برچسب: science

Trump’s Insane War on Science

Since Trump invited Elon Musk and his DOGE team to cut the federal budget, the federal government has been subject to a bloodbath of firings, layoffs, and closed agencies. Some of the most shocking budget cuts have focused on scientific research. Reckless cuts have been imposed on the National Science Foundation and on every part of the Department of Health and Human Services, where the Secretary–conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.–is crushing genuine research and prioritizing his obsession with vaccines as the cause of autism, which has been debunked.

Trump has blocked the payment of millions of dollars to universities that fund basic science research. He is using those blocks to force universities to stop DEI programs.

We can understand why Kennedy wants to destroy science: it has an annoying tendency to undercut his pet conspiracy theories. No matter what science says, he will continue to warn the public that vaccines are dangerous, that fluoridating water is dangerous, and anything that contradicts his ideology is fake, regardless of how many scientists disagree. WHO you gonna believe? The addled RFK Jr. or the world’s top scientists? Or Ghostbusters?

But we do not know why Trump put the nation’s public health agencies into the hands of a man who does not respect science.

Why does Trump want more children to die of measles? Why does he allow Elon Musk to shut down agencies like USAID that have saved millions of lives? Why he is cancelling grants to universities for basic scientific research? Why does he want to stop the work of scientists who are seeking cures for cancer, tuberculosis, AIDS, and other lethal diseases? I don’t know.

Frankly, the cuts are coming so fast that I can’t keep track of them all. I hope soon to find a comprehensive summary of the destruction of federally-funded scientific research.

In the meanwhile, this is the best overview I have seen.

Alan Burdick of the New York Times wrote this story about Trump’s rampage against scientific research:

Late yesterday, Sethuraman Panchanathan, whom President Trump hired to run the National Science Foundation five years ago, quit. He didn’t say why, but it was clear enough: Last weekend, Trump cut more than 400 active research awards from the N.S.F., and he is pressing Congress to halve the agency’s $9 billion budget.

The Trump administration has targeted the American scientific enterprise, an engine of research and innovation that has thrummed for decades. It has slashed or frozen budgets at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NASA. It has fired or defunded thousands of researchers.

The chaos is confusing: Isn’t science a force for good? Hasn’t it contained disease? Won’t it help us in the competition with China? Doesn’t it attract the kind of immigrants the president says he wants? In this edition of the newsletter, we break out our macroscope to make sense of the turmoil.

An investment

American research thrives under a patronage system that funnels congressionally approved dollars to universities, national labs and institutes. This knowledge factory employs tens of thousands of researchers, draws talent from around the world and generates scientific breakthroughs and Nobel Prizes.

It’s a slow-moving system, because science moves slowly. Discoveries are often indirect and iterative, involving collaboration among researchers who need years of subsidized education to become expert. Startups and corporations, which need quick returns on their investment, typically can’t wait as long or risk as much money.

Science is capital. By some measures, every dollar spent on research returns at least $5 to the economy.

President Trump is less patient. He has defunded university studies on AIDS, pediatric cancer and solar physics. (Two prominent researchers are compiling lists of lost N.I.H. grants and N.S.F. awards.) The administration has also laid off thousands of federal scientists, including meteorologists at the National Weather Service; pandemic-preparedness experts at the C.D.C.; black-lung researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. A next-generation space observatory, already built with $3.5 billion over a decade, awaits a launch that now may never happen.

Alienating scientists

Administration officials offer various reasons for the crackdown: cost-cutting, government efficiency, “defending women from gender ideology extremism.” Many grants were eliminated because they contain words, including climate, diversity, disability, trans or women. Some drew the administration’s ire because the applications included D.E.I. statements required by the previous administration.

It doesn’t take a telescope to see where this leads. American leaders have historically seen science as an investment in the future. Will this administration foreclose it? One-third of America’s Nobel Prize winners have been foreign-born, but an immigration crackdown has swept up scientists like Kseniia Petrova, a Russian who studied aging at Harvard and now sits in a Louisiana detention center. Australian academics have stopped attending conferences in the U.S. for fear of being detained, The Guardian has reported.

Now some American scientists are looking for the exits. France, Canada and other countries are courting our researchers. In a recent poll by the journal Nature, more than 1,200 American scientists said they were considering working abroad. The journal’s job-search platform saw 32 percent more applications for positions overseas between January and March 2025 than during the same period a year earlier.

Redefining ‘science’

These are mechanical threats to science — who gets money, what they work on. But there is a more existential worry. The Trump administration is trying to change what counts as science.

One effort aims at what science should show — and at achieving results agreeable to the administration. The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., wants to reopen research into a long-debunked link between vaccines and autism. He doesn’t want to study vaccine hesitancy. The National Science Foundation says it will no longer fund “research with the goal of combating ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation’ that could be used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens.” A Justice Department official has accused prominent medical journals of political bias for not airing “competing viewpoints.”

Another gambit is to suppress or avoid politically off-message results, even if the message isn’t yet clear. The government has expunged public data sets on air quality, earthquake intensity and seabed geology. Why cut the budget by erasing records? Perhaps the data would point toward efforts (pollution reduction? seabed mining limits?) that officials might one day need to undertake. We pursue knowledge in order to act: to prevent things, to improve things. But action is expensive, at a moment when the Trump administration wants the government to do as little as possible. Perhaps it’s best to not even know.

