, Newsom and legislative leaders included a clause prohibiting late summer layoffs. They have done the same statutory override before.

    The initial reaction from two veteran TK-12 budget watchers was mixed. “This budget remarkably insulates K-14 funding from cuts, abides by constitutional requirements to restore funding in the future, and even provides a modest cost-of-living increase, all amid a record budget shortfall. Pretty amazing,” wrote Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, a school consultancy firm.

    Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser with the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, was cautious. “While the final budget is perhaps the best schools could anticipate given the budget challenges, we worry about the size of the suspension for schools, $8.3 billion,” he wrote. “Schools will eventually get paid back those funds in future years on top of the minimum guarantee, but these payments will result in increased school funding volatility and uncertainty until they are paid back.”

    And if revenues falter next year, schools and community colleges will no longer have a rainy day fund to turn to; it will be depleted by the end of 2023-24, with the possibility of replenishing it by $1.1 billion in 2024-25.

    Proposition 98 juggling act

    The proposed 2024-25 budget for schools and community colleges will be balanced, if revenue projections hold true, by juggling three years of Proposition 98 shortfalls, with one year’s solution creating the next year’s dilemma.

    The big drop was in 2022-23 when the Legislature “over-appropriated” the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee by $8.8 billion, while state revenue from the post-Covid stock market and the tech sector plummeted. Legislators didn’t see the warning signals because winter storms had pushed back the tax filing deadline from April to November.

    Under the mechanics of Proposition 98, the funding level for 2022-23 becomes the base level for 2023-24, even though the state still lacks the revenue to pick up the tab. So all but $1 billion of the $8.4 billion in the education rainy day fund will be drained to cover some of the 2023-24 deficit and the $2.6 billion deferral from the year before.

    On top of that, the budget deal calls for suspending $8.3 billion of the Proposition 98 funding for 2023-24. That has the effect of lowering the minimum guaranteed funding by that amount, while freeing up money to avoid deeper cuts in other state operations. That’s how the Legislature can restore cuts in 2024-25 for child care and preschool that Newsom had planned.

    The architects of Proposition 98 wanted to discourage the Legislature from suspending the law. So it requires the Legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and to make the suspended funding a priority for repayment as soon as there is new revenue. The 2024-25 budget assumes the state will have enough new revenue to pay back at least $4 billion of the suspended $8 billion, maybe more. But if revenues falter, districts won’t get what they’re entitled to, with no set date for repayment.

    That’s why the deal is also a gamble for schools and community colleges.

    There’s one more wrinkle. To raise revenue quickly, the Legislature has accelerated the temporary, three-year suspension of two tax benefits for large and medium-sized businesses: net operating loss deductions and tax credits. The period will start in 2024-25, one year ahead of schedule. It will yield a projected $5 billion, with $2 billion going to Proposition 98 — funding that will be used to pay down deferrals.

    Between this new money and the $4 billion payback for suspended funding, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee is expected to rise to a record $115.3 billion in 2024-25.

    As with all deadline negotiations, legislators will have at most three days to review hundreds of pages of budget details spread over 16 separate bills. Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, are expecting that legislators will demand some changes when they return from vacation in August.  





    Source link

  • New 2024-25 data released: California schools see ongoing enrollment decline

    New 2024-25 data released: California schools see ongoing enrollment decline


    Although the rise in transitional kindergarten (TK) enrollment in 2024–25 helped temper the overall decline, K–12 enrollment continues its downward trend.

    Enrollment saw its greatest decline in regions of the state with higher housing prices, notably Los Angeles County and Orange County. There is growth in more affordable areas of the state, such as the San Joaquin Valley and Northern California, including the Sacramento area.

    Read more:

    Transitional kindergarten comes of age in California

    May 21, 2025

    Even as TK is set to become a real grade, just like any other K-12 grade, there are myriad challenges looming on the horizon, from finding qualified teachers amid a dire staffing shortage to how to ensure quality instruction and suitable facilities.

    Karen D’Souza





    Source link

  • Delaine Eastin remembered: Making the most of being schools chief in California

    Delaine Eastin remembered: Making the most of being schools chief in California


    Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin.

    Credit: John Joanino/Advancement Project California

    Despite the office’s imposing title, California’s superintendent of public instruction has little actual power to do much about education.

    The governor has far more influence, as does the State Board of Education. And then there are the local school boards, which, by law, are responsible for the nearly 1,000 school districts in the state.

