برچسب: Why

  • Michael Tomasky: Why No One Cares that Trump Is Raking in $1 Billion a Month

    Michael Tomasky: Why No One Cares that Trump Is Raking in $1 Billion a Month


    Why did Trump run for President in 2024?

    1. To stay out of jail.
    2. To destroy our government.
    3. To make money.

    All three answers are correct. Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, recounts the latest financial scandal associated with Trump–the sale of Trump crytocurrency that is pulling billions into family pockets. And he tries to figure out why the story appears to have faded, instead of blowing up as a mind-boggling violation of the emoluments clause. That’s the part of the Constitution that says Presidents are not supposed to be getting rich by being President, especially by any sort of gift from foreign powers. Trump evaded that restriction in his first term, when he owned the hotel closest to the White Hiuse, and visiting potentates rented the most lavish suites. That was small potatoes. An investment firm in Abu Dhabi just put $2 billion into Trump cryptocurrency. Tomasky asks: does anyone care?

    He writes:

    Nicolle Wallace had Scott Galloway on her MSNBC show Thursday. She began by asking him what he makes of this moment in which we find ourselves. Galloway, a business professor and popular podcaster, could have zigged in any number of directions with that open-ended question, so I was interested to see the direction he settled on: “I think we essentially have become a kleptocracy that would make Putin blush. I mean, keep in mind that in the first three months, the Trump family has become $3 billion wealthier, so that’s a billion dollars a month.”

    Stop and think about that. A presidency lasts, of course, 48 months (at most, we hope). Trump has been enriching himself at an unprecedented scale since day one of his second term—actually, since just before, given that he announced the $Trump meme coin a few days before swearing to protect and defend the Constitution.

    And now, we know that he’s having a dinner at Mar-a-Lago in two weeks for his top $Trump investors, whose identities we may never know. How might these people influence his decisions? This whole arrangement is blatantly corrupt. And The New York Times had a terrific report this week about Don Jr. and Eric going around the world (Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia) making deals from which their father will profit.

    I read these stories, as I’m sure you do, and I think to myself: How on earth is he getting away with this? It’s the right question, but we usually concentrate on the wrong answer.

    For most people, they think first of the Democrats, because they’re the opposition, and by the traditions of our system they’re the ones who are supposed to stop this, or at least raise hell about it. Second, we might think about congressional Republicans, who, if they were actually upholding their own oaths to the Constitution, would be expressing alarm about this.

    They both shoulder some blame, but neither of those is really the answer. Every time I ask myself how he gets away with this, I remember: Oh, right. It’s the right-wing media. Duh.

    After the election, I wrote a column that went viral about how the right-wing media made Trump’s election possible. Fox News, most conspicuously, but also Newsmax, One America News Network, Sinclair, and the rest, along with the swarm of right-wing podcasters and TikTokers, created a media environment in which Trump could do no wrong and Kamala Harris no right.

    Think back—I know you’ve repressed it—to that horror-clown-show Madison Square Garden rally Trump held the week before the election. It was, as the Times put it, a “carnival of grievances, misogyny, and racism.” A generation or two ago, that would have finished off his campaign. Last year? It made no difference. No—it helped. And it helped because a vast propaganda network—armed with press passes and First Amendment protections—spent a week gabbing about how cool and manly it was.

    Newsflash: They’re still at it.

    First of all, Fox News is basically the megaphone of the Trump administration. In Trump’s first 100 days in office, key administration officials, reports Media Matters for America, appeared on Fox 536 times. That, obviously, is 5.36 times per day; in other words, assuming that a cable news “day” runs from 6 a.m. to midnight, that’s one administration official about every three hours. I’ve seen occasional clips where the odd host challenges them on this point or that, but in essence, this is a propaganda parade.

    I tried to do some googling to see how Fox is covering the meme coin scandal. Admitting that Google doesn’t catch everything, the answer seems to be that it’s not. On the network’s website, there was a bland January 18 article reporting that he’d launched it; an actually interesting January 22 piece summarizing a critical column by The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, who charged that it was an invitation to bribery; and finally, an April 24 report that the coin surged in value after Trump announced the upcoming dinner—“critics” were given two paragraphs, deep in the article. (Interesting side note: Predictably, other figures on the far right have aped Trump by launching their own coins, among them former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley.)

    But it’s not just Fox, and it’s not just on corruption. It’s all of them, and it’s on everything. You think any of them are mentioning Trump’s campaign promise to bring prices down on day one, or pointing out that all “persons” in the United States have a right to due process? Or criticizing his shambolic tariffs policies? I’m not saying there’s never criticism. There is. But the thrust of the coverage is protective and defensive: “Expert Failure & the Trump Boom” was the theme of one recent Laura Ingraham segment.

    So sure, blame Democrats to some extent. A number of them are increasingly trying to bring attention to the corruption story, but there’s always more they could be doing. (By the way, new DNC Chair Ken Martin announced the creation one month ago of a new “People’s Cabinet” to push back hard against Trump. Anybody heard of it since?)

    And of course, blame congressional Republicans. Their constitutional, ethical, and moral failures are beyond the pale, and they’re all cowards.

    But neither of those groups is the reason Trump can throw a meme coin party and nothing happens; can send legal U.S. residents to brutal El Salvador prisons; can detain students for weeks because they wrote one pro-Palestinian op-ed; can shake down universities and law firms; can roil the markets with his idiotic about-faces on tariffs; can whine that bringing down prices is harder than he thought; can empower his largest donor, the richest man in the world, to take a meat-ax to the bureaucracy in a way that makes no sense to anyone, and so much more.

    It’s all because Trump and his team operate within the protective cocoon of a media-disinformation environment that allows just enough criticism to retain “credibility” but essentially functions as a Ministry of Truth for the administration that would have shocked Orwell himself.

    And just remember—a billion dollars a month.

    Don’t be surprised to see Trump-branded stuff on the White House website any day now. Trump Bibles, Trump sneakers, MAGA hats, Trump watches, Trump trading cards, etc. why not?



    Source link

  • Districts still have learning recovery money: why not spend it on tutoring?

    Districts still have learning recovery money: why not spend it on tutoring?


