برچسب: Why

  • 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

  • Jumping off rocks: Why kids need outdoor play to thrive

    Jumping off rocks: Why kids need outdoor play to thrive


    Nature is a kind of therapy at TimberNook ,where children play in the woods to heal behavorial issues.

    credit: TimberNook

    Jumping off rocks. Climbing trees. Hanging upside down. Spinning so fast it would make an adult dizzy.

    Meet Angela Hanscom, an occupational therapist who has come to the conclusion that children need adventurous activities to develop a healthy sense of body and mind. Not only do children need way more movement than our sedentary society allows them, she suggests, but they need precisely the kinds of movements that make adults gasp, if they are going to thrive. 

    Angela Hanscom, an occupational therapist who founded TimberNook.
    credit: TimberNook

    Often brought into classrooms to solve behavioral issues, Hanscom realized that children today do not get enough free play, exploration and exercise to allow them to focus properly in school. She began using movement as therapy, helping kids heal through spinning too fast on the merry-go-round and flying too high on the swings. 

    Hanscom, a mother of three, founded TimberNook in 2013. It began as an experimental therapy program in her own backyard before expanding to three woodland sites in Maine and spreading to franchises nationally.

    She recently discussed her philosophy of child development, which is also the theme of her book, “Balanced and Barefoot: How Unrestricted Outdoor Play Makes for Strong, Confident, and Capable Children.”

    How dangerous is it for children to be too sedentary?

    The current research is that kids sit in chairs for about nine hours a day. Being driven to school, being driven home from school, sitting for hours. And then they go home and they have homework. They might have some sports, but a lot of times they’re still in an upright position.

    What really needs to happen is kids need to spin in circles. They need to go upside down because inside the inner ear are these little hair cells, and when we move in rapid ways, the fluid in the ears moves back and forth, stimulating those hair cells and developing what we call the vestibular sense. If that’s underdeveloped because kids are not moving enough, then what happens is it can affect what we call sensory integration, which is basically organization of the brain so they can learn.

    Why is it important for kids to climb trees and jump off rocks?

    It helps you know where your body is in space so you can stay in your seat without falling out. That’s actually an issue. Kids are literally falling out of the chairs in school now. The way we treat that as occupational therapists is that we have kids spin in circles, and that helps them gain more body awareness so they can navigate their environments effectively. 

    Sometimes I’ll see a kid spinning in circles and I’ll hear an adult say, don’t spin. You’re going to get dizzy or get off that rock, you’re going to get hurt. But if we, as adults, keep them from moving in those ways, we have actually become the barrier to the neurological development that needs to happen so they can become safe in their environment. 

    credit: TimberNook

    Some may call your style of outdoor therapy radical and progressive, others might see it as common sense. How do you describe it? 

    I think of it more like a restoration. I don’t think this is a progressive idea. As an occupational therapist, for me, the true occupation of a child is play. And outdoor play is a really meaningful one for most of us. Most of us have fond memories of it, but it’s also really at risk. … That’s why it’s so therapeutic. That’s why a lot of therapists will train in this, because they see how healing it is. It’s giving children what you had, what they were always meant to have.

    It’s actually a very traditional approach, as opposed to something radical.

    Yes, we’re just trying to protect a tradition. We’re saying you can’t touch this. For instance, when we go into schools, teachers aren’t allowed to go into playtime and do teachable moments. We save that for later. This is their time where they have to figure things out. The children need that time. 

    Have you sort of recreated your own childhood?

    Growing up in Vermont, it was a bunch of kids, we’d have like five or six of us. But at TimberNook, it’s like 25 children out in the woods creating societies with natural materials. It’s a dream come true for kids. It’s outdoor play for hours. It challenges them to think creatively. 

    When did you start collaborating with schools?

