برچسب: time

It’s time to fix the fatal flaw in California education funding formula

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

California’s way of funding schools, the Local Control Funding Formula, was not designed to be perfect. That’s because most legislation requires a series of compromises necessary to minimize opposition, maximize support and win the necessary votes for passage.

In LCFF’s case, one of those compromises, the creation of the Local Control Accountability Plan, or LCAP, could eventually doom the reform.

To understand why, it’s important to revisit the initial rationale for LCFF — replacing a complex, inequitable funding model with a simpler model that targeted grants based on student need and concentrated poverty.

The old funding model was managed from Sacramento and included popular grants for the arts and music, English learners, career and technical education and more. Large and/or politically connected districts, nonprofits and statewide groups would lobby sympathetic lawmakers for their own grants. Over time, this model grew increasingly complex, limiting local discretion over spending and stifling innovation. Despite these problems, it had remarkable political resiliency. Lawmakers were incentivized to protect existing grants and got political credit for creating new ones. Very few stakeholders were interested in changing this dynamic and risk losing their favorite grants and programs.

So, it wasn’t enough for the Brown administration to argue that LCFF was better because it was simpler, more equitable and gave districts more control over their money. They had to prove that it would fund many of the same programs as the existing model.

Most education advocacy groups believed that this could be achieved by requiring districts to use the grants generated by high-need students to fund services that addressed their needs. But education groups representing labor and management wanted complete financial flexibility. To avoid this requirement, the education establishment collaborated with a few legal advocacy groups to create the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), arguing that it would accurately document how they were spending money on programs and services.

The last decade has provided strong evidence that this decision was based on flawed assumptions, beginning with the presumption that school districts are the best recipients of funding for high-need students. While district bureaucracies are certainly closer to students than Sacramento policymakers, they aren’t as close as principals and teachers. Unlike schools, district leaders face powerful interest groups that lobby them for spending like higher salaries and districtwide programs. That’s why most targeted grants like federal Title I funding are sent to districts but then quickly distributed to high-poverty schools. Without similar requirements, it’s likely that billons in LCFF dollars that could have funded school-based services were spent on district-level costs such as salaries, benefits, pension obligations and more.

Second, policymakers assumed that districts would accurately document spending on services in the LCAP. But LCAPs were never formally connected to school district budgets, which include ongoing costs like salaries and benefits. In fact, the processes for developing LCAPs and budgets occur separately on different timelines. Almost every analysis of LCAPs has found that their financial and programmatic information cannot be verified and the documents themselves are largely incomprehensible.

Third, they believed that districts would focus on improving student outcomes without clear state-level goals and metrics to guide their decision-making. Instead of big, important goals — like grade-level math achievement — policymakers created a mishmash of state priority areas (many of which can’t be measured) and told districts to include them in their LCAPs. Predictably, most districts paid lip service to these priorities in their LCAPs and then wrote separate strategic plans. At this point, most district leaders probably can’t remember what the state priorities are. If everything is a priority, nothing is.

Finally, and most importantly, they assumed that all of this would improve outcomes for the most vulnerable students. Here, the evidence is limited, especially given the size of the funding increases. Given the persistently low academic performance of most high-poverty districts and the state’s sizable achievement gaps, today’s elected officials can fairly ask whether our state has seen a commensurate return on these massive education investments.

It’s no wonder that over the last several years, elements of the previous school finance regime have roared back. Elected officials who didn’t create LCFF and are suspicious of “local control” have created a whole new set of targeted grants like the governor’s community schools grant. Districts are now subject to far more onerous legalistic requirements for their LCAPs, which are intended to show that they’re using their funding for high-need students.

District leaders have bitterly complained about these shifts. On one level, they are right that the advocates and policymakers focused on the LCAP are just doubling down on a failed strategy. But they haven’t offered any alternative, other than “leave us alone.”

The danger for them is threefold. Increasing levels of scrutiny and regulation; ever more targeted grants that limit their discretion; and, as the years pass, the belief that local control has failed high-need students, requiring more aggressive state and county oversight. A few years from now, they could end up with the worst aspects of the old finance model and the new one.

There is another way.

A decade later, we have a lot of evidence on how to make the formula better. Perhaps a substantial portion of LCFF funding, such as concentration grants (for schools with more than 55% high-needs students) should flow directly to schools based on their poverty level, like Title I funds do. State leaders could establish a few measurable academic and social-emotional priorities that districts would address in strategic plans rather than LCAPs. Instead of a potpourri of grants that limit local discretion or new LCAP compliance requirements, lawmakers could create incentives, such as additional weighted funding for districts willing to create new programs such as language immersion schools. They could even establish financial rewards for districts based on student outcomes.

There are many possibilities, but for the Local Control Funding Formula to survive over the long term, it must always be able to answer a very basic question: What is it doing to improve the education of California’s highest-need students?

•••

Arun Ramanathan is the former CEO of Pivot Learning and the Education Trust—West.

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

05/07/2025
More time with subs is the wrong response to teacher shortages

Middle school history teachers discuss their lesson plans for teaching about the Great Depression.

Credit: Allison Shelley / American Education

Twenty-five years ago, when pastor Sweetie Williams asked his 12-year-old son, Eli, why he never had homework, the answer exposed scandalous conditions that would reshape California education forever. Eli’s San Francisco middle school — like many of the 20% of California public schools then serving the greatest number of Black, Latino and low-income students — lacked books, operating bathrooms, proper heating and enough qualified teachers to permanently staff classrooms. The historic litigation that followed in May 2000, Williams v. California, established new laws guaranteeing every student three fundamental rights: permanent, qualified teachers; sufficient instructional materials; and clean, safe facilities.

