[ad_1]
© 2026 WWB Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved
[ad_2]
Molly McVety
Source link
[ad_1]
Key points:
In schools across the country, teacher turnover and burnout have reached crisis levels. Educators are stretched thin, often working in isolation, and many professional learning communities (PLCs) fail to deliver meaningful results. After decades of studying and implementing PLCs, we realized that the model from the 1990s no longer meets the needs of today’s classrooms. That’s why we developed PLC+, the next generation of professional learning communities.
The traditional PLC model emphasized student learning outcomes but often overlooked adult learning, instructional practices, and the spread of innovation. Teams frequently addressed surface-level goals, such as “raise reading scores,” without a shared understanding of the root challenges. PLC+ restores focus on adult learning alongside student learning, encourages teachers to spend time in each other’s classrooms, and ensures effective practices are shared across the entire school.
Rethinking PLCs: Focusing on real problems
A trap that many schools fall into is setting broad outcome goals–like raising reading or math scores–without examining underlying instructional challenges. The common challenge is not the reading scores. That’s an outcome measure, but it’s not actually the problem we’re trying to solve. Rather, an example of a common challenge names the issue: “We want to leverage close reading to help students better understand complex texts (i.e., primary sources, scientific articles, and informational essays).” The common challenge then drives the investigation. PLC+ helps teams first identify the common challenge that matters most and then use five guiding questions to create evidence of impact in real time:
By focusing on these challenges, schools can generate actionable data and meaningful insights rather than waiting for annual test results.
Innovation must spread beyond a single team or department. If nobody else in the school ever gets to learn about what the science team learned, then that innovation stays locked into one department. By clarifying problems and sharing solutions, PLC+ allows the entire organization to benefit through the regular use of check-ins, gallery walks, and other collaborative events that allow teams to learn about each other’s progress and discoveries.
Building collegial affiliation to fight burnout
Educators spend most of their days with students, often with little interaction with other caring adults. Research shows that teacher burnout is closely tied to isolation. PLC+ combats this by fostering strong collegial affiliation and shared purpose.
Strong collegial affiliation not only fosters collaboration but also helps teachers stay in the profession, reducing burnout across the school.
PLC+ also incorporates emerging tools like AI–but ethically and effectively. We recommend treating AI like an intern: It can handle routine tasks such as drafting learning intentions or success criteria, but teachers remain in control. The human in the loop is the one with the expertise and the wisdom.
Measuring what matters beyond test scores
Evidence shows that schools engaging deeply with PLC+ see meaningful results. In Wake County, North Carolina, student outcome data from 121 of the district’s elementary schools indicate higher levels of engagement in PLC+ correlated with greater gains on standardized tests. While correlation does not prove causation, these findings highlight the importance of collaborative problem-solving in driving student outcomes.
However, test scores are just one indicator. PLC+ emphasizes real-time impact data, the spread of innovation across departments, teacher retention, and overall satisfaction. Without this evidence, educators cannot fully appreciate their collective efficacy or the impact of their work. True collective efficacy requires concrete evidence. Collective efficacy is sometimes misunderstood as being “rah, go team, we can do it.” That’s not it. You have to have evidence that your school organization is capable of addressing this particular issue. Without it, it becomes really difficult for educators to understand their impact.
By tracking multiple indicators, including progress and achievement analyses resulting from PLC+ cycles, schools gain a comprehensive understanding of what works–and what doesn’t–allowing teams to refine strategies in real time.
The payoff: Teachers who stay and students who thrive
PLC+ transforms school improvement from an isolated effort into a collaborative, evidence-informed process. It strengthens teacher affiliation, builds professional efficacy, and creates a pathway for that instructional innovation to spread across the organization. Ethical use of tools like AI allows teachers to focus on what they do best: knowing their students, designing effective lessons, and fostering learning communities that thrive.
The result is a school culture where teachers can solve real problems, see the impact of their work, and remain in the profession with a renewed sense of purpose and support. By focusing on the right challenges and creating collegial support, PLC+ helps educators stay engaged, effective, and resilient–benefiting students and the entire school community.
[ad_2]
Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey, San Diego State University & Health Sciences High and Middle College
Source link
[ad_1]
Key points:
Rather than replacing student thinking, when teachers design and guide AI experiences, the technology is most often used to deepen critical thinking and strengthen instruction, according to new insights from SchoolAI.
The research, AI isn’t replacing thinking: Teachers are using SchoolAI to deepen it and boost engagement, offers educators, school leaders, and policymakers large-scale evidence of how AI is actually being used in classrooms.
The report analyzed more than 23,000 teacher-created SchoolAI ‘Spaces’ used during the 2024-25 school year. These Spaces span English language arts, math, science, and social studies across elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. To answer the question of AI’s impact on student learning, we must first understand how it’s being used in the classroom. This study examined what teachers built and how students were asked to think when AI was involved.
Across subjects and grade levels, the data shows that higher-order thinking appears far more often than simple recall. Seventy-three percent of lessons require conceptual understanding, while 59 percent ask students to analyze information, and 58 percent ask them to evaluate ideas or make judgments. More than 75 percent of AI-supported lessons remain grounded in core academic curriculum, showing that teachers are extending familiar instruction rather than replacing it.
“There has been a lot of speculation about what AI might do to learning,” said Caleb Hicks, founder and CEO of SchoolAI. “This research gives educators, leaders, and policymakers something far more useful: evidence of what teachers are actually doing. When teachers design the experience and set clear expectations, AI becomes a way to push students toward deeper reasoning, analysis, and judgment. It supports rigorous thinking rather than replacing it, which is why AI can be a valuable tool for classroom learning.”
The study also highlights how teachers are using AI to create interactive, engaging learning experiences at scale while maintaining academic rigor. In science classrooms, roughly 25 percent of Spaces encourage open-ended investigation, while role-play and simulation appear in 18-20 percent of reading and social studies lessons.
At the same time, teachers recognize the importance of boundaries in responsible AI use. Teachers reinforce learning instead of simply looking up answers by designing experiences that push students toward deeper reasoning, not shortcuts.
“This study was designed to look at practice, not predictions,” said Cynthia Chiong, principal research scientist at SchoolAI. “We wanted to understand the kinds of thinking teachers are intentionally asking for when AI is involved. The findings offer concrete evidence of how teacher-led design shapes meaningful and responsible use of AI in real classrooms.”
Together, the findings challenge common fears about AI undermining learning. The research shows that when teachers lead the design, AI can strengthen critical thinking, increase engagement, and support responsible instruction across classrooms.
This press release originally appeared online.
[ad_2]
Staff and wire services reports
Source link
[ad_1]
Two Minnesota school districts and the state’s largest teachers union on Wednesday sued to block federal immigration agents from showing up to school property, which educators say is distressing families and disrupting student learning.
The move comes amid Operation Metro Surge targeting the state over the last several weeks, which is now somewhat receding with a drawdown of 700 agents “effective immediately,” Border Czar Tom Homan announced.
Fridley Public Schools, Duluth Public Schools and Education Minnesota in the suit argue that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t follow proper rulemaking procedure under the law when the agency last year abruptly rescinded a policy designating schools as protected areas where immigration enforcement should be limited to very narrow circumstances.
The complaint, filed in federal court, asks a judge to block the new policy and prohibit agents from carrying out immigration operations within 1,000 feet of a school or school bus stop “absent a judicial warrant or genuinely exigent circumstances.”
“In recognition of this fundamental importance of public education, and of the disruptive effect on education that would occur if immigration authorities were to conduct enforcement operations in or near schools, the federal government has for more than 30 years restricted immigration enforcement near schools and other “sensitive locations,’” the filing says. “The federal government has long recognized that it could effectively enforce immigration laws without, in its words, ‘denying or limiting . . . children access to their schools.’”
The lawsuit cites more than a dozen instances across several districts where federal agents were spotted in school parking lots and near bus stops and along bus routes. It describes one incident in Apple Valley when a preschool teacher “was detained by ICE when she exited the school building after being tricked to come outside by a false claim that someone hit her car.”