    We started going to schools with TimberNook in 2017. That was a fascinating process. We’re in 10 schools now, but one in particular, Laconia Christian Academy, is really doing it right.  They started it five years ago, and they did it once a week for two hours, TimberNook time at school, and immediately saw benefits. So they increased it to four hours of woodland time. 

    It’s a very academic school. So when they saw the benefits, they took their half an hour of recess and went to an hour, on top of their four hours of TimberNook time. 

    Did increasing play time have an impact on academic performance?

    During the pandemic they saw no change in academics. If anything, they saw an increase. The headmaster said, we’re seeing joy, we’re seeing kids more resilient, stronger, able to figure out their own problems. So that’s been really interesting. We’re researching that now with the University of New Hampshire on how it’s changing the culture of schools. That study is just starting, but it’s really going to be fascinating, because I think it’s time to rethink what we’re doing in schools. 

    What lured kids away from playing outside? Screens? Or parental fear of dangers outside?

    One of the biggest factors is due to fear. Fear is something that we cannot see, but it is one of the major reasons why parents and schools aren’t providing enough outdoor play time. Fear that there isn’t enough time for play in school settings. The tendency to feel schools need to push more academics. Fear that children will miss out if not playing enough sports at a very really early age. This leads to overscheduling of children for sports. … Screen time is also another major factor. It is highly addictive and is replacing a lot of good old-fashioned playtime. The kind where children are digging in the dirt for hours, rolling down hills, developing the muscles and senses for healthy child development.

    For a lot of families, the pandemic meant forcing your kid to stare at a screen for hours for remote learning, and now it’s hard to walk that back.

    We’re in a bigger hole than we were before. I think the pandemic unveiled a lot of the issues and then just made it worse, unfortunately. 

    Are you optimistic that we can try to make that change as a society? 

    I really think people are waking up. I think the time is now, there’s so much interest, and everyone you talk to now knows that this is an issue.





    Source link

  • Why — and how — some California schools bounced back five years after the pandemic

    Why — and how — some California schools bounced back five years after the pandemic


    Kindergarten teacher Carla Randazzo watches a student write alphabet letters on a white board at Golden Empire Elementary School in Sacramento.

    Credit: Rich Pedroncelli / AP Photo

    California’s students have struggled in the five years since the pandemic closed schools across the state. But kids in many schools are bouncing back, returning to pre-Covid achievement levels. What’s working? How have some districts innovated to turn kids’ learning curves upward once again?

    After analyzing student-level statewide data and visiting nine districts in each of the past three years, our team has made these discoveries:

    Mindful policies make a difference

    Nationwide, the pandemic erased nearly two decades of progress in math and reading. In California, average math proficiency decreased by 6.4 percentage points between 2019 and 2022, and reading proficiency dropped by 4 percentage points. Our work shows a modest positive effect of early reopening and federal recovery investments over this period. This highlights the importance of keeping schools open when it is safe to do so and prioritizing high-need students in reopening. Federal stimulus dollars also helped during this period.

    Our statewide work further shows that districts blended, braided and sequenced multiple funding sources to extend instructional learning time, strengthen staffing and provide learning supports.

    We also studied the impact of recovery investments and specific district recovery programs. We did not find that increased federal Covid funding to schools increased student test scores post-pandemic. However, districts that devoted funds to teacher retention efforts and extended learning time showed more improvement in student attendance, a key to improving academic outcomes.  

    Cross-sector partnerships advance whole-child development

    Prolonged school closure, social isolation, economic anxiety, housing and food insecurity, Covid-19 infection, and the loss of loved ones exacerbated a national mental health crisis already underway before the pandemic. In 2021, 42% of high school students nationwide experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and 32% attempted or seriously considered attempting suicide. As schools reopened, educators found themselves dealing with not just academic learning, but also support for basic needs (such as food and health care), mental health, and life skills (such as relationship skills).