Today, as Assembly Bill 1224 (Valencia) races toward a Senate hearing, we’re witnessing some of the same staffing chaos that prompted the Williams lawsuit. In the West Contra Costa Unified School District, parent Darrell Washington watched his rising fifth grader endure what he called “a chaotic game of musical chairs” with two or three different teachers in a single year. At Stege Elementary, third grade teacher Sam Cleare saw students arrive in her classroom, where she was often “their first credentialed teacher for the entire year.”

In response to teacher shortages, are legislators rising to meet the challenge? Are they grappling with how to raise teacher compensation and improve working conditions to attract and retain educators? Are they seeking to compel those districts stuck on autopilot to do more to recruit new teachers or to place in the classroom their fully certified staff who aren’t currently teaching before turning to short-term substitutes? No.

The principal response of legislators has been AB 1224, which would double the time untrained substitute teachers can remain in any one classroom — from 30 to 60 days, a full third of the school year. The bill thereby lowers teacher standards for the state’s most disadvantaged students, essentially abandoning our children’s rights to equal educational opportunity to accommodate district requests for administrative convenience.

When a teacher vacancy exists, districts are supposed to prioritize assigning the most qualified candidates: fully credentialed teachers first, then interns who have the subject matter training but are still learning how to teach it, followed by emergency-style permits that allow those with partial subject matter competence and teacher training to teach for the year under close supervision, and finally waivers, which permit individuals to teach for a year by waiving unmet certification requirements with state approval if the district can demonstrate the candidate is the best person available.

Williams requires all classrooms to be staffed by a single, designated permanent teacher who is at least minimally certified to teach the whole year, according to one of these bases. That puts the onus on districts to figure out well before the school year begins how they will staff each classroom with a state-qualified teacher.

Thirty-day substitutes — those affected by AB 1224 — are nowhere in this hierarchy precisely because they are not qualified to serve as the teacher of record for any classroom. They receive zero subject matter training and zero instruction on how to teach a subject, so they have no understanding of lesson planning, classroom management, assessing learning, or differentiating learning for special ed students or English learners. They’re educational placeholders, not teachers.

Teachers represent the single most important school-based factor in learning outcomes. When we park unqualified staff in classrooms for months, we’re not solving teacher shortages; we’re creating educational voids that harm student progress for years to come. Our students need qualified educators who provide continuity, expertise and genuine care, not “continuity” with unqualified caretakers.

Statewide teacher assignment data reveals exactly how this policy will worsen existing inequities. While 84% of California’s teachers are fully trained, this drops to just 76% in districts serving working-class communities like West Contra Costa, but rises to 89% in affluent areas.

Schools serving larger populations of low-income students, English learners and foster children are already twice as likely to rely on emergency-style permits. AB 1224 will systematically widen these gaps, exacerbating a two-tiered system where privileged students get qualified teachers while vulnerable students get warm bodies.

Meanwhile, AB 1224’s “accountability” measures provide legislative lip service. The bill relies on existing legal requirements that districts make “reasonable efforts” to recruit more qualified personnel before turning to long-term substitutes. Yet we know from our experiences with West Contra Costa Unified and elsewhere that districts typically make no particular efforts if an obvious candidate is not already in front of them and there is no outside enforcement of the hiring hierarchy. AB 1224 does nothing to change this. The bill does not define “reasonable,” has no documentation requirements, and has no oversight or accountability measures.

And while this same expanded access to substitutes was temporarily allowed during the pandemic, frankly, the whole system was in chaos then, and many virtual classrooms were providing little more than day care, even with qualified teachers. Yet, AB 1224 provides no sunset date like that exception did. To the contrary, the pending proposal is for a permanent change in law, a permanent authorized dilution of instructional quality, a permanent permission for districts to avoid the hard work of recruiting and retaining qualified educators — all to be disproportionately visited upon the most disadvantaged students in the state.

The response to teacher shortages must not be to lower standards, but the opposite. As if our collective hair were on fire, the state and districts need to be doubling down on bringing back the fully certified teachers who have left the classroom (more than enough to cover the shortages). Likewise, the state and districts need to work harder to develop the next generation of diverse and fully prepared educators. Since the pandemic, California has invested over $2 billion in evidence-based solutions: the National Board Certification Incentive Program, Golden State Teacher Grant Program, teacher residencies, a grow-your-own program, and Educator Effectiveness grants — all designed to increase supply and retention in high-need schools. The latest annual Teacher Supply Report from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing suggests the state is starting to turn a corner as a result of these efforts. New teaching credentials issued in 2023-24 were up over 18% — the first surge in new credentials since the pandemic in 2020-21.

In the meantime, districts have existing tools: emergency permits for at least provisionally qualified candidates, intern teachers and residents, teachers with permits to cover those on statutory leave, and experienced “career substitutes” who already are allowed to teach in a single classroom for 60 days. And before even turning to these substandard options, districts’ “reasonable efforts” must include returning fully credentialed teachers to a district’s highest priority: classroom instruction. When Superintendent Alberto Carvalho took the helm of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in late 2021, one of his first actions was to fill some 700 vacancies with certified educators who had been serving in the district office and various non-teaching roles.

That’s 700 classrooms and several thousand students’ educational lives that were not sacrificed for administrative convenience. Today’s Eli Williamses deserve no less.

•••

John Affeldt, who was one of the lead counsels on Williams v. California, is a managing attorney at Public Advocates, a public interest law firm in San Francisco, where he focuses on educational equity issues.

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

09/06/2025
Students need more time for lunch

Photo: Amanda Mills/Pixnio

As a former public school kid who grew up in Southern California, I recall racing through the lunch line to quickly grab a cardboard tray and scarf down a soggy, plastic-wrapped meal in the scant time available to me. By the time the bell rang, there were often many students still waiting in the lunch line, having to rush back to class with a slice of pizza in hand.