    That is why it was remarkable that at least 500 people packed into the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Sacramento last week to honor Delaine Eastin, who was superintendent of public instruction over two decades ago. She was the first, and so far, only, woman to occupy the post.

    The state superintendent position is largely what you make of it — and Eastin, who died in April at the age of 76, made the most of it.

    Part of her success had to do with her outsize personality. She regularly girded colleagues for any number of political battles with Shakespeare’s rallying cry, “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.”

    Part of her impact was rooted in her sustained belief in public education, of which she herself was a product. A native of California, she attended public schools and earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of California.

    “Children are the living messengers we are sending to a time we will never see,” she would say. To those who argued that public education costs the state too much, she would offer the rejoinder, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”

    And to those who wondered why they should support children in districts other than their own with their taxes, she argued, “This country runs on other people’s children.”

    Some of her success had something to do with her oratory, which was honed in her high school drama classes. As an assemblymember before becoming state superintendent, she was regarded as one of the best speakers in the Legislature. She regularly got standing ovations in the multiple speeches she made around the state. Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a legendary speaker himself who attended the memorial service, would often send her to speak in his place. 

    Her legacy includes her single-mindedness in promoting smaller class sizes in California’s K-3 grades. She was a force in creating California’s Academic Performance Index in 1999, the first statewide system for ranking schools based mostly on test scores.

    She was also a leader in promoting California’s first efforts for universal preschool — a vision that is now coming to fruition with the expansion of transitional kindergarten to all 4-year-olds. 

    Less well known was her backing of Alice Water’s Edible Garden Project, which began at the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School in Berkeley in the mid 1990s. “If it had not been for Delaine, we would not have had an Edible Garden Project,” said Waters, the founder of the renowned Chez Panisse restaurant just blocks from the school. On a video, Waters shared that there are now 6,500 edible school gardens around the world.  

    Above all, Eastin was a huge backer of California itself. Californians, she would often say, “are people who grew up somewhere else and came to their senses.”  

    Throughout her life, she was single-minded in promoting women for public office.

    Eastin’s last appearance on the political stage was in 2018 when she “had the audacity to run for governor,” as Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis described the run. It was a quixotic effort at best — something Eastin was well-aware of, Kounalakis said. “She ran largely to talk about the importance of public education.”

    As the two of them traveled together around the state during the campaign, Eastin would say, “This is what the future could look like” if they both were elected. But Eastin only got 4% of the vote. Kounalakis was more successful, becoming California’s first woman lieutenant governor.  

    While she did not make it to the governorship, there was something biblical in the arc of the life of a woman who did not have her own children, despite wanting them — but was nonetheless able to improve the lives of millions of them in her home state.

    Her staff in the Department of Education recalled the many times they would set out early, half awake, on yet another trip to an outlying district.

    “It’s going to be a great day,” Eastin, ever the motivator, would tell them. “We get to visit schools.”  

    •••

    Louis Freedberg is interim CEO of EdSource.

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





    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over

    Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over


    A big crowd was on hand when the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board voted last August to mandate that parents be told if their child shows any indication at school of being transgender.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    A trailblazing state law prohibiting California school boards from passing resolutions that require teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender isn’t likely to put an end to this polarizing issue. 

    The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday. It will prohibit school districts from requiring staff to disclose to parents information related to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and will protect school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which will go into effect Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    “California is the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting school districts from enacting forced outing policies in the nation,” said Mike Blount, spokesperson for the author of the bill, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

    The legislation was passed in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex. At least seven California school districts passed the controversial policies, often after heated public debate.

    First lawsuit filed

    By Tuesday evening, the conservative nonprofit Liberty Justice Center said it had filed a lawsuit challenging the new law on behalf of Chino Valley Unified, which passed a parental notification policy last year.

    “School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have a constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school,” said Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center in a press release. “Parents are the legal guardians of their children, not Governor Newsom, Attorney General (Rob) Bonta, or Superintendent (Tony) Thurmond. We will continue to defend parents’ rights and children’s well-being by challenging invasive laws like AB 1955 in court, at no cost to taxpayers.”

    Other opponents, including Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, indicated that the issue will be settled in court. He is “committed to challenging the bill in court, and he’s confident he’s on the right side constitutionally,” said Shawn Lewis, Essayli’s chief of staff. Essayli plans to work with a coalition of advocates to challenge the bill, Lewis said.