    Some districts pivoted to fostering whole-child development. For example, Compton Unified partnered with community health providers to offer health care services (such as vaccinations and check-ups), and Del Norte Unified leveraged Medi-Cal reimbursements to provide mental health counseling and therapy sessions. Educators will still need to deal with the academic, behavioral and life-skills needs for years to come. More cross-sector partnerships with public health, social services and housing would better equip schools to address these challenges.

    School innovations foster a rebound in learning

    Overall spending infusions have helped students rebound, but the impact has been relatively small. More important is how Covid relief funds were spent by districts. Our longitudinal case study of nine districts revealed some substantial organizational changes — reforms that may stick over time.

    One large structural reform was the investment in student well-being. Before the pandemic, student well-being was considered mostly secondary to instruction and academic achievement. However, the pandemic highlighted the need to integrate life skills into instruction. As a result, districts invested in new program materials and moved resources to hire counselors, social workers, psychologists, and increased student access to school-based supports. Some even built new community centers where students and families come together.

    A smaller scale, yet key, reform is districts’ investment in career pathways. Districts like Compton and Milpitas Unified offer a wide variety of pathways — from E-sports to computer science to early education — that are tied to on-the-job internships and certificates. These pathways have played an important role in engaging students and connecting them with employment opportunities.

    Districts also tried new approaches to the structure of schooling and classroom practices. For example, Glendale Unified shifted to a seven-period block schedule that allowed middle and high school students to add an elective course that sparked their interest. In Poway Unified, small groups of students meet with teachers and classroom aides to focus on specific skill areas.

    Digital innovations engage students, but gaps remain

    Many districts have turned to digital innovations to motivate kids. In Poway, coaches embedded in the classroom work with teachers to build learning stations, where stronger students work in teams, freeing teachers to provide more direct instruction to kids at risk of falling behind.

    Unfortunately, since the pandemic, the digital divide has narrowed, but it has not been eliminated

    In spring 2020, when schools abruptly shifted online, 40% of California households with school-age children did not have reliable internet or devices for distance learning. Over time, the state has made remarkable progress in device access, but not as much progress with internet access. The lack of progress could be attributed to multiple factors, including the absence of pre-existing infrastructure and affordability challenges. Federal and state governments provided unprecedented investments (such as the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program and California Senate Bill 356) to address barriers to universal broadband access; however, communities face significant challenges in building out infrastructure and improving affordability.

    The pandemic provided an unprecedented opportunity to rethink and restart public education. Given the increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters, learning disruptions will become the new norm for many communities throughout the U.S.

    By learning from the example of districts that have demonstrated resilience and success in pandemic recovery, we can better prepare for future disruptions and build a more resilient public education that supports all students.   

    •••

    Niu Gao is a principal researcher at the American Institutes for Research. Julian Betts is a professor at UC San Diego. Jonathan Isler and Piper Stanger are administrators at the California Department of Education.

    Bruce Fuller, professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley, was part of the research team and contributed to this report.

    This collaboration research is supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through grant R305X230002 to the American Institutes for Research (AIR). Any errors or misinterpretations belong to the authors and do not reflect the views of the institute, the U.S. Department of Education or the California Department of Education.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. 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

  • Thom Hartmann: Why Pam Bondi Arrested Judge Dugan in Milwaukee

    Thom Hartmann: Why Pam Bondi Arrested Judge Dugan in Milwaukee


    Thom Hartmann is a brilliant journalist who is fast to figure out the stories behind the headlines. Here, he explains why Attorney General Pam Bondi had Milwaukee County Jusge Hannah Dugan arrested and paraded her out of her courthouse in handcuffs. FBI Director Kash Patel tweeted pictures of the judge in handcuffs.