Attendance has dropped by one-third in Fridley since the surge began. Brenda Lewis, the district’s superintendent, on Wednesday explained that earlier in the morning, elementary school students saw ICE agents in cars roaming outside of the building and that a mother—who is a U.S. citizen—arrived with her child and was followed by two ICE vehicles.
“Do you know why this is happening? Because I am telling the truth on behalf of our district. That is why this is happening. This is clear and present terror,” she Lewis said.
In a statement to WCCO, the Department of Homeland Security said agents are not going to schools to arrest children, but instead to protect them.
“Criminals are no longer be able [sic] to hide in America’s schools to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense,” said Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of DHS. “If a dangerous illegal alien felon were to flee into a school, or a child sex offender is working as an employee, there may be a situation where an arrest is made to protect public safety. But this has not happened.”
The detention of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos alongside his father after he arrived home from preschool in Columbia Heights last month put the impact of the ongoing immigration crackdown on schools in the national spotlight.
Peg Nelson, an elementary school teacher in the district where Liam attends, said her school sees an average of 130 absences a day out of 570 students, a majority of whom are Hispanic.
“Our district recently began offering an online option for students who do not feel safe coming to school in person, but we don’t have enough resources to accommodate every request,” Nelson said. “I fear students will fall behind because they’re unable to safely attend classes.”
Kristen Sinicariello, a high school social studies teacher in the same Columbia Heights district, said one quarter of the student body is choosing remote learning. She explained that last week while driving to school, she saw ICE agents at a nearby park.
“A student in my AP World History class then arrived late to school only to let me know he had been pulled over by ICE on his way to school and was going to spend the class period in the office with the counselors,” she told reporters. “Today, this student has his head down all in class here for himself and his family have made him unable to learn.”
Lewis and John Magas, superintendent of Duluth Public Schools, said there is fear of retaliation among school leaders that is keeping other concerned districts from joining the lawsuit, too.
“They’re afraid of retribution because that’s the playbook these days. They’re afraid that federal funding will be taken away, or that there will be false allegations or investigations that are meant just to stop this type of thing,” he said.
[ad_2]
Caroline Cummings
Source link
[ad_1]
Even before I turned the key, I could feel my stomach knotting. The van sat there like a tomb in the hot Los Angeles morning sun — scarred, waiting. I’d been dreading this moment since my alarm buzzed at 6 a.m.
The van itself had seen better decades. Worn down, reeking of stale urine, sweat and something indefinable — maybe years of accumulated desperation. Torn seats, walls decorated with graffiti and frustration. Someone had carved “FUCK THIS PLACE” into the plastic behind my seat. Every morning, I stared at those words, wondering if today I’d finally agree.
I set off on my route: 10 students, mostly boys aged 10 to 18. For “safety,” I had a behaviorist riding along — in case someone decided to jump from a moving vehicle. I’d seen this wasn’t a one-off — it had happened before.
The aide climbing into the passenger seat was already scrolling his phone, earbuds in, checked out before we’d left the lot.
“No phones during transport,” I said, keeping my voice level. “We need all eyes on the kids.”
He glanced up with barely concealed irritation. “Yeah, OK.” Back to scrolling.
I was still finishing my special-education credential, working on a preliminary permit, when I took this job at a nonpublic school. These weren’t your neighborhood kids — they were the students their home districts had sent away after exhausting every other option. Ten boys, mostly from group homes and foster care, rejected by traditional schools and placed here. And I was supposed to transport them through LA traffic before I’d even completed my training.
My graduate program — the one I’d attended nights while my son did homework beside me — had covered theories and strategies, but nothing about surviving chaos in a rolling metal box. Yet here I was, keys in hand, essentially operating without a manual.
I pressed the gas. The van lurched forward.
Then Diego started pounding.
Not tapping the window. Not even knocking. Full-force hammering with both fists that made the entire van shudder. The sound crashed through my skull like a sledgehammer.
“I want out! Let me out! I WANT OUT!”
“Diego, stop!” My voice cracked.
Diego switched to his shoe, the sole smacking glass with sickening thuds. “LET ME OUT OF THIS FUCKING VAN!”
“Do something!” I pleaded with the behaviorist. “The window’s going to shatter!”
“Safety glass. It’ll hold.”
Safety glass. I wasn’t convinced. Any second: explosion, splinters everywhere, kids screaming and bleeding while I fought to control a van full of passengers barreling down a busy street.
I can’t do this. I’m going to die in this van. We’re all going to die.
Tuesday: Marcus lunged for the emergency exit while we rolled through traffic. The red handle jerked upward in my rearview mirror, and ice flooded my veins.
“I’m walking home!” He yanked harder.
I pictured his small body on asphalt, cars speeding past. Swerving onto the shoulder, horns screaming behind us, my hands shaking so violently I could barely steer.
“Marcus, step back!” The behaviorist called from his seat but didn’t budge.
“Help him!” My voice shattered. “PLEASE!”
“I can’t use physical restraint without authorization.”
“He could be killed!”
Finally, reluctantly, the aide unbuckled and shuffled toward the back. Marcus still gripped the handle, face twisted with desperation.
“I wanna walk! Twenty miles, I don’t care! I hate this van! I hate everything!”
At that moment, I recognized something in his face — a kid on the absolute edge, ready to throw himself into traffic rather than stay trapped.
“I know you hate it,” I said quietly. “I hate it, too. But we’re getting through this together.”
Something in my tone reached him. His grip loosened.
What sustained me through the darkest moments was stubborn Midwest grit and desperate financial need. As a single mom barely holding onto the home I’d fought to buy — money tight, fridge often empty — walking away wasn’t an option.
My father’s lessons echoed: Get a job, rely on yourself, be tough — the world doesn’t give handouts. Those deeply embedded threads of self-reliance became my lifeline. When everything inside screamed to quit, those early lessons whispered to stay.
Most mornings required a brutal pep talk just to leave the house: You have no choice. Make this work.
Friday night, I called my sister, who taught at a private school in the Midwest.
“I can’t do this anymore,” I whispered from my dark kitchen. “I’m losing my mind.”
“I can’t. I need this job.”
“You need to stay alive more than you need this job.”
But it wasn’t simple. Deep down, I started to sense that these students and I were kindred spirits — both hanging on desperately, trying to find our way. Behaviorists saw them as problems to manage. The district saw numbers on spreadsheets. I saw children being failed by every system meant to protect them.
No one warns you that most new special-education teachers don’t survive five years. Maybe that statistic doesn’t belong on glossy program brochures with hefty tuition tags. The chasm between training and reality wasn’t just frustrating — it was dangerous, leaving me scrambling daily to construct systems I’d never learned, improvising under pressure, praying nothing would implode.
So I stayed. Where was I gonna go? I’d just spent thousands on this new career. Every morning, I climbed into that battered van — my rolling coffin — turned the key and prayed we’d all reach school alive.
By the time I pulled up to our destination each morning, my hands shook against the steering wheel. The school sat like a fortress at the top of weathered steps: a pink stucco annex attached to a church. Inside that makeshift building were five cramped classrooms lined with dim corridors. Scarred desks carved with years of graffiti.
And something no one had mentioned during interviews: containment rooms tucked behind classroom closets — bare spaces barely larger than closets themselves, single flickering bulbs, burly behaviorists stationed outside while students inside screamed, kicked and banged.
The sounds were maddening: raw desperation mixed with fear. The smell — sharp, unmistakable urine when a child finally lost control.
I realized quickly this wasn’t about education. It was about containment and management.
The van had just been the beginning.
I stayed 20 years. I worked my way from that battered van to SELPA (Special Education Local Plan Area) director, overseeing services for thousands of students. I attended monthly meetings with 60-plus California SELPA directors — every district in the state represented in one room.
What I witnessed wasn’t isolated dysfunction. It was a playbook. Districts manufacturing budget crises while paying consultants $285 per hour. Students’ success was used as justification to cut their services. Compliance violations were so routine they only mattered when someone documented them. And administrators who spoke up? We got “restructured.”