    Third graders at Alpha Cornerstone Academy join their individual Ignite Reading tutors for their 15-minute daily session on phonics and other fundamental skills in reading,

    John Fensterwald / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • Up to 40 districts and charter schools can sign up to design their own high-impact tutoring.
    • Unless they’ve spent billions already, districts should have funding available.
    • Both online and in-person high-impact tutoring will work can show impressive results – if done right,

    A recent visit to Alpha Cornerstone Academy, a TK-8 charter school in San Jose, offered a glimpse of high-impact tutoring. It was during the intervention period in third grade, a time when teacher specialists work in small groups. 

    In one corner, five students in their maroon Alpha school shirts sat around a horseshoe table, listening intently through earphones to their own tutor from Ignite Reading, a growing Oakland-based public benefit corporation operating in 20 states. Ignite specializes in tutoring foundational skills – phonics and phonemic awareness. Each lesson was different; some students were repeating words with similar letter sounds. One girl, Sophia, was reading paragraphs to her tutor. 

    At the start of the year, 103 students were reading from kindergarten and first grade levels, said Fallon Housman, the school’s principal; some were newcomers to the school; others were English learners, fluent in their home language but needing extra time, and others have been identified as having a learning disability. 

    Now, with the school year coming to a close, all but 20 are reading at third-grade level, Housman said. Sophia is now among them. “I feel like it’s earlier to read,” Sophia said quietly. 

    “We see a lot of our third graders actually do really well towards the end of third grade because of all of the interventions and supports. We’re excited to have Ignite because it’s an extra push, focusing on foundational skills,” Housman said. 

    What’s happening at Alpha Cornerstone Academy classroom could be in many California districts. Unlike districts in other states that are scrambling for money to continue tutoring funded with now-expired federal Covid aid, California districts potentially still have multi-billion-dollar state funding for accelerating learning over the next several years. 

    And having watched tutoring elsewhere from the sidelines for the past four years, the state can avoid other states’ missteps and build programs based on their successes – if  California makes tutoring a priority.

    “Tutoring isn’t just a tool for learning recovery,” said Jessica Sliwerski, co-founder and CEO of Ignite Reading. ”It’s serving as an essential classroom support that students need to build strong literacy skills.”

    A second or “Western” wave of tutoring

    “Lots of other states have helped push tutoring along more than California has. I’m really optimistic that in some ways, it [California] can be a leader, because we’ve learned so much that they could really do it more effectively immediately than we could right at the beginning,” said Susanna Loeb, a professor at the Graduate School of Education as well as the founder and executive director of the National Student Support Accelerator

    Loeb sees an opportunity for California to jumpstart the state’s laggard performance on state and national achievement assessments, especially in early literacy, by creating a second or “Western” wave of tutoring.

    In four years, the National Student Support Accelerator has become the foremost source of information on and coordinator of research into online and in-person “intensive, relationship-based, individualized instruction” called by various names, high-dosage, high-impact, or high-intensity tutoring.

    This week, three state agencies – the California Department of Education, the State Board, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence – will make the first joint effort in promoting it. They will join the nonprofit Results for America, and Loeb’s organization in sponsoring a webinar explaining high-impact tutoring.  

    The May 13 event serves as an invitation for up to 40 school districts to design their own high-impact tutoring programs that could serve as a model for other district cohorts.  

    It isn’t clear what happens after the event, but tutoring providers are hoping the state will get more involved.

    “This is the first time that the state has recognized high-impact tutoring as desirable. We know what the research has found; we know the formula for making tutoring work,” said  Chris Norwood, founder of Bay Area Tutoring Association, which works with school districts on creating effective programs. “Now we have to get the word out through channels of information that districts  use, like county offices of education.”

    An exciting prospect, hard to do 

    Many parents, teachers, policy makers and student equity advocates looked at tutoring as a recovery strategy coming out of Covid. 

    “What was not so clear was whether they could actually pull it off at any kind of scale,” said Loeb who acknowledges it’s easier for smaller states with a less complex system of governance to say, “Here’s the guidance on how to do high-impact tutoring; here are some funds to do it, and here are professional support.” 

    The federal Institute of Education Services identified “high-quality” tutoring as one of several effective strategies for schools. An analysis of 96 rigorous studies comparing results of students who had high-impact tutoring with those who hadn’t found significant improvement in 87% of the programs, equivalent to a half-year growth in many cases. The strongest gains were in early grades in literacy and when it was given during, rather than after, school.

    Based on research, the National Student Support Accelerator says that effective, high-impact tutoring programs have these elements in common: 

    • A high-dosage delivery of three or more sessions per week of required tutoring, each 15 to 30 minutes.
    • An explicit focus on cultivating tutor-student relationships, with tutors assigned with the same students throughout. Consistency is critical to building a solid relationship, and the tutor should be  “someone who is engaging and motivating,” Loeb said.
    • Alignment with the school curriculum.
    • Formalized tutor training and support.
    • The use of formative assessments to monitor student learning. 

    There are different models for districts: training paraprofessionals as full-time tutors, hiring outside tutoring organizations for in-person tutoring, or turning to online nonprofits; the latter lack the face-to-face connection but can better scale up to serve more students, she said.

    But many California districts found that creating a system with all of the elements was hard to pull off, and outside of urban areas and university towns, many had difficulty finding organizations and trained tutors for in-person instruction. Districts lacked experience evaluating tutoring outfits’ promises and measuring results. Communication over student results could be erratic; arranging schedules could be a challenge.

    Given other, more familiar options, many overstretched California districts and schools made tutoring a low priority; they invested instead in hiring teacher aides and counselors.

    An examination by Edunomics Lab, a Georgetown University-based education research nonprofit, found that 70% of California’s public school districts, charter schools and county offices of education didn’t report spending any money on tutoring from the last and biggest outlay of federal learning loss funding for California – ESSER III. Of the 30% of districts that did, spending on tutoring totaled 1.5% – $190 million out of $13.5 billion. (Go here for an interactive graphic on California districts’ tutoring spending.)

    Meanwhile, other states became directly involved in high-impact tutoring. According to the National Student Support Accelerator’s 2024-25 summary of states’ activities, two dozen states allocated specific funds for high-impact tutoring, while others provided technical help to set up programs. One state, Tennessee, is funding tutoring through its annual school funding formula. 

    Nine states have ongoing partnerships between higher education institutions and tutoring organizations. 

    Norwood is partnering with San Jose State to hire students on an education track to serve as tutors in the schools while earning federal work-study money. If all teacher preparation programs credited time tutoring toward fulfilling time required in the classroom, California could add thousands of tutors to the ranks.