    Election issue

    Parental rights is the overarching issue for the Republican Party, but right now it is focused on the parental notification issue, Essayli said in an August interview with EdSource. “This is an issue we want to run on in 2024,” he said.

    The newly passed legislation also resulted in a flurry of press releases and social media comments from opponents and supporters. Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk weighed in, calling the new law the “final straw” in his decision to move the headquarters for X, formerly known as Twitter, to Texas.

    “I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” Musk wrote on X.

    Proponents of the parental notification policies have said that parents have the right to know what is going on with their children at school and that minors do not have a right to privacy. Opponents say these policies could endanger already vulnerable students who should be able to decide when they want to come out to their parents.

    Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, Murrieta Valley Unified and Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County, Orange Unified in Orange County, Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County, and Rocklin Unified and Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Placer County are among the districts that have passed parental notification policies.

    California’s parental notification board policies have their origin in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Essayli, which was denied a committee hearing at the state Capitol last year. After that, Essayli, parents’ rights groups and attorneys wrote a model board policy for school boards.

    On Monday, Essayli released a statement about the new law: “Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955 which codifies the government’s authority to keep secrets from parents,” he said. “AB 1955 endangers children by excluding parents from important matters impacting their child’s health and welfare at school. Governor Newsom signing AB 1955 is both immoral and unconstitutional, and we will challenge it in court to stop the government from keeping secrets from parents.”

    Eight states have passed laws requiring school districts to inform parents if their children ask to use names or pronouns associated with another gender, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

    LGBTQ+ rights threatened

    School parental notification policies have impacted the mental health of LGBTQ+ students and can lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination, according to a press release from Ward’s office.

    “Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Ward, who introduced the legislation along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

    “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family,” he said. “As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.”

    The California Teachers Association and its members have been major opponents of parental notification policies, saying that they drive a wedge between educators and students, and endanger already vulnerable students. Teachers working in districts with parental notification policies have worried they could lose their jobs if they do not comply with the district requirement or end up in court if they disobey federal and state laws and policies.

    “This historic legislation will strengthen existing protections against forced outing and allow educators to continue to create a safe learning environment where all students feel accepted, nurtured, and encouraged to pursue their dreams,” said California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    “As educators, we are charged with providing a high-quality education to every student. No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students.”

    Policies spawn lawsuits

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said parental notification policies break California state law and violate students’ civil rights and their right to privacy. He issued warnings to districts and filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County last year.

    A lawsuit was also filed against Temecula Valley Unified by a coalition of students, teachers and parents who oppose the district’s parental notification policy, along with a policy that bans “critical race theory.”

    California courts have had differing opinions. In San Diego, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez last year ruled that Escondido Union School District violated parents’ rights when it followed California state policy and allowed students to decide whether to tell their parents they identify as transgender.

    In Sacramento earlier that year, U.S. District Judge John Mendez dismissed a lawsuit against Chico Unified. The suit claimed that district policies allowed school staff “to socially transition” students and prohibited staff from informing parents of the change. Mendez said students have a right to tell their parents about their gender and sexuality on their own terms.

    The new law will also require districts to provide support or affinity groups and safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students; anti-bullying and harassment policies and complaint procedures; counseling services; anti-bias or other training to support LGBTQ+ students and their families; suicide prevention policies and procedures; and access to community-based organizations to support LGBTQ+ students as well as local physical and mental health providers with experience in treating and supporting families of LGBTQ+ youth.

    California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman said the legislation reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth.

    “I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill,” Eggman said. “Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day, that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify.”





    Source link

  • High schools demand clarity about UC’s new math policies 

    High schools demand clarity about UC’s new math policies 


    High school students work together to solve a series of math problems.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Twice this year, the University of California faculty broadly reaffirmed which high school math courses are required for admissions. However, many school counselors and students, along with the president of the State Board of Education, complain they’re confused by a lack of details.  

    High schools want to know if their specific course offerings comply with UC requirements. Depending on a student’s interests and intended majors, counselors want to know which courses to recommend. And students want to know if taking less Algebra-intensive math classes like statistics and data science could affect their chances of getting admitted the campus of their choice.

    Schools and districts must have “clear, timely and consistent information” so that students and families “understand the impact of their choices,” wrote State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond in a July 15 letter to the UC board of regents.

    Prodded by a regents committee, administrators with the University of California Office of the President last week promised to provide more clarity by the end of the summer.