I documented everything. Published editorials. Presented evidence to board members. When I refused to stay silent, the retaliation took a toll on my health that I’m still recovering from.
But I’m still here. And I won’t stop writing about what I saw behind that classroom door — what special-education teachers really do.
Sally Iverson served over 20 years in California’s special-education system, from classroom teacher to SELPA director. She is the author of ”THE UNLIKELY TEACHER: Down the Rabbit Hole of Special Education” (She Writes Press, April 2027). This essay is adapted from that book.
Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Littleton Public Schools agreed Thursday to pay $3.85 million to the families of three children who are autistic and were abused by a school bus monitor.
The school board voted unanimously to approve the settlement Thursday, slightly more than two weeks after former bus monitor Kiarra Jones pleaded guilty to abusing the three boys while they were riding the bus to and from The Joshua School, a private school in Englewood.
Littleton Public Schools was contracted to bus the students, who are nonverbal and autistic, to and from school each day. Jones abused the boys on their bus rides for about six months, between September 2023 and March 2024, before authorities discovered surveillance video that showed the woman elbowing, stomping and punching the students.
The boys’ parents frequently asked teachers and officials at The Joshua School about their sons’ unexplained bruises and injuries while the abuse was going on, but school officials claimed the children were injuring themselves.
The families have filed a lawsuit against The Joshua School, alleging that school officials mishandled their concerns and never reported suspicions of abuse to outside authorities, enabling the monitor’s abuse.
In a statement, attorneys from Denver law firm Rathod Mohamedbhai said the three families appreciate the school district’s willingness to resolve the case early to allow for the children to start healing.
“No parent should have to wonder if their children will come home from school hurt by the very people entrusted to care for them,” attorneys for the families said Thursday night.
Littleton Public Schools has changed policies around reviewing and retaining bus surveillance, according to the statement.
“The families continue to advocate for the rights of their children and for the dignity and rights of the Autism community as a whole,” attorneys for the three families said. “They continue to seek accountability and justice from everyone who played a role in not ending the abuse against their children sooner through their ongoing lawsuit against The Joshua School.”
Joshua School Executive Director Cindy Lystad previously issued a statement that put blame for the abuse on Littleton Public Schools and said the school stands by teachers and staff members.
School board members did not comment on the settlement before or after approving it Thursday night, but district officials posted a letter online from Superintendent Todd Lambert addressing the settlement shortly after the vote.
The settlement will be “fully funded through insurance” and will have “no adverse impact on the educational services LPS students receive,” Lambert wrote.
“We will continue to look for ways to strengthen our practices, to communicate transparently with you, and to do everything in our power to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of every student in our care,” he wrote.
Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Key points:
Our students are coming of age in a world that demands global competency. From economic interdependence to the accelerating effects of climate change and mass migration, students need to develop the knowledge and skills to engage and succeed in this diverse and interconnected world. Consequently, the need for global competency education is more important than ever.
“Being born into a global world does not make people global citizens,” Andreas Schleicher of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has said. “We must deliberately and systematically educate our children in global competence.”
Here at Global Cities, we regularly talk with educators eager to bring global competency into their classrooms in ways that engage and excite students to learn. Educators recognize the need, but ask a vital question: How do we teach something we can’t measure?
It’s clear that in today’s competitive and data-driven education environment, we need to expand and evaluate what students need to know to be globally competent adults. Global competency education requires evaluation tools to determine what and whether students are learning.
The good news is that two recent independent research studies found that educators can use a new tool, the Global Cities’ Codebook for Global Student Learning Outcomes, to identify what global competency learning looks like and to assess whether students are learning by examining student writing. The research successfully used the evaluation tool for global competency programs with different models and curricula and across different student populations.
Global Cities developed the Codebook to help researchers, program designers, and educators identify, teach, and measure global competency in their own classrooms. Created in partnership with Harvard Graduate School of Education’s The Open Canopy, the Codebook captures 55 observable indicators across four core global learning outcomes: Appreciation for Diversity, Cultural Understanding, Global Knowledge, and Global Engagement. The Codebook was developed using data from our own Global Scholars virtual exchange program, which since 2014 has connected more than 139,000 students in 126 cities worldwide to teach global competency.
In Global Scholars, we’ve seen firsthand the excitement of directly connecting students with their international peers and sparking meaningful discussions about culture, community, and shared challenges. We know how teachers can effectively use the Codebook and how Global Cities workshops extend the reach of this approach to a larger audience of K-12 teachers. This research was designed to determine whether the same tool could be used to assess global competency learning in other virtual exchange programs, not only Global Cities’ Global Scholars program.
These studies make clear that the Codebook can reliably identify global learning in diverse contexts and help educators see where and how their students are developing global competency skills in virtual exchange curricula. You can examine the tool (the Codebook) here. You can explore the full research findings here.
The first study looked at two AFS Intercultural Programs curricula, Global You Changemaker and Global Up Teen. The second study analyzed student work from The Open Canopy‘s Planetary Health and Remembering the Past learning journeys.
In the AFS Intercultural Programs data, researchers found clear examples of students from across the globe showing Appreciation for Diversity and Cultural Understanding. In these AFS online discussion boards, students showed evidence they were learning about their own and other cultures, expressed positive attitudes about one another’s cultures, and demonstrated tolerance for different backgrounds and points of view. Additionally, the discussion boards offered opportunities for students to interact with each other virtually, and there were many examples of students from different parts of the world listening to one another and interacting in positive and respectful ways. When the curriculum invited students to design projects addressing community or global issues, they demonstrated strong evidence of Global Engagement as well.
Students in The Open Canopy program demonstrated the three most prevalent indicators of global learning that reflect core skills essential to effective virtual exchange: listening to others and discussing issues in a respectful and unbiased way; interacting with people of different backgrounds positively and respectfully; and using digital tools to learn from and communicate with peers around the world. Many of the Remembering the Past posts were especially rich and coded for multiple indicators of global learning.
Together, these studies show that global competency can be taught–and measured. They also highlight simple, but powerful strategies educators everywhere can use:
The Codebook is available free to all educators, along with hands-on professional development workshops that guide teachers in using the tool to design curriculum, teach intentionally, and assess learning. Its comprehensive set of indicators gives educators and curriculum designers a menu of options–some they might not have initially considered–that can enrich students’ global learning experiences.
Our message to educators is simple: A community of educators (Global Ed Lab), a research-supported framework, and practical tools can help you teach students global competency and evaluate their work.
The question is no longer whether we need more global competency education. We clearly do. Now with the Codebook and the Global Ed Lab, teachers can learn how to teach this subject matter effectively and use tools to assess student learning.
[ad_2]
Marjorie B. Tiven, Global Cities, Inc.
Source link
[ad_1]
Key points:
When you walk into a math classroom in Charleston County School District, you can feel the difference. Students aren’t just memorizing steps–they’re reasoning through problems, explaining their thinking, and debating solutions with their peers. Teachers aren’t rushing to cover content, because their clear understanding of students’ natural learning progressions allows them to spend more time exploring the why behind the math.
This cultural shift didn’t come from adopting a new curriculum or collecting more data. Instead, we transformed math education by investing deeply in our educators through OGAP (The Ongoing Assessment Project) professional learning–an approach that has reshaped not only instruction, but the confidence and professional identity of our teachers.
Why we needed a change
Charleston County serves more than 50,000 students across more than 80 schools. For years, math achievement saw small gains, but not the leaps we hoped for. Our teachers were dedicated, and we had high-quality instructional materials, but something was missing.
The gap wasn’t our teacher’s effort. It was their insight–understanding the content they taught flexibly and deeply.
Too often, instruction focused on procedures rather than understanding. Teachers could identify whether a student got a problem right or wrong, but not always why they responded the way they did. To truly help students grow, we needed a way to uncover their thinking and guide next steps more intentionally.
What makes this professional learning different
Unlike traditional PD that delivers a set of strategies to “try on Monday,” this learning model takes educators deep into how students develop mathematical ideas over time.