    Money to spend

    California had the advantage of surging state revenues from a post-pandemic economic boom to set aside more than $10 billion in one-time and ongoing money for schools in 2021-22 and 2022-23.

    The state lists tutoring as one of the evidence-based options that districts can choose for their unspent share of the $6 billion Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant; they have through 2027-28 to use it. It’s not clear how much remains; districts filed the first spending report in late 2024.

    There’s also the $4 billion Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, although that money can only be used before or after school and during summers (Rural districts argue there needs to be more flexibility for tutoring).

    The advent of universal transitional kindergarten next fall and rollout of a new math framework are touchpoints for high-impact tutoring, Loeb said.

    “If I had to think about where California could embed tutoring just as part of normal operations, it would be in early literacy,” she said. “It is a shame and a detriment to the state that so many students are not learning how to read before third grade. There’s lots of evidence that high-impact tutoring can help get us there.”

    The selection of new materials aligned with the math framework will lead districts to rethink how math is taught.  

    “That’s a really good time to say, ‘OK, within this structure, how do we get students who aren’t making progress at the rate of the class or rate the state expects to get that individual attention so that they can accelerate their learning and excel in school?’ We’re not really doing that, so students are kind of falling off as we move quickly through the curriculum.”





    Source link

  • Why are students often ineligible for homelessness funding? | Quick Guide

    Why are students often ineligible for homelessness funding? | Quick Guide


    Hygiene supplies and clothing for families in need at the Family Resource Center in Monterey Peninsula Unified.

    Credit: Betty Márquez Rosales / EdSource

    With schools adjusting to the end of historic Covid-era federal funding for students experiencing homelessness, much of their focus has shifted to trying to sustain the programming they implemented and keep the staff they hired with those pandemic relief funds.

    California has allocated significant levels of state funding toward addressing homelessness, and there are other streams to help cover students’ needs, but students experiencing homelessness are not always eligible.

    “I think particularly in California, unsheltered, visible homelessness is in the news and is a political issue, but people aren’t talking about children. State policymakers in particular are not talking about this crisis, and certainly not anywhere near the level that they are about adult homelessness,” said Barbara Duffield, executive director of youth homelessness nonprofit SchoolHouse Connection.

    This quick guide, a follow-up to a recent EdSource story — “Looming end of historic student homelessness funding has arrived” — explains why students are not always eligible for all homelessness funding and the challenges this presents to the school staff tasked with supporting students experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

    Why are homeless students eligible for some streams of homelessness funding but not others?
    Some of the state funding that California has funneled toward preventing and addressing homelessness is targeted toward youth. The state’s Homekey program, for example, has resulted in millions of dollars toward the building or conversion of housing for youth who are homeless or on the verge.

    But most students experiencing homelessness are not always eligible for state or federal funding, and that often comes down to how homelessness is defined.

    There are two definitions: one outlined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and the other by the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

    The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a federal law implemented decades ago to ensure students experiencing homelessness are identified and supported, defines homelessness, in part, as “children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.”

    Among homeless liaisons and other school staff, this is often referred to as being “doubled-up,” and that is how the majority of homeless youth in California and nationwide live.

    But the more common definition of homelessness used outside of school settings is the one set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and that definition does not include people living in doubled-up environments.

    “You’ve got all these kids living in precarious doubled-up situations that have no way to get any type of services because they technically don’t meet HUD-related pieces,” said Jennifer Kottke, the homeless liaison for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

    Some children are indeed living unsheltered, but most are out of sight. Given that reality, homeless liaisons say they are best equipped to address the impact of homelessness among their students because schools are where families experiencing homelessness are more likely to already be.

    In other words, liaisons are meeting those families where they are, and this rings particularly true for liaisons working in rural parts of the state.

    “In rural areas, schools are where you’ll find families. We don’t have big drop-in centers and resource centers where families would be showing up for services. They’re out there in unpopulated areas, but they’re coming to school, so school is this kind of avenue to do outreach,” said Meagan Meloy, the homeless liaison for the Butte County Office of Education.

    What forms of funding are available for students experiencing homelessness?
    There are several streams of funding for students experiencing homelessness, though they are either short-term, one-time grants, limited in amounts, or not set aside specifically for this population of students.

    The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act’s Education for Homeless Children And Youth grant is a steady stream of funding, for example, but at $129 million nationwide, it does not reach all schools that enroll students experiencing homelessness. California received $13.9 million for the 2021-22 school year, which was distributed across 6.4% of the state’s school districts via a competitive grant process.

    There is also the state-funded Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program which sets aside a percentage of funds for youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The set-aside for youth uses the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, which broadens eligibility of students who live doubled-up, though it restricts the ages to 12- to 24-year-olds.

    Meloy applied and received that grant for rural Butte County, which will provide funds over three years. Her team’s plan is to pilot a program where multiple agencies team up to reach out to homeless families through the region’s schools and provide case management to guide them through housing services and prevent them from entering into unsheltered homelessness. Her team plans to support younger students through their parents.

    “We appreciate it … and it’s one of the strategies we’re using but, again, it’s not going to be a comprehensive fix to address what I see as a huge need in our state,” said Meloy, referring to student homelessness.

    Even if schools are able to tap into those funds, they are set aside exclusively for housing and not for services such as transportation, food assistance, clothing, school supplies and more. “Those services are equally important to housing, especially if youth are going to recover from their homelessness and be successful in school as a long-term prevention strategy,” Duffield said.

    Additionally, Butte County is likely to be an exception in this use of state funding, according to Duffield, “because additional licensing is required for housing providers to serve minors.”

    Schools are also required to set aside dollars from the state’s education funding formula to support high-needs students. That funding requires first identifying students who are homeless — the very effort school staff say needs to first be funded. That funding is also distributed across all high-needs students, not just those experiencing homelessness.

    “The thing is that the work is intense, but the funding doesn’t match, so then you end up undercounting because you don’t have the time to do the proper identification process,” said Kottke, who said the federal housing department should be working with schools, given the evidence that education is a preventive measure against homelessness.

    Other streams of funding can be used to support students experiencing homelessness, though they all run into similar challenges. And, none of them get anywhere near the level of funding that liaisons received for students experiencing homelessness during the pandemic through the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth, or ARP-HCY.

    “These California funds still are no substitute or replacement for the scale of ARP-HCY, or what California is spending on its adult homeless population,” said Duffield. “This is where the real disparities lie.”