One sure way to shut down knowledge is to question who can gather it. The administration is painting scientists with the same liberal brush it has applied to academics more broadly — what Project 2025 describes as “the ‘enlightened,’ highly educated managerial elite.” The N.I.H. is controlled by “a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders,” the Project 2025 authors write. The regulatory work of the Environmental Protection Agency “should embrace so-called citizen science” and be left “for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct.”

In science, as in a democracy, there’s plenty of room for skepticism and debate. That’s what makes it work. But at some point, calls for “further research” become disingenuous efforts to obscure inconvenient facts. It’s an old playbook, exploited in the 1960s by the tobacco industry and more recently by fossil-fuel companies.

Now it’s being weaponized by the government against science generally. Facts are elite, facts are fungible, facts are false. And once nothing is true, anything can be true.

Source link

30/04/2025
Fareed Zakaria: Trump’s War on Science Is Bad for America

TRUMP’S ATTACK on science has the backing of fundamentalist evangelical Christians, and especially virulent The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). In fact, however, anti-science is anti-Christian, and the traditional Christian denominations which represent the large majority of Christians have even accepted as dogma that the human body and all other forms of life have evolved in a Drawinian manner. The media ignores this acceptance because the media likes to portray conflict. Take a look at the following: SAINT AUGUSTINE SAYS THAT ANTI-SCIENCE IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN —

Christians today should heed the warning that St. Augustine gave to his fellow Christians: “It is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talking nonsense about scientific topics. Many non-Christians are well-versed in scientific knowledge, so they can detect the ignorance in such a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The danger to Christianity is obvious: The failure to conform to demonstrated scientific knowledge opens the Christian, and Christianity as a whole, to ridicule. If non-Christians find a Christian mistaken on a scientific subject that they know well and hear such a Christian maintaining his foolish opinions, how are they going to believe our teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?”

In short, St. Augustine was pointing out that God gave humans intellects and that Christians shouldn’t let anti-science political ideology make Christianity look foolish to the vast majority of people and cause them to turn their back on Christianity, which is one of the main reasons why fewer Americans profess any religion.

Traditional Christian Churches To Which Nearly All Christians Belong Have Accepted the Science of Evolution — here are some of the official Christian church positions on their acceptance of evolution:

The CATHOLIC CHURCH: Half of all Christians in the world are Catholic, and in the 1950 Papal Encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII declared that the human body came “from pre-existent and living matter” that evolved through a sequence of stages before God instilled a spiritual soul into the human body. Catholics accept that Genesis is not literal and are only bound by faith to believe that the natural evolution of the human body was a God-guided process, and that the spiritual human soul that inhabits the physical human body didn’t evolve, but is created by God.

The EPISCOPAL CHURCH declared in its 67th General Assembly:

“Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’ whenever evolutionary models are taught; and

Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such “balanced treatment” laws; and

“Whereas, the dogma of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and

“Whereas, ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it

“Resolved: that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further

“Resolved: by 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively urge their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the ‘Creationists’ into legislating any form of ‘balanced treatment’ laws or any law requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’.”

The LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION declared in its Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, Vol. I, 1965, that: “An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution’s assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology’s affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.”

The UNITED METHODIST CHURCH declared at its 1984 Annual Conference that:

“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,

“Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,

“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,

“Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,

“Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce ‘scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.”

The UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in the USA declared at its 1982 General Assembly that:

“Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:

“Therefore, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish ‘creationism’ or creation science’ as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma; and,

“Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach ‘creationism’ or ‘creation science’.”

The above Christian churches represent the overwhelming majority of Christians.

LikeLike

Source link

29/04/2025
Steve Kuninsky On Using (FASE) Reading in Science
Steve Kuninsky is one of our twelve Cohort 3 Teach Like a Champion Fellows. His cohort began working with our team in December 2022 and just presented their final projects in January. Steve’s final project explored the use of FASE Reading in high school Chemistry at the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology. If you are interested in becoming a TLAC Fellow or know someone who might be a good fit, applications for our fourth cohort are open and available here: https://teachlikeachampion.org/teach-like-champion-fellows/ and are due by May 30, 2025.

In order to become better readers, students need to read, and this is why I chose to study FASE Reading in Chemistry for my Fellows project. FASE reading is a systematic approach to having students read out loud and follow along as others read. The goal is to encourage reading that is Fluent, Accountable, Social, and Expressive.

For years, I would ask my AP Biology students to read their science textbooks in preparation for class. I was consistently frustrated by the lack of compliance and success with what I thought was a very simple request.

It turns out my request wasn’t actually so simple. I was asking students to read a college level textbook, understand concepts addressed in the text, and come to class with an understanding of those concepts. At some point, I started wondering if I was asking them to demonstrate mastery of a skill on which they had yet to develop proficiency.

In order to successfully make meaning from any text, students must read with fluency. And in order to become fluent readers, they need to practice reading – something they typically don’t do enough of on their own, especially in science classes. What I needed was some way to help my students practice reading fluently in a way that held them accountable to participate, provided effective feedback, and modeled what fluent reading looks like.