    Hartmann writes that the goal was a warning to other judges:

    The audience for Pam Bondi‘s performance yesterday — when federal agents swarm-raided a county judge — was not the general public. They don’t care if the story vanishes six or 12 or 24 hours into the news cycle, so long as vanishes. The real audience for their action was a very small number of people: the nation’s judges. They’ve pacified the Article I branch of government, Congress, and now they are in the process of pacifying the article III Judiciary branch. That will leave only the president in charge of the entire country under all circumstances in all ways. That is called dictatorship. Real dictatorship. Vladimir Putin style dictatorship. In fact it appears more and more every day that Putin is Trump’s mentor. If not his handler. And Trump is doing everything he can, with help from a South African billionaire, to destroy the traditional American infrastructure and nation and turn us into the newest member of the dictators club, joining Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Hungary, and the rest of the fascist and authoritarian world. And to get there, now that they have pacified Congress, they only have to seize control of the Judiciary and then nothing except we the people will stand in their way. And they know it. First, terrorize Congress. Second, terrorize the media. Third, terrorize the judges and lawyers. (the final step in that process for them will be the Supreme Court, and if they can first terrorize the entire federal judiciary it will be much easier to terrorize the Court). And finally begin terrorizing the individual citizens until the process is complete and we are fully Russia and all dissent is suppressed. And they know that time is running out because elections are coming and their popularity is already crashing. They are at maximum power right now and it is beginning to decline. This is another reason why they are pushing so hard to frighten judges. If Trump can do this as quickly as Hitler or Putin did, it could happen very quickly, possibly even in the next few weeks. Buckle up…

    Hartmann also wrote about Trump’s habit of lying:

    Busted: Trump stuns Time Magazine with outlandish lies to cover up his trade deal collapse. Donald Trump has lied his entire life, but China’s President Xi is committed to not letting him get away with lying about his trade negotiations with that country. On Tuesday, Trump sat down with two TIME Magazine reporters and repeatedly lied to them, saying that he was negotiating with China and that he’d already cut “over 200” deals with other nations to resolve the trade war he declared roughly a month ago. In fact, as the reporters pointed out, he’s not inked even one single deal so far and, to make things far worse for him, China is actively using social media to tell the world that they’re not even bothering to talk with his people, must less President Xi calling Trump himself. We’ve had some terrible presidents throughout our history and some have done some terrible things; John Adams imprisoning newspaper editors, Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears, both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan conspiring with foreign countries to steal American elections. But lying to the press and the people on such a routine basis — over 30,000 documented lies in his first term, and daily lies now — is something new in the American experience. Democracy can’t work when a nation can’t trust its leaders to tell them the truth on issues of consequence, which appears to be exactly Trump’s (and Putin’s) goal: the destruction of our republic from the inside, just as Khrushchev predicted.

    Then Hartmann wondered why some of Trump’s Wall Street pals are getting stock tips:

    Are Wall Street insiders getting stock tips from Trump? And why is Apple moving their production to India instead of the US? Fox’s senior business correspondent Charles Gasparino told his viewers on Thursday that “senior Wall Street execs with ties to the White House” had informed him that they were getting tips from the Trump administration on trade talks that could (and do) swing markets. When Gasparino approached Treasury Secretary and billionaire Scott Bessent’s press team, they refused to deny the reports. Remember when Martha Stewart went to prison for six months because a doctor friend told her about the results from clinical trials of a new drug and she passed that info along to her stockbroker? Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe the astonishing level of corruption across this administration. Of course, they have a hell of a role model to emulate in Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Apple reports they’re considering moving their iPhone production out of China in response to Trump’s tariff threats. But are they bringing it to Texas or Kentucky? Not a chance. India is the new destination, according to news reports. So much for Eisenhower’s “patriotic American companies”; that was so 1950s. The entire concept of doing good by the country that made you rich is long dead, the victim of the Reagan Revolution’s embrace of neoliberal free trade and doctrine of putting profits above people and patriotism.

    As you read here, Michael Tomasky said that Trump was taking in millions from suckers by selling his meme coins, a for-profit deal that would have shocked the nation if it had been done by Biden or any other president.