These seemingly small memories may have a big impact on behavior, with research from the University of Michigan showing that 1 in 8 American adults show signs of food addictions.

Universal school lunch programs are now active in eight states, including California, with many more looking to follow. This is a huge stride forward in increasing nutrition access for public school students. But there is a notable gap in that there are no federal regulations mandating a minimum amount of time for school meals. Students across the country, including at California public schools, have been stuck dumping their meals out and rushing back to class.

Schools play a pivotal role in shaping young minds, but how effective are school lunch programs if children are left hungry waiting in a meal line or rushed through their meals?

To try to achieve equity in K-12 schools, policymakers and educators have rightfully prioritized the need for food access in schools. This movement could extend the positive effects in a low-cost way by implementing sufficient time for lunch in school. There’s plenty of research on how food can improve test scores, and a 2021 study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that middle school students given 20 seated minutes for lunch ate more fruits and vegetables.

Time is a critical aspect of food — time to eat, digest and engage in a social, communal experience that extends beyond just a full stomach. Think of iconic scenes in iconic movies like “Mean Girls” and “The Breakfast Club” that take place during cafeteria time — these are hallmarks of youth that deserve ample time. Food is vital to culture and relationship-building, teaching kids important lessons of socialization and connection that endure for life. Although planning school schedules can be a crunch to ensure required instructional minutes are met, cutting lunch times short is not a sufficient or sustainable solution for students.

By establishing a minimum duration for school meals, schools will acknowledge that fostering a healthy relationship with food is important to setting kids up for a positive future. There may not be one right solution for all schools, but the California Department of Education has suggested making sure lunch is at least 20 minutes, having recess before lunch, requiring a specific amount of time sitting, and ensuring students can get through the food lines quickly.

The interplay of cafeteria, community and classroom (the 3 Cs) reflects how K-12 schools extend beyond students’ desks. Young students are sponges of knowledge, and giving them the building blocks of mindful eating by encouraging longer lunch times can enhance efforts to help students live healthy lives and impact their lifelong eating habits. As mental health advocates call for increased mindfulness in our educational institutions, this philosophy must be extended to the cafeteria.

Now is the perfect time for schools to become environments where students feel empowered to make smart choices about the food they consume. Even with universal free school lunches, parents should continue investigating and asking their children about the food they are getting in school — and whether they’re able to spend time eating it.

Let’s bridge the gap between educational equity and nutritional equity, pushing for a system that enables well-nourished, mindful students to embrace learning during their time at school.

●●●

Julia Ransom is a senior at Stanford University studying human biology.

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

Source link

04/06/2025
Time to eliminate high-stakes tests for prospective California teachers

A sixth grade math teacher helps two students during a lesson about math and music.

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

Becoming a public school teacher is a calling. It’s incredible to see students learn and grow and achieve their dreams. Many see this as a rewarding career and want to pursue it, which raises the question — why would anyone be in favor of unnecessary hurdles for these aspiring educators?

In my work as an educator, with more than 30 years in the classroom and as vice president of the California Teachers Association (CTA), I’ve seen firsthand and heard from educators up and down the state about the deeply problematic Teaching Performance Assessments (TPAs). These assessments were enacted to measure the teaching performance of prospective teachers.

There is no shortage of horror stories about the TPAs. We hear from talented teachers constantly that they are long and time-consuming. They are full of low-value tasks, and they come at a very busy time for new educators. They do not prepare teachers for the classroom and detract from programs with proven success.

Aspiring teachers can better learn the teaching craft in the real world. Vital preparation for new educators includes working with mentors to improve their instruction, having time to concentrate on developing quality lesson plans, and learning how to apply knowledge gained from a credential program in real classrooms. These programs consistently assess student teachers. They ensure we meet California’s high teaching standards.

The TPAs also keep talented educators out of the profession of public education. This is especially true for Black, Indigenous and people of color working to become teachers. Educators of color have raised concerns about biases undermining their success at passing the TPAs. Moreover, aspiring teachers must pay $300 out-of-pocket to take these assessments. After spending thousands of dollars on a degree, one can see how this costly assessment becomes an impossible hurdle for too many.

This is why CTA is sponsoring Senate Bill 1263 to eliminate the TPAs, alongside Sen. Josh Newman.

Two years ago, I began leading a CTA work group with educators from across the state. We met to study the teacher shortage. We aimed to find ways to ease the problem and increase teacher diversity. Our group determined that these assessments hurt teacher training. They harm our new teacher pipeline and hinder efforts to diversify public education careers.

We compiled this data and analysis from educators and practitioners, including a survey of educators. We took this information to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and noted the disproportionate impact on educator candidates (see page 33). This issue was first raised three years ago by the California Alliance of Researchers for Equity in Education when the group asked the commission to end high-stakes testing in teacher education, citing concerns with “validity, reliability, fairness and bias.”

At the meeting, Commissioner Christopher Davis underscored the TPA’s “disproportionate harm” to teaching candidates from diverse backgrounds: “We continue to struggle with the reality that our state, through these examinations, is systematically discriminating against the very diversity it alleges it wants to track into our workforce.”

In December, the commission heard our call, adopting a secondary passing standard in the event an educator did not complete the TPA requirement. This allows teacher candidates who met all other credential requirements a path to a credential if they demonstrate Teacher Performance Expectations (TPE) through classroom observations, course projects and similar avenues.

This is a step in the right direction. More than 1,500 aspiring California educators who did not pass the TPA would have met the secondary standard in 2022-23, meaning they would be spared the cost and extreme stress of retaking the TPA.