In October 2023, I had the opportunity to attend the TLAC Reading Reconsidered Workshop. I had already experimented with FASE on my own, and this workshop inspired and equipped me to deepen my use of this technique. I had recently shifted from teaching AP Biology to Chemistry, which is a 9th grade course. FASE seemed like a great method for working on reading skills with my freshmen, who I knew would be expected to read a college level Biology textbook the following year.

What I love most about FASE is that it provides a low pressure/low stakes environment in which students can practice reading while receiving immediate feedback. Those who aren’t reading follow along, listen, and hear feedback offered to their peers.

Here’s a clip of the first time I used FASE Reading in my class back in August:

Planning and preparation are key to successful use of FASE. Prior to implementing FASE, explain to your students how they are expected to participate. The video of my roll out is provided here for reference. One of the most important points to make is that mistakes are normal, expected, and ok – Reinforce that Culture of Error.

When preparing a text for FASE:
1. Plan reading sections and identify who will read each section in advance. Mark your copy of the text to indicate when you will transition between readers.
1. Keep reading durations short, but variable.
1. Keep readers unpredictable. Avoid going in a specific order that allows students to predict the next reader.
1. Intentionally match students to a text. Especially for struggling readers, look to provide a section that will challenge but not overwhelm them.
1. Identify what section(s) you will read to model fluency for your students – this is called bridging.
Here’s the text that I marked up for this first instance of FASE Reading in class. Note that the first sentence is marked for bridging (where I read to model fluency), and slashes indicate where I planned to transition between readers. Questions to ask after certain sentences are written on the document to help me check for understanding of students’ comprehension. I preselect students to read and keep a list of their names on a post-it note; this helps me ensure that I hear a multitude of voices across the classroom, and I can use my knowledge of students to determine which portion of the text I want them to read.

Perhaps at this point, you’re wondering how we got here. Some people think that students aren’t okay with reading out loud together. Right before the clip above, I gave a quick Roll Out of FASE Reading. I told students the purpose of the system and how they should expect to be invited to read and what they should do while peers read.

See my Roll Out of FASE Reading here:

My biggest takeaway is when reading out loud becomes a regular part of class, when mistakes are normalized, and when successes are celebrated, FASE can become a community building experience. Your students will feel a sense of enjoyment and belonging as you work together with the common goal of reading fluency.

Want to bring FASE Reading to your campus or learn more about Science of Reading? Check out:

The Teach Like a Champion Guide to the Science of Reading: Translating Research to Reignite Joy and Meaning in the Classroom by Doug Lemov, Erica Woolway, and Colleen Driggs, addresses the pressing challenges educators face in effectively incorporating the Science of Reading into their instruction once students already know how to decode. By offering actionable guidance grounded in seven evidence-based principles, this book helps teachers elevate their instructional practices and better prepare students to be lifelong readers and thinkers. Coming out in late July! Preorder your copy here.

Plug and Plays: Check out our FASE Reading Plug and Play, a fully-scripted professional development session including the PowerPoint slides, videos, handout, and talking points here.

TLAC Online: Teachers can study Ways of Reading, including FASE Reading, in these 15-minute teacher-facing modules that include video, quick reading, and practice here.
Source link
22/04/2025
In the age of AI, students urgently need access to computer science

Credit: Alison Yin for EdSource

For school leaders, artificial intelligence (AI) might feel like the latest shiny new thing to tackle in education.

With ethical questions to reflect on, it may be shiny, but computer science teachers will tell you it’s not new — it’s been part of computer science education for 60 years.

Computer science is foundational to learning about artificial intelligence, including thinking critically about AI’s ethics and impacts, data and algorithms, and equipping students to use technology responsibly. Like learning to drive a car, it’s good to know what’s under the hood, and be aware of the dangers, troubleshoot problems, know where you’re going and how to get there safely. If technology is driving the future, how can we prepare students to do the steering if they do not learn computer science in school?

Yet, only 5% of California students take computer science in high school, something we need urgent action to change.

A high-quality computer science education offers a new way of teaching in the currency students understand best: with their technological devices. Learning to think computationally — using algorithms to construct learning — can be a tool for engaging students to think critically about technology’s influence in making meaning of their world. Whether we like it or not, the choice facing us now is: either we teach students how to use technology safely and be justice-minded creators of it, or risk students’ harm of getting used and manipulated by it.

Despite widespread use of technology, school leaders are overwhelmed with decisions about teaching with AI tools and teaching about artificial intelligence in the classroom. Research conducted by the UCLA Computer Science Equity Project affirms that administrators struggle to juggle their overflowing plate of responsibilities. But instead of seeing AI as yet another thing to fit into the school schedule — one of the main reasons more schools aren’t offering computer science — understanding how it’s part of a high-quality computer science education can help expand access to this foundational learning.

California’s computer science (CS) strategic implementation plan serves as a road map to realizing the state’s vision that all schools offer computer science education and all teachers are prepared to teach it. To make good on that plan, the Legislature funded the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, to provide professional learning in computer science for thousands of California’s educators. This comprehensive model of professional development, Seasons of CS, equips educators with knowledge and skills to engage students with culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy aligned with the state’s computer science standards (which classifies AI as a sub-discipline of computer science).

California, a hub of innovation across industries, has made significant efforts to prioritize equity, access and engagement in computer science education, but remarkably, California lags behind the national average and 38 other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course. As of 2021, just 34% of schools serving high proportions of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and Pacific Islander students offered computer science courses, compared with 52% of schools serving a greater proportion of white and Asian students. Despite student interest in computer science, not enough schools prioritize it because they are not held accountable for it by the state.