    Hartmann warns about the grifting, which the Mainstream Media doesn’t seem to care much about:

    While America is burning (both economically and from climate change), professional grifter Trump is making out like a bandit. Are Americans paying attention yet? Can you imagine how Republicans would have responded if President Biden had announced that he and his son Hunter were going to start selling autographed pictures of himself for a few thousand dollars each and would be running the business out of the White House? And that the top purchasers — even if they were foreign nationals — would be having a private dinner with him and get a tour of the White House? They’d be fainting in the streets, screaming in front of the cameras, and convening investigations, grand juries, and criminal prosecutions faster than a weasel in a henhouse. But when Trump announced this week that he was selling his meme coins — which are just serial-numbered digital images of Trump or his wife with no intrinsic value — and the top 220 “investors” would have dinner with him, not even one elected Republican stood up to object. This is how far the party has fallen; they’re all in on the grift, and many are looking for ways to cash in on it as apparently Marjorie Taylor Greene did when it was reported it looked like she was buying and selling stocks based on insider information. 



    Source link

  • Why many colleges are giving more credit for learning outside the classroom

    Why many colleges are giving more credit for learning outside the classroom


    Alice Keeney was in the Navy from 2003 through 2012, where she learned how to safely operate the nuclear propulsion plants that power submarines and aircraft carriers.

    When she enlisted in the Navy in 2003, Alice Keeney attended naval nuclear power school. 

    There, she learned how to safely operate the nuclear propulsion plants that powered submarines or aircraft carriers — knowledge that she used when she was deployed outside the Arabian Gulf as a nuclear surface warfare officer in the late 2000s. 

    Keeney’s expertise in nuclear theory and practice was valued enough that she became an instructor in the Navy, and she trained the first 22 women who became submarine volunteers.

    Keeney specifically chose this path into the Navy because she believed it would give her skills that are valued in the civilian world. She spent many 12-hour days in school — not counting homework — studying advanced physics, math, chemistry and reactor core nuclear principles. She expected she could skip a few semesters ahead in college — and maybe even have enough funding from her G.I. Bill left over to attend graduate school. But it wasn’t that easy.  

    When she enrolled in chemical engineering at Cal Poly Pomona in 2012, Keeney was dismayed to learn that nothing on her Joint Services transcripts, a document that describes military training in a way that makes sense to colleges or employers, amounted to a single college credit.

    “It was frustrating to look at my transcript — for somebody who has the experience I have, who has the training that I have,” Keeney said. “There were classes listed like general chemistry — I should never have had to take that.”

    The benefits of getting credit for prior learning

    When students start college later in life, they often bring unique knowledge and skills with them. The military is the most common way — at least it is now — but that experience can also come through a job, a hobby or even volunteering.

    Increasingly, universities and colleges are working on ways to award credit to students for what they have learned outside the classroom. California’s community colleges and Cal State University system, in particular, have expanded this over the past decade, formally recognizing this experience, known as credit for prior learning (CPL).

    This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom praised the practice during a news conference about the state’s effort to improve career education. He is promoting a shift toward what he calls a “skillset mindset,” where Californians can demonstrate their skills and knowledge beyond grades or a credential, whether those skills were picked up in school, the military or volunteering.

    He lauded the community colleges for ensuring that military members don’t have to “take basic requirements for education that they’ve already received in the military,” he said. “They get credit for prior learning.”

    How students receive credit can vary widely, depending on the discipline. Students might take a challenge test. A portfolio review by a faculty member might be appropriate for business or art courses. Some jobs require certifications that can transfer into course credit.

    Research shows that students who receive credit for what they’ve learned outside a classroom save time and valuable tuition dollars. A national study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) found that students who entered college with 12 credits through prior learning could save anywhere from $1,500 to $10,500 and shave nine to 14 months off their time in college. 

    There are also psychological benefits for students who start college with credits under their belts. 