Our work continues. As Sen. Newman said, the issue is simple: “One key to improving the educator pipeline is removing barriers that may be dissuading otherwise talented and qualified prospective people from pursuing a career as an educator.”

We must end the unnecessary TPA and evolve our state system of educator preparation to better equip teachers to bridge California’s diverse students to bright futures. This is becoming a national standard. Other states including New York, New Jersey, Georgia and even Texas have already eliminated the TPA requirement. It’s time for California to take this step forward and improve the path for aspiring educators on their way to the classroom.

●●●

Leslie Littman is vice president of the California Teachers Association. She previously taught AP U.S. history, economics and government at Hart High School in the William S. Hart Union School District in Santa Clarita.

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

Source link

03/06/2025
Community college faculty should all be allowed to work full time
Students at Fresno City College

Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

When most people think of part-time employment in the public sector, they assume that it (1) could be a steppingstone to a full-time job; (2) pays less than full-time, chiefly because it involves fewer hours of work; (3) is voluntary, and (4) is primarily meant to supplement a family’s income.

When it comes to California’s 36,000 part-time community college professors, the facts defy all four assumptions.

Unlike workers in other professions, part-time college instructors, regardless of length of service and/or quality of performance, will not be promoted to full-time unless they are lucky enough to secure an increasingly scarce full-time position teaching on the tenure track. Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”

Over the last five decades, colleges have gravitated toward part-time instructors for the flexibility of their semester-length agreements with no obligation to rehire, and their lower expense. For example, while all full-time instructors receive state-paid health insurance, only about 10% (3,742) of the state’s part-timers do.

Part-time instructor salaries are not pro-rated based on a typical full-time salary; instead, they are a separate scale which amounts to about 50-60% of the full-time instructor rate. To be clear, this doesn’t mean they receive 50-60% of the income of a full-time instructor: California law caps part-time faculty workload at no more than 67% of full-time. This workload cap, when combined with the discounted rate of pay, means that the average California part-time instructor teaching at 60% of full-time receives about $20,000 while the average annual income for full-time instructors is in excess of $100,000 a year.

Surveys conducted by the American Federation of Teachers in 2020 and 2022 found that roughly 25% of part-time community college faculty nationwide were below the federal poverty line.

With no natural transition from part-time to full-time, this two-tier workplace takes on features of a caste system, especially as both full-time and part-time instructors satisfy the same credential requirements, award grades and credits that have the same value, and have the same tuition charged for their courses.

While California college instructors are represented by faculty unions (primarily the California Federation of Teachers or the California Teachers Association), the priority of those unions would seem to be tenured faculty, as evidenced by the differences in the collectively bargained working conditions.

In the case of workload, for example, while part-time instructors are barred from teaching full-time, full-time instructors may elect to teach overtime, often called course overloads, for additional income. Full-time instructors displace part-time jobs whenever they do. In fact, full-timers generally get to choose their courses, including overloads, before part-timers are assigned courses.

A bill being considered at present in the California Legislature is Assembly Bill 2277. It would raise the current part-time workload restriction from 67% to 85% of full time, which, in theory, could enable some part-timers to teach more classes and earn more income. But if passed, AB 2277 would hardly solve the problem for part-time instructors.

To make a more meaningful improvement, AB 2277 could be amended in two ways, neither of which make an impact on the state budget:
- Remove the artificial workload cap outright, thereby enabling part-time instructors the opportunity to work up to 100% of full time when work is available.
- Impose a ban on full-time tenure-track instructors from teaching overtime (overloads).
One possible source of opposition to these changes could be California’s faculty unions, which are dominated by full-timers. While supportive of earlier attempts at raising the cap to 85% (e.g., AB 897 in 2020, AB 375 in 2021, and AB 1856 in 2022) — neither union has shown a willingness to support elimination of the cap outright or curbing full-time overloads.

In 2008, AB 591 adjusted the cap from 60% to the current 67%, but the first iteration of that bill proposed outright elimination of the cap (as does our suggested amendment), which was opposed by the CFT (see the April 16, 2007 legislative digest and commentary assembled in a California Part-Time Faculty Association (CPFA) report).

Another source of opposition could be those full-time instructors accustomed to teaching overtime/overloads; they could oppose losing that option, which underscores the conflict of interest in a two-tier workplace when more for one tier means less for the other.

Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged that California “community colleges could not operate without part-time faculty” who “do not receive the same salary or benefits as their full-time colleagues” in his Oct. 8, 2021 veto of AB 375 based on budgetary concerns — the fear that the state’s 36,000 part-time instructors would suddenly qualify for health care. (That fear has since been addressed by a 400% increase in the state’s contribution to the Part-time Faculty Health Insurance Program from an annual $490,000 to $200 million.) In the meantime, part-time faculty continue to be barred from working full time.

Faculty unions and lawmakers should take a step toward abolishing California’s faculty involuntary part-time work restriction by allowing them to work full time and protecting their jobs. An amended version of AB 2277 is a no-cost way of doing so.

•••

Alexis Moore taught visual art at colleges and universities for over three decades and served on the executive board of the Pasadena City College Faculty Association of the California Community College Independents (CCCI).

Jack Longmate has long served on the Steering Committee of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and taught for over 28 years at Olympic College in Bremerton, Washington, where his ending annual salary was about $20,000 for teaching at 55% of an annual full-time teaching load.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Source link
02/06/2025
It’s way past time to end gun violence

Photo: Fibonacci Blue/Flickr

“Teachers, the school is currently in lockdown. Please lock your doors and close your windows. This is not a drill. I repeat, this is not a drill.”