Yet, exposure to computer science can impact college majors and increase earnings, especially for students of color who are underrepresented in computer science.

Educators need support bringing computer science to every student, regardless of their background, and school leaders have a role to play in bridging this gap. District and county-level supervisors can leverage state-level initiatives like the Math, Science, Computer Science Partnership Grant to build a pathway with more computer science class offerings that are integrated into other subjects.

To ensure every student has access to this foundational knowledge that prepares them for college, careers and community engagement, every school should offer computer science education. This year, Assemblymember Marc Berman is re-introducing legislation that will add California to the list of states whose schools are required to offer CS. Assembly Bill 887 would require every high school to offer at least one course in computer science by the 2028-29 school year, with support for schools in rural and urban areas.

Regardless of a student’s post-high school plan, computer science can help students grapple with the good and bad of technology, including effects of social media, biased algorithms that lead to inequitable outcomes, and controversial issues around privacy and disinformation that influences our democracy. All students should have access to the foundational learning computer science provides, building critical skills for our students’ future, no matter whether their future career is in tech or not.

It’s not easy keeping up with the rapid change of technology’s newest tools, but one thing is clear: Computer science education can inspire students to become competent and confident navigating online life. Expanding access to opportunities to teach and learn computer science and ensuring all schools offer it, will help respond to the ever-changing landscape of technology and prepare students for our digital future.

•••

Julie Flapan is a researcher, educator and the director of the Computer Science Equity Project at UCLA Center X, School of Education and Information Studies and co-lead of the CSforCA coalition.

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

19/04/2025
Popular textbook evaluation organization hasn’t followed the science

An elementary student reads a book to himself during class.

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

California’s recent NAEP report card showing our fourth- and eighth-grade students performing below pre-pandemic levels in reading is an urgent wake-up call.

As California considers how best to support literacy improvement, one area we need to get right is approving curriculum materials based on evidence, not convenience.

Unfortunately, one of the main resources states rely on for this is EdReports, an independent nonprofit whose evaluations many states and districts turn to when choosing a commercial curriculum.

On the surface, this may seem like an efficient and convenient solution.

However, EdReports, which was launched in 2015 to help districts identify instructional materials aligned to the then-newly adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS), has long been out of sync with the body of scientific research about effective reading instruction, particularly in the earliest grades. Instead, it has used as its framework the Common Core Standards, which do not robustly address the importance of early foundational reading skills.

In 2024, journalist Linda Jacobson of The 74 Million published the article “Critics Call ‘Consumer Reports’ of School Curriculum Slow to Adapt to the Science of Reading,” and Natalie Wexler highlighted flawed rubrics, lack of rater reliability and overstuffed textbooks that contain “a lot of time-wasting fluff” in her Forbes article “Literacy Experts Say Some EdReports Ratings Are Misleading.” These articles illuminate the underlying problems with EdReports’ methodologies. To date, EdReports has evaluated curricula against a subset of the Common Core State Standards and its own internally developed criteria — not against scientific research and not including any focus on English learners.

Concerns about this misalignment are not new. More than four years ago, Louisa Moats, a nationally recognized expert on reading instruction, warned about flaws in the Common Core standards for young students:

“There is so much in the Common Core State Standards that just doesn’t square with how the majority of children learn to read. For instance, there are incorrect assumptions made about pacing, some of which are simply wrong and others that reflect the needs of only a fraction of students in any given classroom.

“Unfortunately, some of the people who led the development of the CCSS were more well-versed in research pertaining to middle and high school and didn’t have a strong grasp of beginning reading instruction. They didn’t understand the complexities of teaching young children to read. They didn’t know all the data about the pace of learning, the individual differences kids bring, and the sheer volume of practice that most children need to consolidate reading skills.”

As a result, reviews on EdReports frequently promote curricula that experts have widely criticized for not being effective at teaching reading, while giving lower ratings to some that have been shown to improve literacy.

Despite these underlying flaws in its methodology, many state education agencies continue to rely heavily on the convenience of EdReports reviews to create “approved lists” of curricula. EdReports’ sphere of influence has grown to include other websites, such as the California Curriculum Collaborative (CalCurriculum), which provides guidance to California school districts on adopting and implementing instructional materials based on EdReports and using the same problematic and outdated evaluation criteria.

Notably, many of the states that have shown the most improvement in reading — including Louisiana and Tennessee — did not rely on EdReports and instead used their own process for selecting curricula.

On Jan. 28, EdReports announced an update to its English language arts (ELA) evaluation criteria, claiming a shift toward alignment with the science of reading. However, given EdReports’ influence, this change is too little too late. For years, EdReports did not prioritize this research, meaning all its previous reviews — still available on its website — are based on criteria not centered on evidence-based research.

This raises a crucial concern for California as we may be on the precipice of recommending new English language arts/English language development materials along with a new comprehensive state literacy plan and literacy road map. If we rely on EdReports’ past recommendations, we risk adopting materials that do not align with the best available research on how children learn to read and how to ensure their learning sticks.

Fortunately, there is a strong, evidence-based alternative: The Curriculum Navigation Reports created by The Reading League, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the awareness, understanding and use of evidence-aligned reading instruction.