    “I feel like we’re not coming at this from a student perspective. I feel we’re coming at this from an academic perspective, and I would really encourage all of us to maybe flip that a little bit, put yourselves in the shoes of a rising sophomore, a rising junior,” regent Alfonso Salazar, who is president of the UC Alumni Associations, said at the meeting. “That would be incredibly helpful because people are very nervous and concerned.” 

    The confusion centers on the ongoing debate over whether AP Statistics or data science can be substituted for Algebra 2.  Over the past decade, the UC faculty committee that determines course requirements approved AP Statistics and, more recently, introductory data science courses as substitutes for Algebra 2, which UC requires for admission. Those decisions will also apply to California State University, whose A-G course requirements for admission are nearly identical for the 23 CSU campuses.

    But faced with strong objections from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professors, the faculty committee did a hurried about-face in July 2023, days before the state board adopted a math framework that outlined sequences of high school math courses. The faculty committee voted that AP Stats and introductory data science would no longer “validate” or substitute for Algebra 2, starting in the fall of 2025.

    The STEM community argued that the courses lacked sufficient Algebra 2 content to prepare students for precalculus, which is a precursor to calculus. Majoring in data science, computer science, and STEM all require calculus. Students who take introductory data science would be under the illusion they are ready to major in data science. UC and many CSU campuses don’t offer catch-up courses in Algebra 2. 

    Since 1999, the number of students majoring in STEM more than tripled, from 14,081 to 48,851 in 2022. The proportion of STEM majors at UC increased from 32% to 44% of all majors, according to UC data.

    Where does data science fit in?

    The immediate impact of the decision is expected to be limited, since more than 99% of applicants to UC have taken Algebra 2 anyway, according to UC data. But interest in data science, in a world of burgeoning AI and uses for big datasets, has been mushrooming, and promoters pointed to introductory data as a way to skip Algebra 2.

    The faculty committee, the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools or BOARS, reaffirmed that position in February when it accepted a faculty workgroup’s report. The report examined the content of AP Statistics and the three most popular introductory data science courses and found “that none of these courses labeled as ‘data science’ even come close to meeting the required standard to be a ‘more advanced’ course (Algebra 2). They should be called “data literacy” courses, it said.

    But where, Darling-Hammond asked in her letter, does that leave the status of potentially hundreds of other courses in data science, financial math and non-AP statistics that UC previously validated as satisfying Algebra 2? 

    “Most districts will be starting the new school year in less than a month without sufficient clarity regarding the mathematics courses they will offer moving forward,” she wrote. “But the committee’s criteria and process are not yet fully transparent, and it has only evaluated four courses out of the hundreds that have previously been approved.”

    One complication facing BOARS and staff within the UC Office of the President, which annually evaluates courses that school districts submit for approval, is that there are no state standards for data literacy. Each course must be examined independently.

    Darling-Hammond’s letter raised a critical, intertwined issue: How will UC categorize introductory data science and other courses as fourth-year high school math courses?

    Neither UC nor CSU requires that high school graduates take four years of math, but they highly recommend it. According to UC data, about 80% of UC applicants take at least one course in advanced math beyond Algebra 2, usually precalculus or both precalculus and AP Statistics. The report did not include comparable CSU data.

    BOARS created a second, 12-member faculty workgroup of STEM professors to examine what math courses will best prepare students to succeed at UC in whatever field they choose. A report in June agreed that the current three required foundational math courses make sense: Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra 2, or Math 3 in districts that offer an integrated math sequence. It also emphasized that “to be recommended for a fourth year of mathematics study, (a course) must build substantially on the content of the lower-level sequence.”

    With that in mind, the report, which BOARS adopted, divided high school math courses into four categories:

    • Category 1 consists of the foundational math courses
    • Category 2 courses, which include Precalculus and Calculus, best prepare students interested in STEM fields.
    • Category 3, which also builds on foundational courses, are courses suited for students interested in quantitative social sciences, such as psychology and history. It singles out AP Stats, but not data science.
    • Category 4, a catch-all for other courses in quantitative reasoning, would include data literacy. These courses “will continue broadening students’ interest and confidence in math” and may be appropriate for arts and humanities majors.

    Tension over fourth year designations

    Advocates for introductory data science argue that many of their courses cover the same Common Core statistic standards as AP Statistics yet could be cast into the lowest category. Counselors may discourage students from taking data science, and districts may retreat from offering it. That would stunt the growth of data science at a time when other states are encouraging it, said Aly Martinez, who helped design a two-year high school introductory data science and statistics course for San Diego Unified, using  CourseKata, a college course.