When I was in 10th grade, my school’s assistant principal made this announcement during first period. Sparked into action, the teachers at once turned off the lights, locked the doors and closed the windows. It took all of half a second for the 1,500 students of Reseda High School to simultaneously, haltingly, fearing for their lives, come up with a single paralyzing phrase: “school shooter.”

High schoolers may be chastised for a lot of things: procrastination, breaking curfew, ditching class, or being overly dramatic. As it turns out, there was not a school shooter in that instance. We were on lockdown because LAPD was in a standoff with a domestic violence suspect nearby. But in this case, we were well within our rights to assume the worst. In the past decade, the number of mass shootings per year in the U.S. has nearly doubled. In 2021, 689 mass shootings were reported. That’s an average of nearly two mass shootings each day. As of Tuesday, the 198th day of the year, our nation has suffered more than 302 shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Since 2020, gun violence has overtaken motor vehicle accidents as the No. 1 cause of death for Americans under the age of 19.

I’ve grown up hearing stories of my classmates having to run home because they heard gunshots on their block. No one — let alone still-developing children and teens — can or should be expected to lead successful, productive lives in a state of such anxiety. Millions of people across the nation have risen up and spoken out against gun violence, and there have been many student walkouts demanding action from our leaders, but to no avail.

This must change. The time for action came 12 years ago with the Sandy Hook school shooting, but it is not too late to make change now. We must not be deterred by the fact that previous efforts to address gun violence have failed, but encouraged by the hope that we have the ability to prevent the next tragedy. Unfortunately, too many legislative and policy attempts at addressing the problem have fallen victim to partisan politics or relied on shortcuts that made them vulnerable to being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For example, the court recently struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire even more rapidly. The Trump administration issued the ban after a 2017 mass shooting at an outdoor Las Vegas concert in which 60 people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The court only ruled in this way because Congress failed to enact a law banning all high-fire weapons. If Congress had passed such a law instead of relying on administrative action, a different ruling would have ensued, and assailants would not be allowed to use bump stocks.

This weekend’s attempted assassination of presidential candidate Donald Trump, in which one person was killed and two others were critically injured, reminds us that no one is immune from gun violence. Hopefully, the nation’s attention on this tragedy will show politicians that both liberals and conservatives must work together to find creative, effective solutions.

This issue is not one that can be solved overnight. One single law will not suffice, but rather a multitude of innovative policies, such as limiting access to the most dangerous weapons, better licensing and education, more attention to mental health, background checks, gun buybacks to get unwanted firearms out of circulation, limiting children’s access to guns, and more can all work in a coherent fashion to reduce gun violence.

Local, state and federal politicians must brave the potential threat of losing voters and work together to figure out real, practical measures to reduce American gun violence.

Perhaps the three most famous foundational American ideals are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, on a daily basis, gun violence takes away these rights from students. Because of guns, American students are denied the pursuit of education, the liberty of feeling safe and, too often, stripped of their right to life.

We, as American citizens, entrust our rights in the hands of those we elect. They must, then, use their power to, with fidelity, find solutions to protect citizens.

The responsibility falls not only on politicians, but to the community as well. Publish your stories, pester your local leaders, join activist groups, and do anything you can to force change to happen. This is a problem that affects all of us, meaning it will require the entire community to solve it.

We shouldn’t have to be in an enduring state of checking before turning every corner. So let’s stop waiting. And let’s start living.

•••

Neel J. Thakkar is a rising senior at Reseda High School in Los Angeles.

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

21/05/2025
Lithwick & Stern: A Time for Lawyers to Defend Their Profession and Democracy

Writing in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern criticize the big law firms that immediately caved to Trump’s demands to quash their diversity programs and pledge millions of dollars in pro bono work for Trump’s causes. They were singled out for punishment by Trump in executive orders because they dared to represent his political enemies.

In the present crisis of American law, judges have been overwhelmingly strong in upholding the rule of law over the demands of an egotistical, lawless president. Over 200 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration, which has so far not gone well for Trump. Judges have been targets of abuse, intimidation, even death threats directed at them and their families.

The authors single out Judge Beryl Howell for her fearless defense of the right of lawyers to represent their clients regardless of their political views.

They write:

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell deftly knit together the professional obligations of the bench to the bar when she handed down a 102-page opinion in favor of one of these fighting firms, Perkins Coie, handing it a massive victory that carried a deeper lesson for the entire legal profession. Howell’s decision is noteworthy for all manner of things, but perhaps the most important aspect is that it serves as a clarion call for lawyers—meaning every lawyer in the country—to find their way to doing the work of democracy. The judge highlighted the “importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice,” a role “recognized in this country since its founding era.” She condemned the administration’s “unprecedented attack on these foundational principles.” And she praised Perkins Coie for defending its lawyers’ right “to represent their clients vigorously and zealously, without fear of retribution from the government simply for doing the job of a lawyer.” Howell also gave credit to the hundreds of lawyers who filed amicus briefs on behalf of the firm, including a cross-ideological array of lawyers, former government officials, and retired judges, reflecting the profession’s near-unanimous revulsion at the prospect of singling out firms based on the clients they choose to represent.

But Howell went out of her way to cast doubt upon the capitulating firms that took Trump’s deal, for possibly compromising their own legal ethics. Describing Trump’s threat that “lawyers must stick to the party line, or else,” she wrote, archly: “This message has been heard and heeded by some targeted law firms, as reflected in their choice, after reportedly direct dealings with the current White House, to agree to demand terms, perhaps viewing this choice as the best alternative for their clients and employees.” Some clients, she noted, “may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel”—an extraordinary warning to these clients that their lawyers may no longer be defending their best interests. And to make her position perfectly clear, the judge added: “If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.”