Across four intensive days, teachers explore research-based learning progressions in additive, multiplicative, fractional, and proportional reasoning. They examine real student work to understand how misconceptions form and what those misconceptions reveal about a learner’s thought process. It is also focused on expanding and deepening teachers’ understanding of the content they teach so they are more flexible in their thinking. Teachers appreciate that the training isn’t abstract; it’s rooted in everyday classroom realities, making it immediately meaningful.
Instead of sorting responses into right and wrong, teachers ask a more powerful question: What does this show me about how the student is reasoning?
That shift changes everything. Teachers leave with:
The power of understanding the “why”
Our district uses conceptual math curricula, including Eureka Math², Reveal Math, and Math Nation. These “HQIM” programs emphasize reasoning, discourse, and models–exactly the kind of instruction our students need.
But conceptual materials only work when teachers understand the purpose behind them.
Before this professional learning, teachers sometimes felt unsure about lesson sequencing and the lesson intent, including cognitive complexity. Now, they understand why lessons appear in a specific order and how models support deeper understanding. It’s common to hear teachers say: “Oh, now I get why it’s written that way!” They are also much more likely to engage deeply with the mathematical models in the programs when they understand the math education research behind the learning progressions that curriculum developers use to design the content.
That insight helps them stay committed to conceptual instruction even when students struggle, shifting the focus from “Did they get it?” to “How are they thinking about it?”
Transforming district culture
The changes go far beyond individual classrooms.
We run multiple sessions of this professional learning each year, and they fill within days. Teachers return to their PLCs energized, bringing exit tickets, student work, and new questions to analyze together.
We also invite instructional coaches and principals to attend. This builds a shared professional language and strengthens communication across the system. The consistency it creates is particularly powerful for new teachers who are still building confidence in their instructional decision-making.
The result?
This shared understanding has become one of the most transformative parts of our district’s math journey.
Results we can see
In the past five years, Charleston County’s math scores have climbed roughly 10 percentage points. But the most meaningful growth is happening inside classrooms:
Teachers are also the first to tell you whether PD is worth their time…and our teachers are asking for more. Many return to complete a second or third strand, and sometimes all four. We even have educators take the same strand more than once just to pick up on something they may have missed the first time. The desire to deepen their expertise shows just how impactful this learning has been. Participants also find it powerful to engage in a room where the collective experience spans multiple grade levels. This structure supports our goal of strengthening vertical alignment across the district.
Prioritizing professional learning that works
When professional learning builds teacher expertise rather than compliance, everything changes. This approach doesn’t tell teachers what to teach; it helps them understand how students learn.
And once teachers gain that insight, classrooms shift. Conversations deepen. Confidence grows. Students stop memorizing math and start truly understanding it.
[ad_2]
Jason Aldridge, Charleston County School District
Source link
[ad_1]
Key points:
With the end of federal COVID-19 emergency funding and the inherent volatility of state income tax revenues, California school districts are in an era of financial uncertainty. Fortunately, Jurupa Unified School District is already several years into the process of finding ways to track and control expenses while still supporting teachers and staff so they can provide the best possible educational experience for our students. Here’s how we’re making staffing and payroll processes more efficient, starting with the perennially challenging extra duty.
Getting a handle on extra duty
In addition to our salaried staff, we have a number of part-time, hourly, and what we call “extra duty” assignments. Because a significant amount of our funding comes from grants, many of our assignments are temporary or one-time. We fill those positions with extra duty requests so we’re not committed to ongoing payroll obligations.
For many years, those extra duty requests and time cards were on paper, which meant the payroll department was performing redundant work to enter the information in the payroll system. The request forms we used were also on paper, making it very difficult to track the actual time being used back to the request, so we could be sure that the hours being used were within the limitations of the request. We needed a better control mechanism that would help school sites stay within budget, as well as a more formal budget mechanism to encumber the department and site budgets to cover the extra duty requests.
Budgeting can get very complicated because it’s cross-functional. It includes a position-control component, a payroll component, and a financial budgeting component. We needed a solution that could make all of those universes work together. The mission was either to find a system or build one. Our county office started a pilot program with our district to build a system, but ultimately decided against continuing with this effort due to the resources required to sustain such a system for 23 county districts.
Our district engaged in a competitive process and chose Helios Ed. Within six months, our team developed and launched a new system to address extra duty. Since then, we have saved more than $100,000 in staffing costs, time expenses, and budget overruns because of the stronger internal controls we now have in place.
A more efficient (and satisfied) payroll department
Eliminating redundant data entry and working with data instead of paper has allowed us to reduce staffing by two full-time equivalents–not through layoffs, but through attrition. And because they have a system that is handling data entry for them, our payroll department has more time to give quality to their work, and feel they are working at a level more aligned to their skills.
Finding efficiencies in your district
While Jurupa Unified has found efficiencies and savings in these specific areas, every school district is different. As many California district leaders like to say, we have 1,139 school districts –and just as many ways of doing things. With that in mind, there are some steps to the process of moving from paper to online systems (or using online systems more efficiently) that apply universally.
Putting in a new payroll management system has made an enormous difference for our district, but it’s not the end of our cost-cutting process. We’re always looking at our different programs to see where we can cut back in ways that don’t impact the classroom. Ultimately, these changes are about ensuring that resources stay focused where they matter most. While budgets fluctuate and funding streams remain unpredictable, my team and I come to work every day because we believe in public education. I’m a product of public education myself, and I love waking up every day knowing that I can come back and support today’s students and teachers.
[ad_2]
Jacqueline Benson, Jurupa Unified School District
Source link
[ad_1]
Key points:
Teacher preparation programs have long emphasized curriculum, instruction, and assessment. However, they often fall short in one critical area: social-emotional and mental health needs of students.
We work daily with students whose academic success is inseparable from their psychological well-being. Nonetheless, we witness new educators wishing they were trained in not just behavior management, but, nowadays, the non-academic needs of children. If preservice programs are going to meet the demands of today’s classrooms, they must include deeper coursework in counseling, psychology, and trauma-informed teaching practices.
Students today are carrying heavier emotional burdens than ever before. Anxiety, bullying, depression, grief, trauma exposure (including complex trauma), and chronic stress are unfortunately quite common. The fallout rarely appears in uniform, typical, or recognizable ways. Instead, it shows up as behaviors teachers must interpret and address (i.e., withdrawal, defiance, irritability, avoidance, conflict, aggression and violence, or inconsistent work).
Without formal training, it is easy to label these actions as simple “misbehaviors” instead of asking why. However, seasoned educators and mental health professionals know that behaviors (including misbehaviors) are a means of communication, and understanding the root cause of a student’s actions is essential to creating a supportive and effective classroom.
Oftentimes, adults fall into a pattern of describing misbehaviors by children as “manipulative” as opposed to a need not being met. As such, adults (including educators) need to shift their mindsets. This belief is supported by research. Jean Piaget reminds us that children’s cognitive and emotional regulation skills are still developing and naturally are imperfect. Lev Vygotsky reminds us that learning and behavior are shaped by the quality of a child’s social interactions, including with the adults (such as teachers) in their lives. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy further reinforces that psychological safety and belonging must be met before meaningful learning or self-control can occur, and teachers need to initiate psychological safety.
Traditional classroom management training is often sparse in traditional preservice teacher training. It often emphasizes rules, procedures, and consequences. They absolutely matter, but the reality is far more nuanced. Behavior management and behavior recognition are not the same. A student who shuts down may be experiencing anxiety. A child who blurts out or becomes agitated may be reacting to trauma triggers in the environment. A student who frequently acts out may be seeking connection or stability in the only way they know how. Trauma-informed teaching (rooted in predictability, emotional safety, de-escalation, and relationship-building) is not just helpful, but is foundational in modern schools. Yet, many new teachers enter the profession with little to no formal preparation in these practices.
The teacher shortage only heightens this need. Potential educators are often intimidated not by teaching content, but by the emotional and behavioral demands that they feel unprepared to address. Meanwhile, experienced teachers often cite burnout stemming from managing complex behaviors without adequate support. Courses focused on child development, counseling skills, and trauma-informed pedagogy would significantly improve both teacher confidence and retention. It would also be beneficial if subject-area experts (such as the counseling or clinical psychology departments of the higher education institution) taught these courses.