    “Students begin their college careers with a sense of momentum and accomplishment,” said Tina Barlolong, a veteran and credit-for-prior-learning counselor at Palomar College in San Diego.

    This might help to explain why 49% of students who received this credit for prior learning completed their degree compared with 27% of students who received no credit, according to the study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. The national study followed more than 200,000 students, largely over the age of 25, at 72 institutions for over seven years, beginning in 2011.

    “That student immediately feels valued, they feel seen, and they’re going to take more advanced level classes, they’re more likely to take more units,” said Su Jin Jez, CEO of the nonprofit California Competes, a nonpartisan policy and research organization. 

    Students who receive credit for prior learning avoid the sense of deflation that Keeney felt when she realized that she would be required to take courses, like general chemistry, that she had long surpassed as a nuclear propulsion plant supervisor in the Navy. That may send students the message that college isn’t for them, Jez said.

    “We spend all this money on them and put them in harm’s way,” said James Cahill, an advocate for credit for prior learning for vets. “They come home and are told [their experience is] worthless.”

    Meeting workforce demand

    This is a subject that hits close to home for Jez. Her father spent two decades as a plane mechanic in the Air Force, but when he tried to attend a community college, he struggled to prove that he had the knowledge and skills to skip ahead in his coursework. Because he couldn’t get college credit, he opted to become a letter carrier.

    “We did fine, but he would have earned more,” Jez said. It’s not just her father who lost out, she said; the workforce also lost a worker with highly specialized and in-demand skills.

    This is what has motivated Cahill to advocate at both the state and federal level for veterans to be awarded college credit for their military training. Cahill’s son served as a medic in Iraq, but he received no credit for his military training when he enrolled as a premed student at Sacramento State. Cahill said his son burned through his G.I. Bill money by taking a lot of classes on topics he had already put into practice on the battlefield.

    Cahill testified about this issue at the height of the pandemic when the shortage of nurses became a crisis.

    “If they had had these laws in place, imagine how many nurses could have backfilled,” he said. “Imagine how many teachers and law enforcement and the language that [veterans] bring to a college campus.”

    Credit for prior learning isn’t a new concept. Since at least World War II, the American Council on Education has evaluated military training to help veterans transition to civilian life. But there are still no federal guidelines requiring colleges and universities to honor veterans with credit.

    Recently, credit for prior learning has begun to receive renewed attention as a way to encourage students to enroll — or re-enroll — in college to finish their bachelor’s or other post-secondary degree. One group of students with some college credit but no degree has caught the attention of colleges and universities, especially in the wake of pandemic-era enrollment losses. 

    About 1 in 5 adults in California over age 25 have attended college but do not have a degree. These are students that were at one point interested in a credential, but were, for a variety of reasons, sidelined.

    One of those students was Benjamin King. His first attempt at college didn’t go well, he said; early fatherhood threw a wrench into his plans. He planned on returning to school but then found a well-paying computer programming job that was stable — until the company downsized, and he became jobless.

    “At that point, I was at this crossroads where I was trying to figure out: Do I want to continue on my programming journey or do I want to go in a different direction?” he said.

    King enrolled in Palomar College to explore his options. It wasn’t his programming background that called to him, but his passion for photography. He took a job on campus running the photography lab. He enjoyed mentoring students and offering advice from the vantage of being an older student.

    “The faculty really saw the way I was interacting with the younger students and how I was able to help them out,” he said. 

    He was encouraged to apply for an adjunct faculty position in the photography department. There was one problem: He didn’t yet have an associate degree needed for the position, and the clock was ticking for when applications would close.

    Faculty encouraged him to petition for college credit through the prior learning program. Palomar College’s work to expand its process has paid huge dividends for veterans and even active duty members, but it also helped King, who had no military experience.

    King put together a portfolio of his photography that the faculty reviewed. This enabled him to get credit for several photography courses, finish his degree quickly and ultimately, land the adjunct faculty position. 