Howell’s opinion serves as the most important reminder to date that in this constitutional moment, those trained to operate within the law and those who swear oaths to defend it have a singular and critical role to play. The days of “I just do mergers and acquisitions” are behind us, sports fans. If America were experiencing a national tooth-decay crisis, the dentists would be on the front lines; and were it experiencing a sweeping leaky-pipe epidemic, the plumbers would be on the front lines. Given that we are in the throes of the greatest legal disaster the country has faced in many Americans’ lifetimes, it might be a good idea for the nation’s attorneys to begin to understand that they have a role to play too. Howell, meanwhile, holds no quarter for those who would seek to be neutral. If you have the tools to fight lawlessness and you opt not to use them at this moment in history, you are emphatically still taking a side.

It is hard to read Howell’s opinion without worrying that some judge somewhere will find it too sweeping, too polemical, and too teeming with overinflated claims about the centrality of attorneys in American life. (She quoted Alexis de Tocqueville’s observationthat in the early United States, “the authority … intrusted to members of the legal profession … is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy.”) What Howell seems to understand, with as much force as de Tocqueville, is that those entrusted to protect against the “excesses of democracy” are not going to have the luxury of appearing “neutral” much longer, or even just tamping down criticism by avoiding flowery prose in favor of more anodyne wrist slaps. Effective immediately, the defenders of the rule of law are those who went to school to understand it, who get paid to fight for it, and who swear an oath to uphold it.

Source link

15/05/2025
AI can free up time for principals to engage with staff and students

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

Imagine a school where the principal spends less time buried in paperwork and more time in classrooms, supporting teachers and fostering an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities.

Embracing artificial intelligence (AI) can make this vision a reality.

AI holds the potential to revolutionize school leadership by alleviating the administrative burden on principals. Principals are essential to developing school culture and steering our schools toward more inclusive practices. Their guidance and decision-making for professional learning, promoting specific desired outcomes, and allocating budgets and resources directly impact students’ experiences.

When a school leader is passionate about creating inclusive learning environments and ensuring students have more access to the general education curriculum, little can stop them — except, of course, the ever-increasing tasks and paperwork that keep them in their offices and away from the classrooms.

Just this past year, the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) targeted the growing number of duplicative mandates that district and school leaders are spending valuable time on as one of their platforms for Legislative Action Day. Nearly 400 education leaders came together in Sacramento this past April to demand change in a handful of areas, including streamlined accountability: calling for less time spent on writing separate plans and reports for the many (often redundant or overlapping) state and federal programs, so more time can be spent in classrooms.

Not only are principals responsible for numerous plans required by the state, they also have school site plans, emergency plans, loads of evaluations to write, newsletters to the community, emails to respond to, websites to keep up-to-date, data to review and analyze, the list goes on and on. The workload on principals has dramatically increased over the years, and we should be concerned if we want effective leadership in our schools.

In much of my work with administrators on creating more inclusive schools, I address these issues through ideas like sharing responsibilities, delegating tasks and inventorying initiatives to help streamline resources, including time; and now I’m adding a new one: Embrace AI!

New tools, including AI virtual assistants, or SchoolAI and TeachAI, can automate routine administrative tasks like scheduling, attendance tracking, data analysis, and report generation. Tools like ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Co-Pilot can summarize our notes, edit our writing, and be thought partners when our brains are fried. Just this week I have used AI tools to help with rewording and editing my writing, drafting an agenda, and creating original pictures to use in presentations without having to search the web for what I need, all in all, saving me a few hours.

And imagine what our principals could be doing with a few extra hours a week — observing classrooms, providing instructional feedback and greeting students. At the Inclusive Leadership Center at Chapman University, I work with K-12 school administrators supporting their strategic planning and providing professional development. We hear again and again that one of the biggest barriers administrators face in creating inclusive environments for students with disabilities is a lack of time — so let’s remove this barrier.

As we work on improving the quality of education for students with disabilities, leveraging technology and AI to achieve this is a no-brainer. So why not use it as a tool for administrators and not just for our students?

In addition to taking on some of the mundane tasks, AI can even assist in identifying trends and areas for improvement through data analysis, helping principals make informed decisions that support all students. Once administrators embrace AI, think of how teachers can use it. The possibilities are endless and time-saving.

Of course, there are valid concerns about artificial intelligence, such as data privacy and the fear of technology replacing human roles. We need to think about AI as a tool to enhance human capabilities, not replace them. We need proper safeguards to address privacy concerns, but solving these issues should not stop us from using AI to the advantage of our communities and students. I am not advocating for AI to take over all our school leaders’ tasks, like generating all school communication, teacher evaluations, and individualized education plans. But it can assist through editing, clarifying and summarizing through the drafting process, even helping with communicating to specific audiences and tone. Most administrators, including myself, have sent an email we later wished we could have asked AI to check first.

By embracing AI, schools can empower their leaders to spend more time fostering an inclusive, supportive and effective learning environment. It’s time for education to harness the power of AI to benefit all students.

•••

Kari Adams directs the Inclusive Leadership Center at the Thompson Policy Institute on Disability at Chapman University and leads the Coalition of Inclusive School Leaders. She previously was a public school special education administrator.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

10/05/2025
Grant rollout fiasco: CDE announces $470 million in Golden State Pathways awards for a third time

Students in a Linked Learning Engineering Pathway.

Photo: Linked Learning Alliance

This story has been updated to include the news that the California Department of Education announced the awards for a third time.

Will the third time be a charm?

The California Department of Education announced the recipients of $470 million in grants for the Golden State Pathways Program, for a third time on Friday.

The ambitious effort is aimed at high schools creating career pathways in fields such as STEM, education and health care, but it has faced a troubled rollout.