Of note, we are not suggesting that teachers become counselors. School counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychometrists play essential and irreplaceable roles. However, teachers are the first adults to observe subtle shifts in their students’ behaviors or emotional well-being. Oftentimes, traditional behavior management techniques and strategies can make matters worse in situations where trauma is the root cause of the behavior. When teachers are trained in the fundamentals of trauma-informed practice and creating emotionally safe learning environments, they can respond skillfully. They can collaborate with or refer students to clinical mental-health professionals for more intensive support.
Teacher preparation programs must evolve to reflect the emotional realities of today’s classrooms. Embedding several clinically grounded courses in counseling, psychology, and trauma-informed teaching (taught by certified and/or practicing mental-health professionals) would transform the way novice educators understand and support their students. This would also allow for more studies and research to take place on the effectiveness of various psychologically saturated teaching practices, accounting for the ever-changing psychosocial atmosphere. Students deserve teachers who can see beyond behaviors and understand the rationale beneath it. Being aware of behavior management techniques (which is often pretty minimal as teacher-prep programs stand now) is quite different than understanding behaviors. Teachers deserve to be equipped with both academic and emotional tools to help every learner thrive.
[ad_2]
Dr. Yuvraj Verma, Bessemer City Middle School & William Howard Taft University & Jennifer Veitch, Bessemer City Middle School
Source link
[ad_1]
BATON ROUGE, La. — About two dozen second graders sat on the carpet at the front of Jacquelyn Anthony’s classroom, reviewing how to make tens. “Two needs eight!” the students yelled out together. “Six needs four!”
“The numbers may get a little trickier,” Anthony told them next. “But remember, the numbers we need to make 10 are still there.” The students then turned confidently to bigger calculations: Forty-six needs four ones to make a new number divisible by 10; 128 needs two to make 13 tens.
At the end of the hour, the second graders slung on their backpacks, gathered their Chromebooks and lined up at the door before heading to English and social studies class across the hall. While most schools wait until middle school to transition students from one class to another, kids at Louisiana’s Baton Rouge Center for Visual and Performing Arts do so starting at age 6 or 7. It’s part of a strategy known as departmentalizing, or platooning.
Anthony, rather than teaching all four core subjects, specializes in math. The school’s new facility, built in 2025, was designed with departmentalizing in mind: The classrooms have huge glass windows, so teachers can see their next class preparing to line up in the hallway.
“Teaching today is so different than it was a long time ago, and there are so many demands on them. And the demand to be an expert in your content area is very high,” said Sydney Hebert, magnet site coordinator for the art-focused public school in the East Baton Rouge Parish school district. “We want to make sure that our teachers are experts in what they’re teaching so that they can do a good job of teaching it to the kids.”
As schools contend with a decades-long slump in math scores — exacerbated by the pandemic — some are turning to this classroom strategy even for very young students. In recent years, more elementary schools have opted to departmentalize some grade levels in an attempt to boost academic achievement. The share of fourth and fifth grade classrooms operating on this schedule has doubled since the year 2000, from 15 percent to 30 percent in 2021. Often, that means educators will specialize in one or two subjects at most, such as fourth grade English language arts and social studies, or fifth grade math and science. The theory is that teachers who specialize will be more familiar with the content and better able to teach it.
That may be particularly important for math: Studies have shown that some early elementary school teachers experience anxiety about the subject and question their ability to teach it. Educators also say that the curriculum and standards for math and English in the early grades are changing rapidly in some districts and have become more complicated over time. In a departmentalized setup, it’s also far less likely that math instruction will get shortchanged by an educator who prefers spending time on other subjects.
Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.
But while some schools swear by this model, the research on it is mixed.
One prominent 2018 study on the practice in Houston public schools found it had a negative effect on test scores, behavior and attendance. The study doesn’t explain why that was the case, but the researcher said it could be because teachers on this schedule spend less time with individual students.
Another study published in 2024 analyzing Massachusetts schools had different outcomes: Researchers found moderate gains in academic achievement for ELA and a significant boost to science scores for students in departmentalized classes. The results in math, however, showed few gains.
Generally, teachers specialize in the subject they are most comfortable teaching. When a school departmentalizes for the first time, principals typically look at each educator’s test score data over time to determine whether they should specialize in math or reading.
“There are some arguments that, at least if it’s someone who likes the subject, who is passionate about the subject, you have a greater chance of them doing a better job of delivering instruction,” said Latrenda Knighten, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. “But you’ll find mixed reviews.”
Yet there are a few reasons why the strategy is typically reserved for students in older grades, according to school leaders: Spending all day with one teacher increases the bond between the teacher and student, which is important for younger children. In Baton Rouge, Anthony teaches 50 students throughout the day instead of the same 25 students all day.
“Teachers want to get to know their students,” said Dennis Willingham, superintendent of Walker County Schools in Alabama. The district departmentalized some fifth grade classrooms decades ago, but recently added third and fourth grade classes on this schedule. “You tend to see less departmentalization below third grade because of the nurturing element.”
It’s also generally more challenging for young students to quickly change classrooms, even for electives, which means lost instructional time. Smaller elementary schools may also struggle to hire enough teachers to schedule all of them on a departmentalized setup.
Related: These school districts are bucking the national math slump
But increasingly, schools that are satisfied with this approach for older grade levels are trying it out with their younger grades, too.
After the pandemic, the San Tan Heights Elementary School in Arizona changed its curriculum to one that was more rigorous, and it became harder for the third grade educators to master the standards of all four subject areas, said Henry Saylor-Scheetz, principal at the time.
He proposed that third graders be taught by separate math, English language arts and reading teachers. “I told them, let’s try it for a semester. If it doesn’t work at the end of the year, we’ll go back,” Saylor-Scheetz said.
Ten days into the experiment, teachers told him they never wanted to return to the old schedule. In the subsequent years, the school added more classrooms on this model until, by 2023, all K-8 students were departmentalized. For the last few years, teacher retention at the school was 95 percent, according to Saylor-Scheetz.
Saylor-Scheetz, who last year became principal of a nearby middle school, credited the change for helping the school improve from a C rating on its state report card — a rating it had stagnated at every year since 2018 — to a B rating as of 2022. Since then, more schools in his Arizona school district have shifted to this schedule.
“I’d love to see this become something we do as a nation, but it is a paradigm shift,” Saylor-Scheetz said. “There’s merit in doing it, but there has to be a commitment to it.”
At Baton Rouge Center for Visual and Performing Arts, students in first through third grades have two partner teachers, one for math and science and another for ELA and social studies. The school has been operating on this schedule for third through fifth grade students for more than a decade. Eight years ago, its leaders decided to try it for first and second grade students, too, and were pleased with the results.
On a December morning at the school, young students talked quietly with each other in the hall as they lined up to go from math class to English language arts. All told, the switch took less than five minutes. “We’re at the end of the second nine weeks, so we’ve had a lot of practice,” said GiGi Boudreaux, the assistant principal.
The strategy has not always been successful, though.
During the pandemic, administrators also attempted to departmentalize its kindergarten classes. It didn’t work as they’d hoped: It was a challenge to get the 5-year-olds to quickly change classes and focus on classwork again once they did. Parents also didn’t like it. The school then tried moving teachers from classroom to classroom instead of moving students, but the educators hated it.
“It was too much, so we didn’t do it after that,” said Hebert.
The Baton Rouge school doesn’t have comparison data to show that students perform better in a departmentalized setup, but most educators in the school prefer it, Hebert said. Third grade test scores from 2015 — before the school departmentalized its younger grade levels — showed 73 percent scored “advanced” and “mastery” level on the state ELA test, and 56 percent scored advanced or mastery on the math test. In 2025, 80 percent of third grade students scored advanced or mastery in ELA and 55 percent in math.
“I know that the teachers like it better, and the kids have adapted to it,” Hebert said.