    “Other states are thinking about a wider range of rigorous math courses. California is not doing that. Many districts have done these innovations and seen success. It’s frustrating; it feels like California is closing the door versus opening it,” said Martinez, who is now the chief program officer for the national nonprofit Student Achievement Partners.

    Cole Samson, incoming president of the California Mathematics Council, seconded the call for more clarity. The latest UC faculty report “absolutely causes some confusion; it did not outline enough for the next steps,” he said.  

    High schools that submit math courses for approval in fall 2025 will need clear guidance and feedback on how to revise courses, said Sampson, who is director of curriculum, instruction and accountability for the Kern County superintendent of schools. Whether courses are approved or how they are categorized will affect student choices and master schedules. “UC should be mindful of local impacts,” he said.

    UC Provost Katherine Newman acknowledged the need for more information at the regents meeting. “There’s work to be done to communicate what those recommendations mean, she said, adding “I don’t sense amongst my colleagues any hostility toward data science.” On the contrary, she said that UC will work with “our K through 12 partners” to bolster data science courses so that students are well-prepared when they enter UC.

    At the end of their June report, the UC math faculty members acknowledged that many high school students find math courses, especially Algebra 2, “overfull of content” and uninteresting. They suggested the UC form another committee to look deeper into how high school math courses can be improved to help students better understand the mathematical concepts. Members should include faculty with expertise in improving the quality of K-12 math.

    Another workgroup examining math content, consisting of faculty from UC, CSU and community colleges, may examine this issue of alternative math courses in a report due later this summer.

    Sampson said he would welcome that broader opportunity. Many students view Algebra 2 as irrelevant and dull, he said. “It needs a makeover,” he said. “I would champion designing new courses.”

    he article was clarified to note that introductory data science courses contain far less algebra content than Algebra II but are not necessarily less rigorous. It noted that UC’s and CSU’s course requirements for admission are nearly identical, but have minor differences. The misidentification of Provost Katherine Newman was corrected.





    Source link

  • California schools prepare to introduce universal reading screening

    California schools prepare to introduce universal reading screening


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • By June 30, California schools must choose one of four screening tests recommended by a state panel. 
    • Most other states already have a universal reading screening test for early grades, but California has lagged behind.
    • West Contra Costa went through an intensive 18-month process before selecting mCLASS DIBELS as its screening test of choice.

    After a 10-year push from reading advocates, California schools are on the verge of requiring every student in kindergarten through second grade to get a quick screening test to detect challenges that could get in the way of them becoming proficient in reading.   

    Under 2023 legislation approved by the Legislature, every school district in the state is required to select the screening test it prefers by June 30. They can choose from among four options recommended by a state panel — and then begin administering the test during the coming school year. 

    California will be one of the few remaining states to introduce a universal screening test like this in K-2 grades. “This is something we have been fighting for for 10 years,” said Megan Potente, co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia CA. Her organization co-sponsored four prior bills, which did not make it through the state Legislature, until it was included in the 2023 education budget bill. 

    The screening test had a powerful champion: Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Newsom was diagnosed with dyslexia in elementary school and still copes with it as governor. He has become a national spokesperson on the issue, even writing a children’s book about it, titled “Bill and Emma’s Big Hit.” 

    Districts will only be required to administer the screening test in the K-2 grades, in part because substantial research shows that reading mastery by the third grade is crucial for a student’s later academic success. 

    The test is not intended to provide a definitive diagnosis of dyslexia or other reading difficulties.  Instead, its goal is to be a guide for parents and teachers on whether further diagnosis is necessary and to prompt schools to provide other support services. 

    However, Potente, a former teacher in San Francisco Unified, pointed out that the screening test could prevent students from being placed in special education classes unnecessarily. She said her 16-year-old son, who had reading difficulties, didn’t get any intervention until after the crucial third-grade milestone. 

    “If we had caught his challenges earlier and addressed them with the intensive instruction that he got later, he would not have needed special education,” she said. 

    “Screening is just the first step. How the districts respond to the needs of students is really what’s most important,” she said.

    How West Contra Costa Unified decided

    West Contra Costa Unified School District’s process for choosing what test to adopt offers a window into the intensive process that at least some districts have gone through. 

    The 30,000-student district in the San Francisco Bay Area, serving large numbers of low-income and English learner students, first established a 20-member task force — made up of its superintendent, teachers, principals, board members, school psychologists, and community representatives — 18 months ago.