CDE first announced the grant awards in May and then pulled them back in July. The announcement that the grants were revoked once again came on Oct. 1.

CDE said the agency temporarily removed the September grants results after school districts “questioned the funding results,” according to a statement from CDE spokesperson Scott Roark. This decision was made to “ensure the integrity of the grant distribution process, so that all [Local Educational Agencies] receive their allocated funds based on correct and verified data.”

Advocates call the Golden State Pathways an important investment to improve the economic mobility for the next generation of Californians. But they are frustrated that more than two years after the legislature approved the program, money has not begun to roll out.

“To our knowledge, the CDE hasn’t been forthcoming about why they’ve recalled these latest results, nor why we’re seeing yet another delay, which we find alarming,” said Denise Luna, the higher ed policy director for EdTrust-West. “What we need to see as soon as possible is grant award information that the CDE can stand by and for those monies to flow to districts immediately.”

The advocacy group was one of the signatories of a September letter calling on state leaders to release the promised funds by November.

The Golden State Pathways Program was approved by the legislature in 2022. The application called for grant proposals for programs that would begin in April. But the CDE didn’t announce the grant results until May 31. In July, CDE announced it was recalling and reviewing those grants.

CDE has offered no explanations about what caused the problems that led to the recall of the May grant results or those results announced Sept. 20.

After the July recall, administrators told EdSource that there were some clear red flags: some school districts had been awarded up to three times the amount of funding that they had applied for. Schools were counting on that money for this school year.

Roark acknowledged that this delay is “frustrating” but stated that the reevaluation was done to “ensure the integrity of the grant distribution process.”

“The review of these results is a top priority for CDE as we work to expedite the process and deliver final outcomes as quickly as possible,” he wrote, in a statement.

Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Tim Hire, who is heading the lead agency for the state, said that he is not sure what kind of technical issues the CDE is facing in rolling out these grants. However, he has seen the CDE take additional steps to ensure the grants are rolled out more smoothly, such as bringing on Erika Torres, deputy superintendent of strategy, policy and special projects.

“I think there’s been some movement and some effort by the CDE to improve the process,” he said.

Right now, everyone is in a “holding pattern,” said Hire, but these regional agencies are doing everything they can to prepare for the grants to be disbursed — and ultimately help students to have unique experiences and opportunities that prepare them for fulfilling careers.

“We’re continuing to plan and try to do everything we can to prepare the regional leads,” he said, “so that when the allocations come — and everyone agrees that they’re appropriate and accurate — they can fast-track the work of the districts.”

Source link

08/05/2025
Nature’s classroom: Why preschoolers need more time outdoors

Trees are teaching tools at the Berkeley Forest School. Credit: Courtesy of the Berkeley Forest School

At a forest school, the roof is the bright blue sky, a cluster of ladybugs flying through the air can turn into a science lesson and the fog lingering on your face becomes an example of the water cycle.

Learning amid the leaves is the core of the curriculum in outdoor early learning programs, which often focus on children aged 3 to 5. Mother Nature provides the classroom where the littlest learners can dig up snake skins, bury treasure maps and climb trees, steeping in the myriad wonders of life.

Yet, that’s the exception to the rule these days, as many preschool children spend too much time indoors huddled around screens. Despite the fact that time in nature increases opportunities for play and exercise, boosting children’s health and development and reducing hyperactivity — the bane of our short-attention span era — most American preschoolers don’t get enough time outdoors, according to a new national report from the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER).

“Outdoor nature-based learning is vital for young children’s health, development, and education,” according to the report, which was written by W. Steven Barnett, the institute’s senior co-director and founder, and Kate Hodges, an early childhood education policy specialist. “Increased screen time and reduced exposure to nature are linked to serious health problems, such as obesity, diabetes, hyperactivity, stress, asthma, and allergies.”

Sharpening a sense of stillness, calm and focus is easier for children in a natural setting, experts say. Amid the post-pandemic rise in child behavioral issues, some suggest that outdoor education might be an antidote to shattered attention spans and frayed nerves.

“The kids are play-deprived,” said Angela Hanscom, a pediatric occupational therapist and founder of Timbernook, a research-backed therapeutic play program. “Once they dive deep into the play, they calm down. It’s very interesting to watch. Being outside also helps you get you into an alert state of mind, which is ideal for the brain.”

Giving children enough time for free play, experts say, may make it easier for them to sit quietly at their desk later. As with many aspects of the educational system, the risks of getting stuck too long indoors are elevated for low-income students, according to the institute’s report.

“These issues are particularly concerning for low-income children who often have limited access to safe outdoor spaces. By prioritizing nature-based learning in early childhood programs, states can help mitigate these health risks.”

Hanscom notes that in an attempt to keep kids safe, we may have unwittingly put them in a new kind of danger. Some of the children she works with now require the kind of physical therapy, particularly balance and flow exercises, that were previously reserved for the geriatric. We force children to sit still at an age when they are built to move, she says, which has hampered their development.

“Their neurological system is not developing properly,” Hanscom said. “We’re overly restricting children’s ability to move and play in pretty profound ways, and we’re actually causing harm to their development now. They’re literally falling out of the chairs and they’re having trouble paying attention, and they’re becoming more and more clumsy in their environment.”

The lack of nature exposure in many kindergarten programs is ironic given that the term originated with visionary 19th century educator Friedrich Froebel, the founder of the kindergarten movement, “who believed that children are like flowers and need care and cultivation to grow and blossom, hence the name,” notes Barnett. Froebel’s original program featured an actual garden in which children each tended to their own plots.

“Learning through nature was an important part of the program,” said Barnett. “Froebel also emphasized the preparation of highly proficient teachers, so it was not just the outdoor/nature aspect that has been lost.”