    What if liaisons keep piecing together various streams of funding?
    Liaisons say that the nature of their funding model can be tedious and time-consuming. Since there isn’t one source of funding that can by itself cover services this population of students, liaisons say they spend much of their time doing what they call “braiding” of grants and other funding streams.

    “Our department here … is almost all grant-funded. For me, it’s kind of a way of life,” said Meloy.

    An example of braiding is what Meloy did with the HHAP funding.

    “It’s hard because it takes a lot of administration work and braiding funding is beautiful if you can figure out how to put a square peg into a round hole,” said Kottke, “but sometimes braiding funding isn’t what it’s chalked up to be, and so sometimes it’s hard to do.”

    The braiding of funding also makes it more difficult to track and assess the use of funding across all schools and counties.

    What further complicates this funding model, plus the time required to identify students as homeless, is that liaisons are rarely, if ever, solely focused on this specific student population. Most often, the time they can spend on supporting students who are homeless is a small percentage of their work.

    A quick scroll through the list of liaisons statewide highlights their widespread titles: director of operations, superintendent, manager of student information systems, truancy mediation liaison, office manager, and more.

    What do liaisons say they would do with dedicated funding for students experiencing homelessness?
    For Meloy, who lives in a county particularly susceptible to wildfires, the lack of dedicated funding means her team cannot prepare for the now-expected rise in student homelessness that happens when families are displaced due to fires.

    “That need isn’t going away,” said Meloy. “It feels like we’re kind of getting through the Covid disaster, but we’re still facing these other disasters that impact housing.”

    In Monterey County, liaison Donna Smith would like to offer more transportation options to students experiencing homelessness. She also services foster youth in her county, and she’s able to contract with a company to drive foster youth to and from school.

    Students who are homeless can either receive a bus pass or their parents can be reimbursed for gas; families don’t always have vehicles, however, or children might be too young to ride the bus by themselves. “But there’s not a lot of options outside of that. That’s just one kind of thing that I wish we had: better transportation for these kids to and from school that is paid for.”

    Kottke in L.A. County also said she would like to focus more on preventive strategies. “A lot of the work we do is very reaction-based. I’ve always been preventative, so I think that’s one of the pieces that I spend a lot of time in this work fighting for,” she said. “We should be preventionary, not reactionary.”





    Source link

  • Why civic engagement must be integrated into the school dashboard

    Why civic engagement must be integrated into the school dashboard


    State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond and Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero honored Kennedy High in Anaheim for its outstanding civic learning programs.

    Credit: Courtesy Anaheim Union HSD

    The State Seal of Civic Engagement, approved by the State Board of Education in 2020, marked a vital progression in developing students who are not only academically strong but also civically active and socially aware.

    However, the absence of this seal in the College and Career Indicators (CCI) of the California School Dashboard represents a missed opportunity — until now. Recently, the State Board of Education has requested that the California Department of Education incorporate the seal into the CCI. By incorporating it, we can incentivize schools to cultivate civic responsibility, enhance the relevance of education and elevate student voices. This initiative offers a powerful chance to foster active citizenship, connect learning to real-world challenges, and inspire students to engage meaningfully with their communities.

    The Seal of Civic Engagement, which is affixed to a student’s diploma or certificate of completion, should be added alongside other key indicators like the State Seal of Biliteracy, ensuring it receives the attention it deserves. With local criteria including a minimum GPA of 2.0 in all social science courses and the completion of a civic engagement project, schools would now be held accountable to a higher standard of civic instruction. The inclusion of the civic engagement seal on the California School Dashboard is not only a recognition of student accomplishments but also a catalyst for broader shifts in educational practices that prioritize civic education.

    Incorporating the California Seal of Civic Engagement into the school dashboard will encourage schools to shift away from traditional instructional models and move toward more student-centered approaches. One of the primary benefits is the emphasis on elevating student voice and agency. Rather than positioning students as passive recipients of knowledge, the seal incentivizes schools to create opportunities for students to take on leadership roles, participate in community-based projects and engage in civic dialogue, and ultimately give students a reason to vote and participate in our democracy.

    Student-driven learning experiences will become a central focus, allowing students to take ownership of their education and the role they play in society. This shift fosters not only a deeper understanding of democratic principles but also a sense of responsibility and empowerment. As students take on active roles in addressing real-world challenges, they develop leadership, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, all while becoming more engaged in their communities.

    The connection between civic engagement and student well-being is becoming increasingly evident through research at UCLA and USC. By embedding service learning into the curriculum, schools can create more holistic learning experiences that connect academic content with community service. Civic engagement projects offer students a sense of purpose and belonging, which can significantly contribute to their mental health.

    When students work on projects that address real-world problems, they not only learn about the issues but also engage emotionally and intellectually with the material. Service learning provides an avenue for students to apply what they’ve learned in the classroom to make a tangible impact in their communities, which can enhance their sense of agency and improve their emotional well-being. Schools will be encouraged to develop instructional models that prioritize these types of experiences, ultimately supporting the mental and emotional health of students in ways that extend beyond traditional academic instruction.

    One of the most exciting opportunities provided by the California Seal of Civic Engagement is the potential to integrate civic engagement with career exploration. Schools can align civic projects with career pathway programs, providing students with hands-on learning experiences that are directly related to potential college majors and career interests.

    For example, students interested in public service, environmental sustainability or health care could engage in civic projects that allow them to explore these fields while still in high school. By linking civic engagement with career pathways, schools not only make learning more relevant but also provide students with early exposure to future career opportunities. This shift in instructional focus ensures that students are better prepared for both post-secondary education and the workforce.

    A key feature of the Seal of Civic Engagement is its potential to drive instructional shifts that address pressing societal issues. With its inclusion in the dashboard, schools will be incentivized to create project-based learning opportunities that tackle local and global challenges such as climate change, affordable housing, health care access and mental health.

    By engaging in civic projects that address these critical issues, students develop the skills necessary to analyze problems, research potential solutions and implement action plans. These hands-on experiences prepare students to think critically and creatively, making their learning more meaningful and applicable to real-world contexts. The seal encourages schools to foster a learning environment where students can connect their education to the challenges facing their communities and the world.

    The Seal of Civic Engagement also promotes active citizenship by encouraging schools to design lessons that emphasize democratic participation, voter registration and civic responsibility. By embedding these democratic practices into the curriculum, schools can ensure that students are not only knowledgeable about the issues but also understand the importance of participating in democratic processes.