These reports, using criteria reviewed by experts for reliability and validity (the consistency and accuracy of a measure), evaluate curricula through the lens of scientifically based research, not the Common Core standards. These reports serve as informational educational resources for curriculum decision-makers to identify aligned practices within their curricula as well as opportunities to strengthen reading instruction. The Reading League also provides Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines and a Review Workbook that schools and districts can use if they wish to review materials on their own. Finally, literacy leaders can seek guidance and support from their state chapters of The Reading League (of which California has one), which are composed of researchers, educators, parents, and other stakeholders committed to using research to guide literacy instruction.

Curriculum providers are invited and encouraged to submit their programs for evaluation in a Curriculum Navigation Report; it is noteworthy that several companies that fared well on their EdReports reviews declined to submit their programs to The Reading League.

Good policy is only as effective as the tools used to implement it. As California determines its next steps in literacy policy, we should follow the example of those states that have developed comprehensive plans and vetted curriculum lists based on rigorous, evidence-based criteria. We must also heed the cautionary tale from other states’ experiences and avoid making decisions driven by convenience or influenced by outdated, inaccurate standards. The quick adoption of materials reviewed by EdReports or its derivatives, such as CalCurriculum, may seem like an attractive shortcut, but the result would shortchange California students.

We urge California’s education leaders to do the necessary work: Vet curriculum materials based on the established scientific research on reading instruction. The future of our students’ literacy — and their lifelong learning — depends on it.

•••

Linda Diamond is author of the Teaching Reading Sourcebook and executive director of the Evidence Advocacy Center, a clearinghouse to connect states, districts, schools, higher education institutions, and parent advocates to trustworthy resources that are proven to have an impact.

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

17/04/2025
California lawmaker again attempts to make computer science class mandatory

Across more than two dozen Fresno County school districts, Quiq Labs, a tech education company, teaches students science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics through afterschool and summer or winter break enrichment programs.

Photo courtesy of Quiq Labs

Despite decadeslong efforts through legislation, funding and advocacy, California’s schools have still not caught up with — and are falling further behind — three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course.

According to the national 2024 State of Computer Science report, 52% of high schools across California offered computer science in the 2023-24 school year.

In other states, statewide policy has been pivotal in expanding access to computing skills for all students.

What is computer science?

Computer science, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education, is “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society.” Proposed legislation has included the desire for students to go beyond using technology to understand how and why those technologies work.

Assemblymember Marc Berman, for the third time, has introduced legislation to require every public high school to teach a computer science course, a mandate that will bring access to the 48% of California schools that do not offer a single class.

Because Assembly Bill 887 would require schools to implement computer science by the 2029-30 school year, it would expand access to all of California’s students in a way that initiatives have not been able to.

“Not having a requirement,” Berman told EdSource last year, “it’s not yielding the progress that our students deserve.”

The percentage of computer science classes offered statewide has increased slightly in the last 10 years because of legislation supporting standards and course development, funding for teacher training and on-the-ground efforts to address challenges in diverse communities across the state.

In 2014, legislation ordered the Instructional Quality Commission to develop computer science standards. Also, legislation established a method for computer science to satisfy graduation requirements in math.

In 2016, the state passed legislation to allow educators in other disciplines to pursue computer science certification with required coursework.

In 2018, the state adopted its computer science standards to ensure students received high-quality content in the subject.

In 2019, the governor and superintendent of public instruction appointed a committee to develop a long-term strategic plan for the state to provide computer science courses to all students. Computer science is approved to count as a science credit.

In 2021, the state budgeted $20 million to computer science: $5 million for the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, which is professional development for teachers, counselors and administrators, and $15 million for teacher certifications and a statewide coordinator.

Under the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, the state created Seasons of CS, California’s year-round computer science professional learning program.

In 2023, the California Department of Education granted $50 million to expand existing educator professional learning in math, science and computer science. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation, requiring the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish a work group to develop a teacher preparation pathway for computer science to boost the number of qualified course teachers.

For two consecutive years, a bill similar to AB 887 failed to come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which considers the fiscal impact of proposed legislation.

According to the Appropriations Committee’s analysis of the 2024 bill, about 425 school districts would have had to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development to teachers at an unknown cost. The Department of Finance opposed the bill because implementation would cost $50 million to $73 million in ongoing funding from Proposition 98.

In 2023, Berman’s first iteration of the bill requiring all high schools to teach computer science stalled, in part, because of a lack of teachers, CalMatters reported.

The state has, since 2016, invested more than $1.2 billion to address the state’s teacher shortage, including nearly $100 million for computer science teacher training. In 2021, $20 million was allocated to computer science in the state budget: $5 million for the Educator Workforce Investment Grant for professional development of teachers, counselors and administrators and most of $15 million for certifications of educators in other disciplines.

Efforts across California have supported over a thousand educators.

For example, the Small School Districts’ Association, through a nearly $4 million federal CS4NorCal grant, has provided intensive summer workshops for nearly five years as well as ongoing training, coaching and networking throughout the year for educators in small and rural school districts in six Northern California communities of Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta and Siskiyou counties, said Kathy Hamilton and Karen Mix, director and co-director for the grant.

As a result, teachers have integrated computer science into agriculture, communication, media, digital literacy, math, science and general education classes, electives and clubs.