    The district enlisted 150 teachers to try out mCLASS DIBELS and Multitudes, two of the four options offered by the state, and to provide detailed feedback. The district ruled out the two other options for a range of reasons. 

    After examining all of the information they received, district administrators recommended to the board of trustees at its May 14 meeting to select mCLASS DIBELS. (DIBELS, pronounced “dibbels,” is an acronym for Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills.) 

    “mCLASS DIBELS was the overwhelming choice of our teachers,” Sonja Bell, the district’s director of curriculum instruction and development, told the board.

    The screening test is already in widespread use in many districts, notably in Los Angeles Unified.

    One feature that appealed to West Contra Costa teachers and parents is that the DIBELS test is quick — only taking between 1 and 7 minutes. Another plus is that it can be administered by the teacher while sitting with the student. The teacher can observe the student during the screening, which provides valuable information that might not be available if the test were taken on a computer or online. 

    Another attractive feature was that DIBELS has a Spanish component called Lectura, which will be essential for assessing the reading skills of the district’s large English learner population. 

    Among the many teachers already using the DIBELS test is Barbara Wenger, a second grade teacher at Nystrom Elementary in Hercules, one of several communities served by the district. The largest is the city of Richmond. 

    Like many teachers in West Contra Costa and other districts around the state, Wenger has been using the test voluntarily before the task force was set up —sometimes administering it monthly to assess a student’s progress. “I can’t emphasize how important this is to our instruction,” she said. 

    She recounted to the board at the May 14 meeting how DIBELS helped her identify a student who could only read four words a minute, instead of the expected 50 words. She put the student in an “intervention group” and gave her structured exercises. The student, she said, is now reading 104 words a minute, making it unnecessary to place her in a special education class. 

    “This is something we could only have done by identifying her at the beginning,” she said. 

    Having selected DIBELS as the screening test, the district will turn to a District Implementation Team to oversee a multiyear rollout plan. 

    The district has decided to go beyond the once-a-year screening called for in the legislation and to administer it three times during the year to assess a student’s progress more regularly. A three-year professional development plan for teachers will be phased in. 

    Crucially, the district says it will notify parents about the results of the screening shortly after it is administered. 

    Multitudes, the test developed by the Dyslexia Center at UC San Francisco, received some support from teachers because it is also a one-on-one test, is free to school districts, and was created by well-regarded practitioners at UCSF. It will launch in both Spanish and English in the fall of 2025. But reviewers had concerns that Multitudes is only administered once a year and that teachers aren’t familiar with it. 

    Like many districts, West Contra Costa is already using i-Ready, a screening test for early readers. But the test was not on the list of the four approved by the state. In addition, there were concerns that i-Ready is an online assessment, and just accessing it electronically presents some challenges to students, especially incoming kindergartners. 

    Nystrom Elementary’s Wenger said that DIBELS takes significantly less time to administer than i-Ready. It also shows how far a student is from their grade level, she said, but doesn’t flag kids in kindergarten who would benefit from intervention early on.

    DIBELS also has a clearer way of communicating results to parents, Wenger said. I-Ready, by contrast, “has a very complicated, confusing, and ultimately overwhelming, report home.” 

    Although supportive of the test, West Contra Costa board member Demetrio Gonzalez-Hoy expressed concern that the test would add to the testing burden students are already experiencing. “We have so many tests already,” he said. 

    Bell, the director of curriculum instruction and development, reassured him that the DIBELS test is brief, and that teachers will be careful not to overtax students or push them beyond their ability. “They’ll stop when they see students have had enough,” she said.  

    As part of its implementation, the district collaborated closely with GO Public Schools, an advocacy organization, to get broad community input, especially through the organization’s Community-Led Committee on Literacy. 

    Natalie Walchuk, vice president of GO Public Schools and a former principal, said the process of choosing a screening test has become “a catalyst for meaningful instructional improvement” in the district. She praised the district for “going far beyond the minimal requirements” in the legislation.

    Potente pointed out that the screening test could prevent students from being placed in special education classes unnecessarily. She said her 16-year-old son, who had reading difficulties, didn’t get any intervention until after the crucial third-grade milestone. 

    “If we had caught his challenges earlier and addressed them with the intensive instruction that he got later, he would not have needed special education.”





    Source link

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

    AI in schools: Let’s not rush to judgment


    Students at Davis Middle School in Compton.

    Credit: Courtesy of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •••

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

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

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





    Source link