    This instructional shift prepares students to be informed and engaged citizens beyond graduation, helping to create a more active and participatory democracy. Students who understand the value of their voice and their vote are more likely to carry those values into adulthood, becoming lifelong advocates for their communities and society at large.

    By nudging schools to prioritize civic education, we can prepare a generation of students who are not only academically accomplished but also socially conscious and ready to engage with the challenges of the modern world. From promoting student well-being to encouraging career exploration and addressing critical societal issues, including the Seal of Civic Engagement in the state’s accountability system is a vital step toward creating a more equitable and empowered future.

    •••

    Michael Matsuda is superintendent of Anaheim Union High School District in Southern California.

    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

  • Nature’s classroom: Why preschoolers need more time outdoors 

    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? 

    outdoor school
    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

  • Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive

    Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive


    School officials said they are currently working on dealing with the wave of new students coming from the Villages of Patterson development under construction. School officials and community members and school officials worry that the schools will not be able to handle another large-scale wave of development without a mitigation agreement.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    Education and housing are often inextricably linked, but policy decisions made in the two sectors are generally siloed, at times shaped and passed without considering how a housing policy might impact education and vice versa.

    Megan Gallagher’s research bridges the two, focusing on housing and educational collaborations that support students’ academic outcomes. Some of her latest work as a principal research associate at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on public policy, provides school officials and housing developers with ideas on how to partner together to desegregate schools by desegregating neighborhoods.

    Gallagher has also co-authored a report that compiled a list of key housing characteristics that impact children’s educational outcomes:

    • Housing quality
    • Housing affordability
    • Housing stability
    • Neighborhood quality
    • Housing that builds wealth

    In this Q&A, Gallagher details why those housing characteristics matter in a child’s education and the collaborations that can help children have a fair chance at achieving academic success. The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    How does housing policy impact children’s educational outcomes?
    It’s really important when we try to understand the influence that housing has on kids’ educational outcomes, that (we look at) its unique contribution.

    You could have families with the same income levels, (but) one is in a high-quality house and one is in a low-quality house. A low-quality house can influence a child’s health, ability to sleep, and feeling safe. And so, you could have a very different outcome for that child if they are in a lower-quality home.

    You have outlined five characteristics of housing that have an impact on children’s educational outcomes. Why are those five characteristics so important?
    Those five characteristics have been studied a decent amount in housing policy literature. I didn’t conduct all the original research that went into these findings, I just sort of pulled it all together into one place. It is possible that there are aspects of housing that have not been measured historically that could also have an influence on education.

    We know that low-quality housing — housing that has mold or electrical issues — is associated with lower kindergarten readiness scores. That causal relationship has been established. The relationship between spending too much on rent is connected to increased behavioral problems. Housing instability, and I would really put homelessness and housing insecurity into the housing instability bucket, really affects school stability and then has an effect on math and reading scores. We know that successful homeownership, so homeownership that allows families to build equity, increases the likelihood of attending college. We also know that neighborhood context, like violence, can disrupt academic progress and prevent children from succeeding in school.

    So there is evidence that connects each one of these housing conditions to a variety of aspects of kids’ well-being and educational outcomes.

    One of the things that we have not really done a very good job on is which of these aspects of housing matter the most or have the most influence. If we have a million dollars, what would we want to put that million dollars on to improve educational outcomes? I don’t think we have enough evidence right now to know exactly what would be the right pathway for that.

    Do all five characteristics need to be in place for children to have the best possible educational outcomes?
    There’s not enough data right now for us to understand which of the five need to be in place or what the likelihood of succeeding is if you have one or two or three or four of them in place.

    This is an area where we continue to need more understanding, more evidence, but I don’t think that we can wait to make policy decisions until we have all of that evidence.

    Is the lack of sufficient research one of the outcomes of the disconnect between housing and education policy?
    Absolutely. I think the sectors are so siloed, many of the giant data collection investments that have happened at HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) or at the U.S. Department of Education have not had data elements that capture aspects of the other sector.

    When we are looking at housing data in housing policy, there hasn’t been really detailed data collected about the children in the family — which schools they attend and how they’re doing — which could potentially allow data to be connected, likewise in the education world.

    We run into lots of challenges in research with privacy where just because you can connect data, should you? Is that what program participants have agreed to when they’ve decided to enroll their children in public school or when they’ve decided to enroll in a housing subsidy program? In a lot of cases, the answer is no.

    Some of the best data is really connected at the local level, where you have local policymakers that are working with local agencies that have asked permission and are connecting data to kind of fine-tune programs on the ground.

    How do we reach a point where we have the information necessary to ensure academic success for all children?
    It has to happen at multiple levels. The federal government needs to encourage the Department of Ed and HUD to collaborate and to really support or incentivize collaboration in their discretionary grant programs. I really see it as the feds have an opportunity to lead and really support this kind of work.

    But I also think that there are so many local organizations that are leading. I think a lot of the case study work that I have done can help to illustrate how flexibility and collaboration can really translate into a set of programs or practices that support kids’ education and stable, high-quality housing.

    I know that philanthropy is really supporting a lot of exploration around sector alignment.

    I feel really hopeful about this sort of broader vision for how we create policy that thinks about the way that multiple systems can influence how well a child is doing. But I also think that it’s not like there’s just all of this housing sitting there and kids are not living in it. A big part of this work is making sure that there continues to be a housing production pipeline that is developing housing to ensure that there’s enough housing at various price points so that everybody has the opportunity to live where they’d like to live.





    Source link

  • Why bringing children to the voting booth matters

    Why bringing children to the voting booth matters


    Billie Montague, 2, puts a vote sticker on her nose while watching her mom, Ashley Montague, vote in Newport Beach in 2020. Credit: Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Polaris

    Children are not merely passive recipients of voting outcomes; they are capable participants in building a future shaped by informed civic values and active community involvement. We must foster responsible use of their civic knowledge and power for a better future.

    Introducing children to voting from an early age — as young as 5 or 6 — can instill in them a sense of civic responsibility, sparking curiosity about how individual actions influence the broader community, and shaping informed, engaged citizens for the future.

    In my work on diversity, equity and inclusion, I spend much time thinking about misinformation, access barriers and participation roadblocks.