A Redding teacher rotates between five schools to make sure students have access to computer science at least once a week. Middle school teachers have added computer science to their schools’ elective wheels for students to rotate through.

Collaboration between regional and statewide organizations focused on computer science as well as partnerships with local entities that can support program growth and development have also been critical in increasing the number of qualified teachers and expanding access, advocates say.

In the 2018-19 school year, Modoc County high schoolers had no access to any computer science courses, but numerous nonprofits and community organizations have over the last few years participated in training opportunities to better collaborate in the development of computer science. The nonprofit Advancing Modoc, which eventually began leading the implementation, recruited tutors and other staff to support the initiative. Some educators have since integrated computer science into core content classes and offered elective courses.

The professional development, which included year-round training, has led teachers to provide computer science classes, merge concepts into other subjects or offer lessons through electives or clubs.

Even with robust professional development, some challenges persist, particularly the reluctance or inability of administrators to include computer science courses in school offerings.

“In the past, teachers were reporting back to us in our research, ‘I need support from my administrator to make sure that computer science gets on the master schedule, that we are providing more classes to reach more students,’” said Julie Flapan, an educator and researcher leading two initiatives to expand access and participation in computer science.

Amy Pezzoni, computer science teacher at Modesto City Schools, told EdSource last year that passionate teachers are not enough.

“You need admin to support you. You need the district to be on board with you,” she said, noting the importance of a legislative mandate.

Computer science advocates statewide and nationally have recommended a legislative mandate to bolster California’s efforts and increase access to the course.

Since 2013, the Code.org Advocacy Coalition, an organization of over 100 nonprofit, advocacy and industry groups across the country, has made policy recommendations for states to “address the urgent need to build capacity in computer science education,” including statewide policy.

“Strong policies, supported by resources, action, and implementation, are key to building the capacity needed to improve student access, participation, and experience in computer science education,” according to the national computer science report, which the coalition authored.

Legislation requiring schools to offer computer science has been implemented in states such as Arkansas, where all high schools offer computer science, and in neighboring Nevada, where 96% of the state’s high schools offer the course, based on the 2024 report.

Alabama also passed legislation in 2019, phasing in the computer science requirement, starting with high schools, followed by middle and elementary schools. This has resulted in an increase from 57% in the 2019-20 school year to 94% this past school year in the rate of high schools offering computer science and more than 90% of middle and elementary schools teaching computer science.

Akin among Arkansas, Nevada and Alabama is the adoption of the recommended policies and actions by the Code.org Advocacy Coalition.

Although California has implemented most of the policy recommendations — a state plan, state position, funding, K-12 standards, certification programs and allowing it to count for other subjects — the state has not created programs at higher education institutions to encourage aspiring teachers to gain exposure to computer science; nor has it required all schools to offer the course or mandated it as a graduation requirement.

Due to the policy recommendations and the state, regional and local efforts, there’s been a double-digit percentage increase of high schools offering computer science since the 2018-19 school year — still far from the national average of 60%.

In both the 2023 and 2024 national computer science reports, the authors encouraged California to require all high schools to offer at least one computer science course, “as it would greatly help support the 48% of high schools that currently do not offer any (computer) science courses.”

The 2025 legislative attempt to do so passed out of the Assembly Education Committee and was referred to the Appropriations Committee in late March.

If computer science courses become a requirement, some schools, such as small, rural schools, will have a harder time offering computer science because of a teacher shortage. Often, educators are already teaching multiple grades and/or subject areas on top of other duties.

Integrating, or merging computer science into another subject area, may be the best short-term solution to providing the content to students, especially when semester- or year-long courses aren’t offered, said Kathy Hamilton, who works for the Small School Districts’ Association.

“Integration needs to be one of the delivery mechanisms if you want to truly provide access for all students around the state,” she said.

And it will be.

Aware of the unique challenges that some schools face, the legislation acknowledges the need for a course requirement to offer some flexibility. It would require the state’s computer science coordinator to develop an implementation guide that includes “varied computer science course options to best meet local capacity and context,” including computer science concepts being integrated or merged into other subjects.

And thanks to federal and statewide funding and advocates’ regional and local efforts, there are now scores of teachers trained and ready to teach or integrate computer science. Whether that is enough to compel the Legislature to require all schools to teach computer science is unknown.

Source link

12/04/2025
My Science of Reading Journey

The past two years I have been on a journey and have immersed myself in Science of Reading (SOR) and the research on how students truly learn how to read. This has been the most enlightening journey!

I have been seeing first-handedly how much our students are learning and growing and it has been incredible. Before becoming an Instructional Coach I taught K & 1st grade for 10 years. The way I was previously teaching wasn’t working. My students weren’t making the growth I expected. It was frustrating and we didn’t have a current curriculum. Over those ten years, I found ways to embed more phonics instruction and try to create high-interest, quality content of knowledge units while feeling a disconnect using old assessments.

Covid allowed us time to create whatever we could use to survive online teaching. During this time, SOR information started to come to the surface. I started implementing many of the concepts and teaching strategies SOR found successful. In my 1st grade class online, I spent a lot of time explicitly teaching phonics skills, practicing them, and applying them into reading and writing. I also tried to create little mini units of knowledge content to do with my class while including vocabulary practice. It wasn’t perfect, but while most teachers found online teaching difficult and kids were not performing as well, my students were thriving. Why? I completely contribute this success to learning better ways to teach reading and incorporating them.