Rethinking the preschool experience to include the myriad wonders of the natural world is part of the purpose of the report. There is much to be learned from stomping through puddles, scrambling over fallen logs and digging in the dirt with sticks, some say.

Students explore at the Berkeley Forest School. Credit: Courtesy of the Berkeley Forest School

“Considering that many preschool children attend for at least four to six hours per day, leaders should consider whether 30-60 minutes of outdoor time is sufficient,” said Barnett. “Many lessons can also be learned from forest or outdoor preschools in which children interact with a natural landscape and spend the entire preschool day outside.”

Rooted in the Scandinavian education tradition, forest schools got a huge boost in popularity during the pandemic as a safe way to keep learning going even when buildings were closed. There are roughly 800 nature preschools in the U.S., a 200% increase since 2017, according to a survey by the Natural Start Alliance.

Science has long suggested that children’s mental and academic health can be buttressed by increasing exposure to nature while decreasing time online. One report, which distilled the results of 186 studies, noted that most researchers find that time spent in nature contributes to both psychological stability and academic agility. Time spent gazing at glowing screens, meanwhile, has often been associated with poor outcomes, including increased mental illness and diminished cognition. That should not come as a surprise, experts suggest.

“Natural spaces are the context the human body has evolved in,” said Lia Grippo, founder of Wild Roots Forest School in Santa Barbara. “Our bodies expect variations in light, air temperature and movement, sights and sounds far and near, uneven terrain, space for a plethora of movements, and a host of life around us, doing what life does. When these expectations are met, we tend to be alert and relaxed. This is the state we learn best in.”

More outdoor time has also been associated with better executive functioning. One study of 562 Norwegian preschoolers found a link between time spent outdoors and sharpened executive functioning, which includes attention and short-term memory. That study also found a connection between too much time indoors and hyperactivity symptoms.

“Outdoor and nature-based preschool activities contribute to children’s health development directly, support more complex play,” said Barnett, “and offer a teaching tool for children to learn about nature and the environment.”

When Grippo taught at a traditional preschool, she tried hard to get the children outside into green spaces for playtime. She noticed that a lot of behavioral issues disappeared when the little ones were playing in meadows or woodlands. The children were quickly soothed by the pleasures of the natural playground, she said.

“Over time, this pattern became painfully clear,” said Grippo, who learned to forage in the woods as a child in Latvia. “Many of the problems I was working with were in fact problems of the environment rather than the children. Over the next few years, I spent more and more time in natural settings with the children until I finally abandoned the indoor space all together. It was the children who showed me what they needed.”

Anything children encounter in nature can become a springboard to learning, some say. A dead bug can spark a discussion about the circle of life. A muddy stream becomes an art studio for a clay-based art project. A stack of sticks can be the raw material to build a fort in the forest.

“Young children need a tremendous amount of movement in order to develop the capacity for stillness,” said Grippo, president of the California Association of Forest Schools. “They need an environment that offers a rich diversity of experiences with a healthy blend of predictability and novelty, in order to incorporate new information and understanding. They need to feel a part of a large family, larger than just the human family. Nature provides for all of these needs.”

The classroom is outside at many forest schools.
credit: Berkeley Forest School

Boosting opportunities for exploration and free play is just one reason that the National Institute for Early Education Research report argues that little children need more outdoor time. Play, some experts suggest, may well be characterized as the superpower of the young. A growing body of research suggests that play may even be a way to help close the achievement gap.

“Just one of the many important reasons for increasing preschoolers’ time in natural spaces is that it improves the amount and quality of young children’s play,” said Barnett. “Research suggests that additional guidance and funding to support outdoor, nature-based learning in preschool settings could lead to positive early childhood educational experiences and cognitive, physical and social-emotional benefits for young learners.”

For the record, California fares better than many states because it requires some outdoor time in its subsidized preschool program, the report suggests, but it fares less well in terms of supporting nature-based schools in general.

“California is among the states with stronger policies because it requires outdoor time every day for a substantial portion of the day, sets standards for air quality for children’s outdoor time, and requires preschool programs to have outdoor space,” said Barnett. “However, it is not one of the leaders with policies specific to outdoor and nature-based programs, which do not always fit well into the usual regulations for preschool and child care programs.”

While California has more outdoor schools than most states, it should be noted that most forest schools aren’t licensed in the Golden State because they often do not have a permanent indoor venue. Washington became the first state to license outdoor preschools in 2019. There are roughly 80 such schools in California, according to the California Association of Forest Schools.

Given its storied roots and the exhaustive research proving its efficacy, why has outdoor education struggled to take root in the American educational system? Why do many assume that schooling should be dominated by fluorescent lighting, asphalt and edtech?

Students at the Berkeley Forest School have story time by the bay.
Credit: Courtesy of the Berkeley Forest School

“Inadequate funding explains a lot,” said Barnett. “We don’t invest in preschool teachers and, as a result, many do not have the knowledge and skills needed. Legal worries probably make it seem risky. Public programs tend to be built as cheaply as possible with no consideration for beauty or nature. Even for older children, it is hard to tell the difference between schools and prisons when they are being built.”

While some teachers can’t wait for the latest ed-tech breakthrough to engage their students, others point to the majesty of the natural world and its ability to spark our curiosity.

“Nothing I can do as an educator can begin to approximate the depth and breadth of what the natural world has to offer,” said Grippo. “Nature teaches us to pay attention, expand awareness, move with aliveness and agility, respond to our environment, experience awe, gratitude and love, develop fortitude, make mistakes and try again, and all in a space that makes the body healthier, happier, and smarter.”

Source link

07/05/2025