    Voting processes are vulnerable to misinformation tactics aimed at suppressing marginalized voters, including Black, Latino, disabled, rural residents, and the elderly. Voting with children is no exception to this insidious campaign to bar access and participation for every eligible voter. Child care access issues can even act as an indirect form of voter suppression. When parents, particularly single parents or those in underserved areas, are unable to find or afford child care, voting in person may become challenging or impossible. These barriers are compounded in areas with limited polling locations, long wait times, or fewer resources for early or mail-in voting, which are essential accommodations for parents who may otherwise be prevented from casting their vote due to lack of child care. Even when voting accommodations ­— voting by mail or surrendering early ballots at polling places — are available, misinformation around these options can impact parents’ ability to participate.

    Every Californian must be well-informed about the Voter Bill of Rights. We are fortunate to reside in a state that actively implements legislation to enhance accessibility and participation for voters, including future voters. An example is the provision allowing California teens aged 16 and 17 to preregister online, with automatic registration upon turning 18.

    Recognizing the significance of civic engagement among Gen Z (the youngest of whom are 12 years old), it’s noteworthy that they exhibit higher voting rates than previous generations. In 2024, a staggering 41 million Gen Z youth are eligible to vote, with millions more set to join the electorate by 2028.

    Efforts to expand access and participation are crucial because civic engagement, including voting, is essential and has widespread impact. Ultimately, it’s a fundamental right that touches each of us deeply; it’s the sole avenue for every citizen to participate in the democratic process.

    Political socialization is how people learn about politics, form beliefs and understand their civic role. While parents typically pass political views to their children, research shows influence can also go the other way: Children’s awareness of civic issues can shape their parents’ views, a process known as “trickle-up socialization.” As children engage with topics affecting their communities — through school, social media, and peers — they may prompt discussions that lead parents to consider new perspectives. Bringing children to the voting booth reinforces this process, offering them hands-on exposure to democracy, sparking meaningful questions, and fostering family engagement, especially in marginalized communities where awareness and representation are vital.

    However, it’s concerning that American knowledge of civic engagement has declined, with significant gaps in understanding fundamental aspects of government and constitutional rights, as revealed by the Annenberg study released annually on Citizenship Day. The study noted 1 in 3 Americans cannot name the three branches of government, and less than a third can name the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment beyond freedom of speech.

    As parents, we can inspire an informed and engaged generation of citizens. If you haven’t made a family voting plan for the Nov. 5 election, there’s still time to register and participate together. Preparation is critical; here are practical considerations for voting with children in California: 

    Voting with kids in the November presidential election is not only allowed but purposeful, serving as a primer for future elections and instilling democratic values early on.

    •••

    Amira K.S. Barger, MBA, CVA, CFRE, is a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant and an adjunct professor at California State University, East Bay.

    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

  • Why is Trump Killing the Voice of America?

    Why is Trump Killing the Voice of America?


    Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day.

    Press Freedom is at risk in every authoritarian regime, but also in the U.S. Trump has filed frivolous lawsuits against ABC and other news outlets. ABC paid him $15 million to make peace.

    Trump sued CBS for $10 billion for editing a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris and is now in settlement talks. Editing a pre-taped interview is standard practice. The interview may last for an hour, but only 20 minutes is aired. Since Trump won the election, how was he damaged? It is hard to imagine he would win anything in court.

    But Trump’s FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, has the power to destroy CBS. And the owner of CBS–Shari Redstone– is currently negotiating a lucrative deal that needs FCC approval. What will CBS pay Trump?

    Given Trump’s legendary vindictiveness, will he succeed in eviscerating press freedom? Will the media dare criticize him as they have criticized every other president?

    See CNN’s Brian Stelter on the state of press freedom today.

    Now comes Trump’s puzzling vendetta against the Voice of America. In March, he issued an executive order to shut it down, although Republicans have traditionally supported it. On April 22, a federal district court judge overturned Trump’s executive order and demanded the rehiring of VOA staff. They were told they would be back at work in days. But yesterday, a three judge appeals court stayed the lower court’s ruling and VOA’s future is again in doubt. Two of the three appeals court judges were appointed by Trump.

    The Voice of America has a unique responsibility. It brings objective, factual, unbiased news to people around the globe. For millions of people, the Voice of America is their only alternative to either government propaganda or no news at all.

    Why does Donald Trump want to kill the Voice of America.

    He has never explained.

    He has called VOA “radical,” “leftwing,” and “woke,” but there is no factual basis for those attacks. They are talking points, not facts.

    He appointed his devoted friend, Kari Lake, who ran for office in Arizona and lost both times, as the agent of VOA’s demise. She was an on-air commentator, so she knows something about media.

    VOA seems to be in a death spiral, like USAID and the Department of Education.

    The Washington Post reported on the Appeals Court’s ruling. Kari Lake described the decision as a “huge victory for President Trump.”

    Trump has never explained why the Voice of America should be silenced.

    Apparently no one at the VOA understands. I found this interview by Nick Schifrin of PBS (also on Trump’s chopping block), Lisa Curtis, and Michael Abramowitz, Director of VOA:

    • Nick Schifrin: Lisa Curtis is the chair of the board of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and a former senior director on President Trump’s first National Security Council staff.
    • Lisa Curtis: While it’s understandable that President Trump wants to cut down on government waste and fraud, I think this is the wrong organization to be attacking. Russia, Iran, China, these countries are spending billions in their own propaganda, their own anti-American propaganda. So I think it’s critical that the U.S. government is supporting organizations like RFE/RL that are pushing back against that disinformation, misinformation.
    • Nick Schifrin: And she says RFE/RL’s content reaches more than 10 percent of Iranians, many of whom have protested the regime.
    • Lisa Curtis:So I think it really is part of U.S. soft power, but they actually call it the hard edge of soft power because it is so effective in getting out the truth about America, about what’s happening in their local environments. And this is absolutely critical.
    • Nick Schifrin:Curtis said she considers the freeze and their funding illegal because the money is congressionally appropriated and RFE/RL’s mission is congressionally mandated. And they will sue the Trump administration to get it restored.To discuss this, I turn to Michael Abramowitz, who since last year has been the president of Voice of America and before that was the president of Freedom House.Michael Abramowitz, thanks very much. Welcome back to the “News Hour.”As you heard, President Trump in his statement on Friday night referred to VOA as a radical propaganda with a liberal bias. Is it?Michael Abramowitz, Director, Voice of America: I don’t think so.I do think that people at many different news organizations have been accused of bias on both right and left, like many different news organizations. VOA is not perfect, but we’re unusual among news organizations because we are one of the few news organizations that by law has to be fair and balanced.Every year, we look at each of our language services, review it for fairness, for balance. I have been a journalist in this field for a long time, and I think the journalists at VOA stand up very well against people from CNN, FOX, New York Times, et cetera, in terms of the commitment to balance.When we do talk shows, for instance, broadcasting into Iran, we will have Republicans, we will have Democrats. We are presenting the full spectrum of American political opinion, which is required by our charter.
    • Nick Schifrin:You have heard from other administration officials or allies of the president. Ric Grenell, who is a special envoy, called it — quote — “a relic of the past. We don’t need government-paid media outlets.”
    • Elon Musk says:“Shut them down. Nobody listens to them anymore.”Fundamentally, why do you believe taxpayers should pay for VOA journalism?
    • Michael Abramowitz:You know, the media is changing, the world is changing, and the Cold War doesn’t exist anymore.But what is happening around the world is that there is a huge, really, battle over information. The world is awash in propaganda and lies, and our adversaries like Russia and China, Iran are really spreading narratives that directly undermine accurate views about America.And we have to fight back. And VOA in particular has been an incredible asset for fighting back by providing objective news and information in the languages, in 48 languages that people in the local markets we serve. No other news organization does that.
    • Nick Schifrin:Let me ask a little bit about the status of the agency. You and every employee were put on leave over the weekend. Today, all contractors have been terminated. Do you have any notion of what the goal is from the administration? Is it to reform VOA, or is it simply to destroy it?
    • Michael Abramowitz:Candidly, I don’t know.Ms. Kari Lake, who is supposed to be my successor at some point she’s given some interviews, and I think she clearly recognizes in those interviews that VOA serves an important purpose. I think there are a lot of Republicans, in particular, especially on the Hill, who recognize the value of Voice of America, who recognize that, if we shut down, for instance, our program on Iran, which is really an incredible newsroom — we have 100 journalists, most of whom speak Farsi, has a huge audience inside Iran.When the president of Iran, when his helicopter went down over the summer, there was a huge spike in traffic on the VOA Web site because the people of Iran knew that they could not get accurate information about what was going on, so they came to VOA to get it. That’s the kind of thing that we can do.
    • Nick Schifrin:I want to point out, we heard from Lisa Curtis, the chair of the board of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.Voice of America and the Cuba Broadcasting, previously known as Radio Marti — we have got a graphic to show this — those are fully federal networks.(Crosstalk)
    • Nick Schifrin:What RFE/RL is talking about, they are a grantee. They get a grant from the U.S. government. RFE/RL will sue. Does VOA have any recourse today?
    • Michael Abramowitz:Well, I think we are — I mean, there’s a lot of discussion about some lawsuits that different parties are making. I know that the employees may be thinking about that.I think — I’m not sure that litigation in the end is going to be the most productive way. Maybe — I mean, you have to see what happens. But I think what would be really great is if Congress and the administration get together, recognize that this is a very important service, recognize that it’s sorely needed in a world in which our adversaries are spending billions of dollars, like Lisa said, and reformulate VOA to be effective for the modern age.
    • Nick Schifrin:And, finally, how — what’s the impact of this decision and the language that we have heard from the Trump administration on the very idea that information, that journalism sponsored by the U.S. government can support freedom and democracy?
    • Michael Abramowitz:We have been on the air essentially for 83 years through war, 9/11, government shutdown. VOA has kept — has kept its — has kept the lights on, has not been silent.So we’re silenced for the first time in 83 years. That’s devastating to me personally. It’s devastating to the staff. It’s devastating to all the thousands of people who used to work at VOA. I mean, this is a very special and unique news organization. It deserves to live. It doesn’t mean we can’t reform, but it deserves to survive.

    I still don’t understand why Trump wants to close down America’s voice to the world.

    I ask myself, who benefits if the Voice of America is stifled.

    The obvious culprits: America’s enemies, especially Russia.

    During the decades of the Cold War, VOA beamed information to dissenters behind the Iron Curtain. It kept hope alive.

    No one would be happier to see VOA shut down than Putin.



    Source link

  • Catherine Rampell: Why Does Trump’s Regime Have Your Data and How Will They Use It?

    Catherine Rampell: Why Does Trump’s Regime Have Your Data and How Will They Use It?


    Catherine Rampell is an opinion writer for The Washington Post who writes often about economics. She focuses here on the expansion of data collection by the Trump administration, even as it ceases to collect anonymous data about health trends. What worries me is the invasion of privacy by the DOGE team, who scooped up personally identifiable data from the IRS and Social Security about everyone, including you and me. Why did they want it? What will they do to it?

    She writes:

    It’s rarely comforting to appear on a government “list,” even (or perhaps especially) when compiled in the name of public safety.

    It was alarming in the 1940s, when the U.S. government collected the names of Japanese Americans for internment. Likewise in the 1950s, when the House Un-American Activities Committee catalogued communists. And it’s just as troubling now, as the Trump administration assembles registries of Jewish academics and Americans with developmental disabilities.

    Yes, these are real things that happened this past week, the latest examples of the White House’s abuse of confidential data.

    Last week, faculty and staff at Barnard College received unsolicited texts asking them whether they were Jewish. Employees were stunned by the messages, which many initially dismissed as spam.

    Turns out the messages came from the Trump administration. Barnard, which is affiliated with Columbia University, had agreed to share faculty members’ private contact info to aid in President Donald Trump’s pseudo-crusade against antisemitism.

    Ah, yes, a far-right president asking Jews to register as Jewish, in the name of protecting the Jews, after he has repeatedly accused Jews of being “disloyal.” What could go wrong?

    The same day, National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya announced a “disease registry” of people with autism, to be compiled from confidential private and government health records, apparently without its subjects’ awareness or consent. This is part of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vendetta against vaccines, which he has said cause autism despite abundant research concluding otherwise.

    This, too, is disturbing given authoritarian governments’ history of compiling lists of citizens branded mentally or physically deficient. If that historical analogue seems excessive, note that Bhattacharya’s announcement came just a week after Kennedy delivered inflammatory remarks lamenting that kids with autism will never lead productive lives. They “will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job,” he said, adding they’ll never play baseball or go on a date, either.

    This all happened during Autism Acceptance Month, established to counter exactly these kinds of stigmatizing stereotypes. Kennedy’s comments and the subsequent “registry” set off a wave of fear in the autism advocacy community and earned condemnation from scientists.