What is Science of Reading?

Maybe you are familiar with SOR but if you are not here is what Science of Reading is. SOR is an extensive, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. This research wasn’t just conducted by teachers but was conducted by numerous scientists, teachers, linguistics, neuroscience, and psychologists. This is partly why SOR is so beneficial. While phonics is a large component of Science of Reading especially in younger grades, SOR is not just about phonics. Science of Reading incorporate 5 components of reading. These include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. I will be talking about these more in upcoming blogs and sharing some teaching strategies and ideas.

What Science of Reading is NOT

Is this just a pendulum swing? I really hope not! I hope with all this research teachers will never go back to the old way of teaching. We have personally seen so much success in just changing our practices in the past few years. It is truly amazing! Critiques will push the argument that this is just a trend or a political agenda. Science of Reading is none of these things. Research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world. SOR is not a program. It is research and evidence to inform how reading and writing develop. It also addresses why some students struggle and what are the most effective ways to assess and teach literacy skills.

For more information I highly recommend downloading the free eBook Science of Reading Defining Guide by clicking the link below.

As I previously mentioned, I taught 1st grade for many years. I knew my instruction wasn’t helping all my kids be successful and over the years I researched and changed many of my practices. While I was completely my masters in Early Childhood Literacy our thesis topic was due. I decided to research explicit phonics instruction implementation in my 1st grade classroom with my most struggling students. I had to get special approval for this topic since all the articles I was finding were over ten years old. While some of my professors, wished me luck and said to let them know if I needed a new topic, I had one professor who challenged me to see this action research through. She was my cheerleader and I am so glad to have her on my journey. I instructed my students in explicit phonics and using research from the 1970s and 80s to support my instruction. At the end of the research, I had all my students reading by blending words and sounding out the phonemes. By the end of the year, these struggling readers ended up being my top readers that year. They had knowledge of English phonics patterns and could use them to blend and decode new words. From that year on, I ramped up my phonics instruction. While this is only one aspect of Science of Reading and I had a long journey to go, this success story got me thinking and changing my instruction.

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

Maya Angelou

I have always been a true believer that teachers are lifelong learners. I know better now, so I am doing better. Many of my posts were based on a balanced literacy approach and centers, I will be deleting these and begin a new blog based on best teaching practices that are SOR aligned.

Please follow my journey as I share how our district changed out mindset, our curriculum, and our test scores. Hear our many success stories and look for easy implementation strategies and activities to better support student success in reading and reading comprehension.

Source link

12/04/2025
How districts can increase student access to computer science | Quick Guide
Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource
Top Takeaways

Collaboration between districts and community organizations, including to mentor teachers, is the key to expanding the pool of educators to teach computer science.

Educational leaders must prioritize including computer science classes in course offerings.

Parents can play an important role in getting their children to take computer science classes and in pressuring administrators to offer the classes at their schools.
In spite of statewide initiatives to increase access to and participation in computer science classes, California lags behind the national average of 60% and trails about three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course.

According to the national 2024 State of Computer Science report:
- 52% of high schools across California offered computer science in the 2023-24 school year.
- Students who are female, belong to a racial or ethnic minority group, live in rural areas and small towns or attend schools serving predominantly low-income students are less likely to attend schools offering computer science classes.
- Policies in other states have expanded student access to computing skills and closed racial, gender, geographic and socioeconomic gaps.
What is computer science?

Computer science, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education, is “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society.” The course teaches and prepares students to “meaningfully engage” in a digitally driven world, according to Computer Science for California (CSforCA), a group of educators, nonprofit organizations and industry leaders that has worked to improve equity in computer science access.

Advocates say that in addition to legislative action, districts and communities can and should take the following steps to increase access to and enrollment in computer science.

Start with teachers

Julie Flapan, co-director for Computer Science for California (CSforCA), said proper teacher preparation is the first step in computer science education.

“Part of that means sending a teacher to professional learning. Not only do they learn the curriculum and pedagogy, but they’re part of an ongoing community of practice to feel supported in teaching computer science,” Flapan said.

Local, regional or statewide collaborative spaces where educators can learn from and support one another are crucial for teachers who are the only computer science instructors in their schools.

Teacher collaboration is key in small, rural districts or schools, where there may only be one educator trying to integrate computer science, said Tracey Allen, who has worked with rural districts across Northern California for Seasons of CS, California’s year-round computer science professional learning and training program.

“They might be the only science teacher that’s trying to integrate computer science, or they’re the only math teacher on site,” Allen said. “It’s kind of hard to have a robust conversation with yourself if you’re the only one in that content area.”

How do schools or districts find interested teachers?

Karen Mix, co-director for the federal CS4NorCal grant under the Small School Districts’ Association, said recruiting teachers requires developing relationships.

“I pop into schools and meet teachers,” she said. “Answer questions that they may have, show them the benefits and the values of computer science and how they can use it and encourage them to go to the training. One of our teachers — I had to pop into their school and talk to him and their principal maybe four or five times before we got them on board.”

Do teachers need to have a background in computer science?

In 2016, the state passed legislation allowing educators in other disciplines to pursue computer science certification with required coursework.

Though a leader in computer science advocacy, Allen in Northern California was a multiple-subject credentialed teacher with no background in the subject.