Teachers meet weekly with their partner teachers and grade-level counterparts to discuss their classes and progress on the state standards. Once a quarter, all of the math teachers across the grades meet to talk about strategies and student performance.
Related: Teachers conquering their math anxiety
At Deer Valley Unified School District in Arizona, departmentalizing some classrooms has helped reduce teacher turnover, said Superintendent Curtis Finch, particularly for early career educators, who can find it challenging to master the content and standards of all four subjects.
“If you’re not confident in your subject, then you don’t have good examples off the top of your head. You can’t control the room, can’t pull the students in,” Finch said.

There are drawbacks though, Finch acknowledged. In a self-contained classroom, teachers can more easily integrate their different lessons, so that a math lesson might refer back to a topic covered in reading.
And even though Anthony, the second grade math and science teacher in Baton Rouge, loves teaching math, she also misses the extra time she could spend with each student when she had the same 25 children in her class all day for the entire school year.
“It was a joy for me to be self-contained and to build that little family,” Anthony said. “I think the social emotional needs of students are best met in that type of environment. But being solely a math teacher, I do get to just dig in and focus on the nuance of the content.”
For Anthony’s partner teacher across the hall, Holley McArthur, teaching 50 students ELA and social studies is easier than having to teach 25 students math.
“This is my thing: reading books, comprehending and finding answers, meeting their goals,” said McArthur, who has taught in both kinds of classrooms over three decades in education.
While McArthur’s kids were at recess this mid-December day, the veteran teacher was grading their reading worksheets. A new student had transferred in from out of state midyear, and she was still evaluating his reading skills.
“I think you still get to know the kids, even if you just have them for three hours a day, because I’m not doing the hard math with them.”
Contact staff writer Ariel Gilreath on Signal at arielgilreath.46 or at gilreath@hechingerreport.org.
This story about departmentalizing was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
[ad_2]
Ariel Gilreath
Source link
[ad_1]
Last month, a Boston University junior proudly posted online that he had spent months calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement to report Latino workers at a neighborhood car wash.
Nine people were detained, including siblings and a 67-year-old man who has lived in the U.S. for decades. The student celebrated the arrests and told ICE to “pump up the numbers.”
As the daughter of Caribbean immigrants and a researcher who studies immigrant-origin youth, I was shaken but not surprised. This incident, which did have some backlash, revealed a growing problem on college campuses: Many young people are learning to police one another rather than learn alongside one another.
That means the new border patrol could be your classmate. Our schools are not prepared for this.
That is why colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging and take immediate steps to prevent it — as they do with racism, antisemitism and homophobia.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
The incident at Boston University is bigger than one student with extreme views. We are living in a moment shaped by online outrage, anonymous tip lines and a culture that encourages reporting anyone who seems “suspicious.”
In this environment, some young people have started to believe that calling ICE is a form of civic duty.
That thinking doesn’t stay online. It walks right into classrooms, dorms and group projects. When it does, the impact is not abstract. It is deeply personal for the immigrant-origin youth sitting in those same rooms.
Many of these students grew up with fear woven into their daily lives. Their neighbors disappeared overnight, they heard stories of parents being detained at work and they began translating legal mail before they were old enough to drive. They know exactly what an ICE call can set into motion. They carry that fear with them to school.
These are not hypothetical harms. They show up in everyday decisions: where to sit, what to say, whom to trust. I’ve met students who avoid speaking Spanish on campus, refuse to share their address during class activities and sit near the exits because they’re not sure who views their family as “a threat.” It is not possible to learn well in an environment where you do not feel safe.
There is a strong body of developmental research highlighting belonging and social inclusion as central to healthy development. In her work on migration and acculturation, Carola Suárez-Orozco shows that legal-status-based distinctions among youth intensify exclusion and undermine both social integration and developmental well-being.
When belonging erodes, colleges begin to function like small border zones, where everyone is quietly assessing who might turn them in. It is nearly impossible for any campus community to thrive under that kind of pressure.
Quite frankly, nor can America’s democracy.
If we raise a generation of students who feel compelled to police the nation’s borders from their dorms, the immigrant-origin youth sitting beside them in classrooms will carry the psychological burden of those borders every single day. Yet colleges are almost entirely unprepared for this reality.
Most universities have clear policies for racial slurs, antisemitic threats, homophobic harassment and other identity-based harms. But very few have policies that address immigration-based targeting, even though the consequences can be just as severe and, in some cases, life-altering.
Boston University’s president acknowledged the distress caused by that student’s actions. Yet, the university did not classify the behavior as discriminatory, despite the fact that his calls targeted a specific ethnic and immigration-status group. That silence sends a clear message: Harm against immigrant communities is unimportant, incidental or simply “political.” But this harm is neither political nor the price of free expression or civic engagement; it is targeted intimidation, with real and measurable consequences for students’ safety, mental health and academic engagement.
In my view, colleges need to take three straightforward steps:
1. Define immigration-based harassment as misconduct. Calling ICE on classmates, doxxing immigrant peers or circulating immigration-related rumors should be classified under the same conduct codes that protect students from other forms of targeted harm. Schools know how to do this; they simply have not applied those same protections to immigrant communities.
2. Train faculty and staff on how to respond. Professors should have a clear understanding of what to do when immigration rhetoric is weaponized in the classroom, or when students express fear about being reported. Although many professors want to help, they may lack basic guidance.
3. Teach immigration literacy as part of civic education. Most students do not understand what ICE detention entails, how long legal cases can drag on or what it means to live with daily fear like their immigrant peers. Teaching these realities isn’t “political indoctrination,” it is preparation for a life in a multicultural democracy.
These three steps are not radical. They are merely the same kinds of protections colleges already provide to students targeted for other aspects of their identity.
Related: STUDENT VOICES: ‘Dreamers’ like us need our own resource centers on college campuses
The Boston University case is a warning, not an isolated moment. If campuses fail to respond, more young people will internalize the idea that policing their peers is simply part of student life. Immigrant-origin youth, who have done nothing wrong, will carry the emotional burden alone.
As students, educators and researchers, we have to decide what kind of learning communities we want to build and sustain. Schools can be places where students understand one another, or they can become places of intense surveillance. That choice will shape not just campus climates, but also the society current students will eventually lead.
Madison Forde is a doctoral student in the Clinical/Counseling Psychology program at New York University.
Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.
This story about immigration-based targeting at colleges was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.
[ad_2]
Madison Forde
Source link
[ad_1]
Students, parents and school principals all instinctively know that some teachers are better than others. Education researchers have spent decades trying — with mixed success — to calculate exactly how much better.
What remains far more elusive is why.
A new study suggests that one surprisingly simple difference between stronger and weaker math teachers may be how often they use mathematical vocabulary, words such as “factors,” “denominators” and “multiples,” in class.
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
Teachers who used more math vocabulary had students who scored higher on math tests, according to a team of data scientists and education researchers from Harvard University, Stanford University and the University of Maryland. The size of the test score boost was substantial. It amounted to about half of the benefit researchers typically attribute to having a highly effective teacher, which is among the most important school-based factors that help children learn. Students with highly effective teachers can end up months ahead of their peers.
“If you’re looking for a good math teacher, you’re probably looking for somebody who’s exposing their students to more mathematical vocabulary,” said Harvard data scientist Zachary Himmelsbach, lead author of the study, which was published online in November 2025.
The finding aligns with a growing body of research suggesting that language plays a critical role in math learning. A 2021 meta-analysis of 40 studies found that students with stronger math vocabularies tend to perform better in math, particularly on multi-step, complex problems. Understanding what a “radius” is, for example, can make it more efficient to talk about perimeter and area and understand geometric concepts. Some math curricula explicitly teach vocabulary and include glossaries to reinforce these terms.
Related: Three reasons why so few eighth graders in the poorest schools take algebra
But vocabulary alone is unlikely to be a magic ingredient.
“If a teacher just stood in front of the classroom and recited lists of mathematical vocabulary terms, nobody’s learning anything,” said Himmelsbach.