    Obviously, advocates want more research and support for those with autism. They have been asking for more help at least since 1965 (when what is now called the Autism Society of America was founded in my grandparents’ living room). But few in this community trust political appointees hostile to scientific research — or a president who has publicly mocked people with disabilities — to use an autism “registry” responsibly.

    (An unnamed HHS official later walked back Bhattacharya’s comments, saying the department was not creating a “registry,” per se, just a “real-world data platform” that “will link existing datasets to support research into causes of autism and insights into improved treatment strategies.” Okay.)

    These are hardly the administration’s only abuses of federal data. It has been deleting reams of statistical records, including demographic data on transgender Americans. It has also been exploiting other private administrative records for political purposes.

    For example, the Internal Revenue Service — in an effort to persuade people to pay their taxes — spent decades assuring people that their records are confidential, regardless of immigration status. The agency is in fact legally prohibited from sharing tax records, even with other government agencies, except under very limited circumstances specified by Congress. Lawmakers set these limits in response to Richard M. Nixon’s abuse of private tax data to target personal enemies.

    Trump torched these precedents and promises. After a series of top IRS officials resigned, the agency has now agreed to turn over confidential records to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement locate and deport some 7 million undocumented immigrants.

    The move, which also has troubling historical echoes, is being challenged in court. But, in the meantime, tax collections will likely fall. Undocumented immigrant workers had been paying an estimated $66 billion in federal taxes annually, but they now have even more reason to stay off the books.

    This and other DOGE infiltrations of confidential records are likely to discourage public cooperation on other sensitive government data collection efforts. Think research on mental health issues or public safety assessments on domestic violence.

    But that might be a feature, not a bug, for this administration. Chilling federal survey participation and degrading data quality were arguably deliberate objectives in Trump’s first term, when he tried to cram a question about citizenship into the 2020 Census. The question was expected to depress response rates and help Republicans game the congressional redistricting process.

    Courts ultimately blocked Trump’s plans. That’s what it will take to stop ongoing White House abuses, too: not scrapping critical government records, but championing the rule of law.

    Ultimately, the government must be able to collect and integrate high-quality data — to administer social programs efficiently, help the economy function and understand the reality we live in so voters can hold public officials accountable. None of this is possible if Americans fear ending up on some vindictive commissar’s “list.”



    Source link

  • Why isn’t Los Angeles Unified settling this lawsuit on arts funding?

    Why isn’t Los Angeles Unified settling this lawsuit on arts funding?


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    My time on the high school football field was spent with a snare drum strapped around my chest. As a student who was easily distracted in the academic classroom and struggled to apply myself, band class was a welcome reprieve during the day.

    Playing the drums was my niche, it was how I stood out. I carried my drumsticks around the way football players wore their varsity jackets.

    During my school years, I was fortunate that the district I attended recognized the importance of arts education. In elementary school, there were classrooms devoted to art and music staffed by full-time teachers. There was also an orchestra teacher. My middle school had two full-time band teachers, and an art class was included in the curriculum. High school offered a full range of band and choir classes in addition to the chance to participate in the jazz band and marching band in after-school programs.

    Even back then, it was clear that future students would not have these same opportunities. The program that allowed interested sixth-grade students to participate in a stage production disappeared while I was in school, a victim of budget cuts as the baby boom turned into a bust. During my time in high school, there were constant rumors of plans to reduce the number of band teachers.

    This reduction in the availability of arts education was part of a nationwide trend that accelerated as the second Bush administration and then Obama’s placed an increasing focus on test scores. Ignoring evidence that music and art help increase academic performance, teachers were forced to spend more time teaching to standardized tests. Arts funding was seen as extravagant in a system that values data over a full educational experience.

    When I visited my old elementary school in 2015, the band room did not even exist anymore. I grieved for the school’s students who no longer had the opportunity to find the joy of mastering an instrument.

    California voters understood the magnitude of this loss when 64.4% of voters opted to approve Proposition 28 in 2022. This measure provided an additional source of funding for arts and music education for K-12 public schools with rules to ensure that districts used this money to supplement, not supplant, existing funding.

    This included a requirement that schools with 500 or more students use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% for training and materials.

    Complaints grew as parents in Los Angeles noticed that their children were not seeing improved access to art and music funding as the Proposition 28 money started to flow into the district. As the author of the proposition, Austin Beuttner was well acquainted with the rules it set in place and agreed that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was not following the spirit or the letter of the law.

    After months of trying to get the district to do the right thing, Beuttner joined parents, students,and teachers in filing a lawsuit against the district and current Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho.

    The suit could have served as a wake-up call to LAUSD’s leadership that their actions were being watched, but they did not use it as an opportunity to ensure the Proposition 28 money was being spent properly. Carvalho saw the suit as a public relations problem, and instead of fixing the compliance issues, he tried to spin the narrative. As noted by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Jeff Chemerinsky, he “has already decided to double down on explanations not grounded in fact.”

    To resolve this issue, the plaintiffs are demanding that LAUSD:

    • Publicly acknowledge that it misspent the Proposition 28 funds in the 2023–24 and 2024–25 school years.
    • Fully restore the misspent and misallocated funding to schools.
    • Be fully transparent about how the funding is used in future years.

    In a letter to the LAUSD’s general counsel, Chemerinsky reminds the district that, if it is found that the funds were not used properly, it will have to return the money to the state. Combined with possible penalties for “violating the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Black and Latino students,” LAUSD could be facing a hit to its budget of over $100 million.

    This is not a slip-and-fall lawsuit designed to squeeze scarce education funding from our children’s classrooms. Rather, it is intended to improve the educational experience of our students.

    The suit would not have been brought if Carvahlo and the district had engaged with the community instead of ignoring their concerns. As Chermerinsky notes, “families, labor partners and concerned citizens spent months seeking answers. Regrettably, LAUSD refused to meaningfully respond.”

    The lawsuit has also attracted the attention of California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who has asked the state auditor to look into how the funds were spent.

    If the audit proceeds, Bryan says, “The district is going to have to produce the necessary documents to show that they are in compliance.” Based on statements from Carvalho saying the author of the proposition has a “misunderstanding of the law,” LAUSD should be concerned that its creative budgeting will not pass muster when held up to scrutiny.

    The LAUSD board must make it clear to Carvahlo that the concerns of their constituents can no longer be ignored by an increasingly detached bureaucracy. A good place to start would be by settling this lawsuit.

    •••

    Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, and serves as the education chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. Read more opinion pieces by Petersen.

    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