    Now he enjoys teaching photography courses and continuing to mentor students. Recently, a pregnant student came to him concerned about her future. He was able to assure her that he had been in a similar boat — and that it wasn’t the end of the road for him.

    “I enjoyed programming and still do it for fun,” King said. “But I get much more fulfillment from this job.”

    California slowly improves

    Trying to get credit for prior learning can be difficult. It’s not just students who need help navigating this arena — even many counselors or faculty don’t know what’s happening on their own campuses, according to Wilson Finch, vice president of initiatives at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.

    Finch compares the national landscape of credit for prior learning to an overgrown garden: “It needs a good pruning and cleanup just to make it useful for people.”

    Public universities and colleges in California have been doing some of that pruning. Legislation over the past decade has encouraged public universities to do more.

    Veterans have been a key target of legislation. They make up a small percentage of the student population, but — at least for now — the majority of students who are receiving credit for prior learning. Most begin their academic careers at community colleges.

    In 2012, legislators passed a bill requiring the chancellor of California Community Colleges to determine which courses could be completed using military credit. But state Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, complained that three years after the law was supposed to be implemented, community colleges “still lack a uniform policy for the awarding of course credit for military education, training and experience.”

    The Senate passed Roth’s bill, SB 1071, requiring community colleges at the district level to create a consistent policy aimed at awarding veterans credit. Another bill, AB 1002, passed in 2021, was aimed at the CSU and UC systems.

    Cahill said he is frustrated to see Newsom only now promoting what had been signed into law before he took office.

    “The delay meant that thousands of veterans got no college credit,” he said.

    Advocates say that efforts to improve and expand credit for prior learning will benefit the larger student population outside the military. In fact, the 2020 study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning found that when non-veteran students received credit for prior learning, nearly three-quarters completed their credential.

    But a 2018 survey from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office noted that 81% of credit awarded at community colleges was for military training compared with 13% for job training.

    The Chancellor’s Office would like to see that change. It has set an ambitious goal of ensuring that at least 250,000 Californians receive credit for prior learning by 2030, with most of those credits going to non-veterans. The Mapping Articulated Pathways (MAP) Initiative supports community colleges in these efforts through training, technology and policy.

    Streamlining the process for veterans to get credit for prior learning has sparked an effort to improve the system as a whole, according to Brent Foster, Cal State’s assistant vice chancellor and state university dean of academic programs. Each campus in the CSU system now has its own policy.

    “That was the whole reason many of us went back to the drawing board with CPL,” Foster said.

    Public colleges and universities now largely have their own policies for credit for prior learning. But that doesn’t mean it’s been fully implemented.

    “It’s not a light switch you flip, and it just runs,” Foster said. “You have to make sure the bones are good.”

    Counselors, faculty members and other staff are key in making sure that students even know that they might be eligible for the credit. The 2018 survey by the Chancellor’s Office found that the main barrier was a lack of awareness.

    “It’s an important reminder as we intake students,” Foster said, “that we need to look at the whole student and what kinds of experiences might help them graduate faster and save money.” 

    At Cal Poly Pomona, that means that administrators involved in promoting credit for prior learning have been holding discussions with groups on campus, such as faculty, department chairs and advisers to get feedback, and, perhaps most importantly, a buy-in, according to José Lozano, articulation officer in the Cal Poly Pomona registrar’s office.

    Changes at Cal Poly Pomona have come too late for Keeney to avoid taking classes she didn’t need. To save money, she ended up finishing her senior year through an online college. But her story became a case study for improving the credit for prior learning process — not just at Cal Poly but other CSU and community college campuses, according to Elke Azpeitia, director of the Veterans Resource Center at Cal Poly Pomona.

    Keeney said beyond policy, it’s important that people inside the system understand why credit for prior learning is so important.

    “I think having allies in universities who see value in education that isn’t just structured in a college scenario or university scenario,” Keeney said. “That’s a big thing.” 





    Source link