Instead, Himmelsbach suspects that vocabulary is part of a broader constellation of effective teaching practices. Teachers who use more math terms may also be providing clearer explanations, walking students through lots of examples step-by-step, and offering engaging puzzles. These teachers might also have a stronger conceptual understanding of math themselves.
It’s hard to isolate what exactly is driving the students’ math learning and what role vocabulary, in and of itself, is playing, Himmelsbach said.
Himmelsbach and his research team analyzed transcripts from more than 1,600 fourth- and fifth-grade math lessons in four school districts recorded for research purposes about 15 years ago. They counted how often teachers used more than 200 common math terms drawn from elementary math curriculum glossaries.
The average teacher used 140 math-related words per lesson. But there was wide variation. The top quarter of the teachers used at least 28 more math terms per lesson than the quarter of the teachers who spoke the fewest math words. Over the course of a school year, that difference amounted to roughly 4,480 additional math terms, meaning that some students were exposed to far richer mathematical language than others, depending on which teacher they happened to have that year.
The study linked these differences to student achievement. One hundred teachers were recorded over three years, and in the third year, students were randomly assigned to classrooms. That random assignment allowed the researchers to rule out the possibility that higher performing students were simply being clustered with stronger teachers.
Related: A theory for learning numbers without counting gains popularity
The lessons came from districts serving mostly low-income students. About two-thirds of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, more than 40 percent were Black, and nearly a quarter were Hispanic — the very populations that tend to struggle the most in math and stand to gain the most from effective instruction.
Interestingly, student use of math vocabulary did not appear to matter as much as teacher use. Although the researchers also tracked how often students used math terms in class, they found no clear link between teachers who used more vocabulary and students who spoke more math words themselves. Exposure and comprehension, rather than verbal facility, may be enough to support stronger math performance.
The researchers also looked for clues as to why some teachers used more math vocabulary than others. Years of teaching experience made no difference. Nor did the number of math or math pedagogy courses teachers had taken in college. Teachers with stronger mathematical knowledge did tend to use more math terms, but the relationship was modest.
Himmelsbach suspects that personal beliefs play an important role. Some teachers, he said, worry that formal math language will confuse students and instead favor more familiar phrasing, such as “put together” instead of addition, or “take away” instead of subtraction. While those colloquial expressions can be helpful, students ultimately need to understand how they correspond to formal mathematical concepts, Himmelsbach said.
This study is part of a new wave of education research that uses machine learning and natural language processing — computer techniques that analyze large volumes of text — to peer inside the classroom, which has long remained a black box. With enough recorded lessons, researchers hope not only to identify which teaching practices matter most, but also provide teachers with concrete, data-driven feedback.
Related: A little parent math talk with kids might really add up
The researchers did not examine whether teachers used math terms correctly, but they noted that future models could be trained to do just that, offering feedback on accuracy and context, not just frequency.
For now, the takeaway is more modest but still meaningful: Students appear to learn more math when their teachers speak the language of math more often.
Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@hechingerreport.org.
This story about math vocabulary was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.
[ad_2]
Jill Barshay
Source link
[ad_1]
Across the U.S., public school districts are panicking over test scores.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or the Nation’s Report Card, as it is known, revealed that students are underperforming in reading, with the most recent scores being the lowest overall since the test was first given in 1992.
The latest scores for Black children have been especially low. In Pittsburgh, for example, only 26 percent of Black third- through fifth-grade public school students are reading at advanced or proficient levels compared to 67 percent of white children.
This opportunity gap should challenge us to think differently about how we educate Black children. Too often, Black children are labeled as needing “skills development.” The problem is that such labels lead to educational practices that dim their curiosity and enthusiasm for school — and overlook their capacity to actually enjoy learning.
As a result, without that enjoyment and the encouragement that often accompanies it, too many Black students grow up never feeling supported in the pursuit of their dreams.
Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.
Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake. We, as educators, must see children as advanced dreamers who have the potential to overcome any academic barrier with our support and encouragement.
As a co-founder of a bookstore, I believe there are many ways we can do better. I often use books and personal experiences to illustrate some of the pressing problems impacting Black children and families.
One of my favorites is “Abdul’s Story” by Jamilah Thompkins-Bigelow.
It tells the tale of a gifted young Black boy who is embarrassed by his messy handwriting and frequent misspellings, so much so that, in erasing his mistakes, he gouges a hole in his paper.
He tries to hide it under his desk. Instead of chastening him, his teacher, Mr. Muhammad, does something powerful: He sits beside Abdul under the desk.
Mr. Muhammad shows his own messy notebook to Abdul, who realizes “He’s messy just like me.”
In that moment, Abdul learns that his dream of becoming a writer is possible; he just has to work in a way that suits his learning style. But he also needs an educator who supports him along the way.
It is something I understand: In my own life, I have been both Abdul and Mr. Muhammad, and it was a teacher named Mrs. Lee who changed my life.
One day after I got into a fight, she pulled me out of the classroom and said, “I am not going to let you fail.” At that point, I was consistently performing at or below basic in reading and writing, but she didn’t define me by my test scores.
Instead, she asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”
I replied, “I want to be like Bryant Gumbel.”
She asked why.
“Because he’s smart and he always interviews famous people and presidents,” I said.
Mrs. Lee explained that Mr. Gumbel was a journalist and encouraged me to start a school newspaper.
So I did. I interviewed people and wrote articles, revising them until they were ready for publication. I did it because Mrs. Lee believed in me and saw me for who I wanted to be — not just my test scores.
If more teachers across the country were like Mrs. Lee and Mr. Muhammad, more Black children would develop the confidence to pursue their dreams. Black children would realize that even if they have to work harder to acquire certain skills, doing so can help them accomplish their dreams.
Related: Taking on racial bias in early math lessons
Years ago, I organized a reading tour in four libraries across the city of Pittsburgh. At that time, I was a volunteer at the Carnegie Library, connecting book reading to children’s dreams.
I remember working with a young Black boy who was playing video games on the computer with his friends. I asked him if he wanted to read, and he shook his head no.
So I asked, “Who wants to build the city of the future?” and he raised his hand.
He and I walked over to a table and began building with magnetic tiles. As we began building, I asked the same question Mrs. Lee had asked me: “What do you want to be when you grow up?”
“An architect,” he replied.
I jumped up and grabbed a picture book about Frank Lloyd Wright. We began reading the book, and I noticed that he struggled to pronounce many of the words. I supported him, and we got through it. I later wrote about it.
Each week after that experience, this young man would come up to me ready to read about his dream. He did so because I saw him just as Mr. Muhammad saw Abdul, and just like Mrs. Lee saw me — as an advanced dreamer.
Consider that when inventor Lonnie Johnson was a kid, he took a test and the results declared that he could not be an engineer. Imagine if he’d accepted that fate. Kids around the world would not have the joy of playing with the Super Soaker water gun.
When the architect Phil Freelon was a kid, he struggled with reading. If he had given up, the world would not have experienced the beauty and splendor of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
When illustrator Jerry Pinkney was a kid, he struggled with reading just like Freelon. If he had defined himself as “basic” and “below average,” children across America would not have been inspired by his powerful picture book illustrations.
Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake.
Each child is a solution to a problem in the world, whether it is big or small. So let us create conditions that inspire Black children to walk boldly in the pursuit of their dreams.
Nosakhere Griffin-EL is the co-founder of The Young Dreamers’ Bookstore. He is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.
Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.
This story about Black children and education was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’sweekly newsletter.
[ad_2]
Nosakhere Griffin-EL
Source link
[ad_1]
Schools are expected to provide safety, structure, and meaningful support for every student. However, the reality thatBlack students with disabilities experience often looks very different from that promise. Although federal laws outline accommodations through IEP and 504 plans, the success of these supports depends on how teachers and school administrators choose to implement them. These choices are not minor. They shape how a student feels, how their academic identity develops, and how their behavior is interpreted by adults who hold institutional authority. When accommodations are mishandled, ignored, or delivered in embarrassing ways, the immediate emotional harm can escalate into disciplinary consequences. These consequences fall disproportionately on Black disabled students because of racial stereotypes and behavioral assumptions deeply embedded in school culture.