“You don’t need a background in computer science to begin learning about computer science and find easy entry points to start implementing or integrating it into your classroom for the benefit of your students,” she said.

Beyond professional development, how can schools and districts support teachers?

State and federal grant funding for computer science initiatives created ongoing professional learning. For that to continue after grant funding expires, Allen said, districts and schools can connect with county offices or other districts that are already doing the work.

“We are strapped for time,” she said. “Don’t feel like you have to create the wheel or that you have to be the one to put a resource bank together for your teachers. Reach out to other colleagues and tap into professional learning that’s already happening.

“I think sharing resources, sharing professional learning opportunities, will be key.”

CS4NorCal has even created and regularly updates an implementation dashboard — an interactive online tool — that will allow educators and school leaders to explore ways to implement computer science through the different approaches being used elsewhere.

And advocates emphasize the importance of connecting with local community partners.

Collaboration with community groups is vital, too

In the 2018-19 school year, Modoc County high schoolers had no access to any computer science courses, but nonprofits and community organizations participated in training opportunities to better collaborate in the development of computer science. The nonprofit Advancing Modoc, which eventually began leading course implementation, recruited staff to support the initiative.

Partnerships can broaden access and participation not just in computer science concepts but in basic digital and technological skills.

“Partnerships where you actually bring in subject matter experts like ourselves into classrooms can augment and help,” said Damon Thomas, co-founder of Quiq Labs, a tech education company that teaches students science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) through enrichment programs.

‘Be creative with your master schedule’

“You have to really have that administrator in your building or in your district being a support for you,” Mix, the co-director for the CS4NorCal grant, said.

It’s school and district leaders who determine what classes are offered on a school’s master schedule.

So, no matter how much professional development teachers receive, it goes nowhere if computer science isn’t prioritized in schools, said Rudy Escobar who has provided professional development and offered family engagement in his roles in Stanislaus County, the Central Valley and statewide.

School and district leaders must balance the availability of courses required to graduate with non-mandatory but needed classes that can, undoubtedly, prepare students for life after high school. But many administrators are reluctant or unable to prioritize a subject that isn’t explicitly a part of the state’s dashboard, the requirements that are used to measure and hold districts accountable for student progress toward college and career readiness.

“We have to really change the mindsets of site and district administrators, and even superintendents, to be able to see this as a priority,” Escobar said.
To increase access, Turlock Unified in Stanislaus County will start by offering an Advanced Placement (AP) computer science course in its high schools, Escobar said.

The College Board, which administers the AP program, offers resources to California educators teaching or planning to teach AP. According to Holly Stepp, a spokesperson with College Board, those include:

Free professional learning for educators planning to teach AP Computer Science in the 2025-26 school year

A grant is available for the four-day online or in-person training in June, July or August that will provide teaching strategies, instructional materials and a supportive teacher community

Online workshops led by veteran AP instructors

Mentoring

A teacher collaborative

Innovative curriculum with pre-approved syllabi, lesson plans and other instructional materials

Professional learning is also available to prepare teachers to use the curriculum

Free, online resources that can be tailored to meet the needs of students
Computer science advocates urge leaders to be creative with their master schedules and balance what courses they offer.

For example, in rural Siskiyou county in far Northern California, a kindergarten teacher on a half-day schedule teaches computer science as an afternoon elective in other elementary grades, Mix said.

Likewise, the small, rural Modoc County created a middle school coding class in the 40 minutes between 2:40 p.m. (when classes end) and 3:30 p.m. (when buses arrive).

“Just be creative with your master schedule,” Mix said.

How can administrators justify adding a class?

Kathy Hamilton with the Small School Districts’ Association acknowledged that small, rural schools and districts lack resources and credentialed teachers to offer computer science courses, and students may have no interest or awareness of the value of such classes.

“It’s a long-term strategy, but you have to build up the interest, build up the pressure, in grades K-8 so that by the time the kids get to high school, there’s a demand for the course, and then the principal can justify providing the assignment in the master schedule to offer a course,” Hamilton said.

Escobar recommends that administrators open up opportunities for teachers to integrate, or merge computer science into another subject area, to expose students to computer science in middle and elementary grades.

“Start early,” he said. “Make it a consistent thing that the students are seeing every year, so that way, when they get to high school, students are seeking to take those courses.”

What resources are available to school and district administrators?

Administrators remain concerned about how to implement computer science courses, especially if it becomes a requirement.

According to Flapan, the co-director for CSforCA, several organizations, many of which have received grant funding, have provided resources, including learning guides on how to implement computer science.

“There’s a lot of statewide resources and a lot of momentum and expertise in computer science in the state of California,” she said. “All of these folks are interested in helping to guide and support other administrators that are looking for ways to implement computer science in their schools.”

Resources for administrators and others

Some of those include:

How parents can help

“Parents want computer science when they hear what we talk to them about,” Escobar said, and they can advocate for computer science to be a priority in their school district.

“Statewide, we’re seeing that even though there are more computer science classes being offered, that the classes themselves aren’t always representative of the student body in the schools they serve,” Flapan said.

“How do we make sure that students of color and girls are taking advantage of those opportunities? We think that parents can play a strong role in encouraging their students to take it if they have a better understanding of why it’s important and how it could help them in their post-high school plans — whether it’s college or careers or just engaging in their communities.”
Source link
12/04/2025