The power to either support or harm lies not in distant government agencies but in the daily decisions made inside classrooms and hallways. This paper argues that teachers, principals, and special education coordinators hold the most direct and impactful power over IEP and 504 accommodations because they control the moment-to-moment delivery of support. Their actions, especially when influenced by limited training or racialized assumptions, can transform accommodations into mechanisms of surveillance that increase disciplinary involvement and push Black disabled students toward the school-to-prison pipeline.
Although laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act require schools to provide specific supports, these laws do not dictate how teachers handle these supports in real time. Teachers are responsible for deciding when to provide accommodations, how to communicate them, and whether to deliver them privately or publicly. Mendoza and Houston document situations where teachers reveal accommodations loudly or hand out modified materials where peers can clearly see. These actions seem small, but they matter because students with disabilities often want to feel included and not singled out. A teacher who loudly announces that a student needs extended time or reads aloud which students need reduced assignments sends a signal that the student’s disability is something others should pay attention to. The student is placed in a vulnerable emotional position with no control over how their peers interpret these differences.
The power teachers hold over this process is rarely acknowledged, but it is influential. Teachers decide whether accommodations protect a student’s dignity or expose them to ridicule. When teachers fail to provide accommodations privately, students often experience a combination of shame, fear, and frustration. These emotions shape how students respond in class. A student who feels exposed may disengage from discussions, avoid asking questions, or stop requesting help. These reactions are natural but are often misunderstood by teachers who interpret emotional withdrawal as disrespect or laziness. Because teachers control both the environment and the interpretation of student behavior, they have the authority to turn an uncomfortable moment into a disciplinary problem.
The emotional consequences of poorly delivered accommodations are not imagined. The National Center for Learning Disabilities has extensive research showing that students across the country experience their accommodations in ways that make them uncomfortable or embarrassed. When teachers ask students about their accommodations in front of others or question their need for support publicly, the classroom becomes a place of exposure rather than safety. Students who fear embarrassment often choose not to ask for the help they need. This avoidance is then interpreted by teachers as a lack of motivation or refusal to engage. The problem becomes a cycle. The student avoids support because of fear, and the teacher interprets this avoidance as defiance.
These interpretations have serious consequences for Black disabled students. Research consistently shows that Black students are judged more harshly for the same behaviors displayed by their peers. Allen explains that Black students are labeled defiant more frequently, even when they are expressing frustration or confusion in developmentally appropriate ways. This means that Black disabled students who respond emotionally after being exposed are at much higher risk of being disciplined. Their reactions are framed as intentional disruption rather than responses to emotional discomfort. Teachers may assume they are being confronted or challenged, even when the student is simply trying to cope with embarrassment.
Okonofua and Eberhardt’s study on teacher responses to repeated behavior offers a deeper understanding of why Black disabled students face harsher consequences. Their research shows that teachers escalate discipline after what they perceive as a second misbehavior. When the student is Black, teachers are more likely to assume the behavior reflects a character flaw rather than a temporary emotional moment. This two-strikes pattern becomes especially dangerous for Black disabled students who must rely on supports that teachers sometimes ignore or mishandle. A teacher may mishandle an accommodation on one day and misinterpret a student’s emotional response as a first strike. A week later, another teacher may provide an inconsistent version of the support, causing the student to react again. The reaction is then treated as a second strike, leading to suspension or referral to administration. In this way, mismanaged accommodations directly feed into disciplinary escalation.
This cycle is reinforced by structural problems within schools. The Hechinger Report reveals that many teachers begin the school year without complete information about which students receive accommodations. Documentation is sometimes delayed, incomplete, or unclear.
Teachers report receiving conflicting instructions or no instructions at all. Without clear systems in place, teachers must rely on their own judgment to guess what students need. When judgment replaces structured support, student safety becomes unpredictable. Some teachers may be skilled and attentive, but others may not understand the importance of privacy or consistency. This inconsistency is particularly harmful for Black disabled students who rely on predictable support to feel secure in the classroom environment.
Inconsistent support not only disrupts learning but can also affect how students see themselves. Many students internalize repeated moments of embarrassment or misunderstanding. They begin to believe they are difficult, incapable, or problematic. These internalized beliefs can affect self-esteem and academic confidence. When a student feels misunderstood by teachers, the relationship between the student and the school becomes strained. Students may stop trusting teachers, withdraw from participation, or develop school avoidance. These emotional and behavioral shifts make students more vulnerable to disciplinary action, which further distances them from academic success.
The Government Accountability Office provides a national perspective on these patterns. Their findings show that Black students and students with disabilities face higher suspension and expulsion rates, even for minor behaviors. These disparities cannot be separated from how accommodations are delivered. When teachers interpret emotional distress as misconduct and administrators rely on discipline rather than support, Black disabled students are caught in a system that punishes them for needing help. The school-to-prison pipeline is not created by a single event. It is constructed through many small decisions that accumulate over time. Each missed accommodation, each misunderstanding, and each disciplinary referral pushes students further from education and closer to systems of punishment.
The power structures at the school level must be understood in order to disrupt this cycle. Teachers, principals, and special education coordinators have the authority to create environments that either protect or harm students. Confidentiality, consistency, and clear communication should be the standard expectations for accommodation delivery. When teachers are trained to understand disability needs, cultural differences, and the emotional impact of public exposure, classrooms become safer. When administrators ensure that teachers receive proper documentation and training at the start of the year, students experience stability rather than confusion. Schools must also invest in anti-bias training that addresses how racial stereotypes shape teacher perceptions. Without this training, even well-meaning teachers may misinterpret behavior through harmful assumptions.
To truly address the school-to-prison pipeline, schools must move beyond surface-level solutions and focus on the everyday interactions that shape students lives. Accommodations cannot simply exist on paper. They must be delivered with care, privacy, and consistency. Teachers must be supported so they can support students. Administrators must monitor accommodation delivery to ensure that students are not unintentionally harmed. Most importantly, schools must listen to the voices of Black disabled students who have long described the ways their needs are misunderstood.
In conclusion, school-level power plays a central role in shaping whether IEP and 504 accommodations serve their intended purpose. Teachers and administrators control how accommodations are delivered and how student behavior is interpreted. When these decisions are made without proper training or awareness of racial bias, Black disabled students face emotional harm, disciplinary escalation, and increased risk of entering the school-to-prison pipeline. The path toward justice begins with recognizing that the school environment is shaped by human choices. By transforming the way accommodations are handled, schools can protect the dignity of Black disabled students and prevent the unnecessary harm that has been normalized for far too long.
[ad_2]
Anicya Haywood
Source link
[ad_1]
eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #8 focuses on the debate around teachers vs. AI.
Key points:
A colleague of ours recently attended an AI training where the opening slide featured a list of all the ways AI can revolutionize our classrooms. Grading was listed at the top. Sure, AI can grade papers in mere seconds, but should it?
As one of our students, Jane, stated: “It has a rubric and can quantify it. It has benchmarks. But that is not what actually goes into writing.” Our students recognize that AI cannot replace the empathy and deep understanding that recognizes the growth, effort, and development of their voice. What concerns us most about grading our students’ written work with AI is the transformation of their audience from human to robot.
If we teach our students throughout their writing lives that what the grading robot says matters most, then we are teaching them that their audience doesn’t matter. As Wyatt, another student, put it: “If you can use AI to grade me, I can use AI to write.” NCTE, in its position statements for Generative AI, reminds us that writing is a human act, not a mechanical one. Reducing it to automated scores undermines its value and teaches students, like Wyatt and Jane, that the only time we write is for a grade. That is a future of teaching writing we hope to never see.
We need to pause when tech companies tout AI as the grader of student writing. This isn’t a question of capability. AI can score essays. It can be calibrated to rubrics. It can, as Jane said, provide students with encouragement and feedback specific to their developing skills. And we have no doubt it has the potential to make a teacher’s grading life easier. But just because we can outsource some educational functions to technology doesn’t mean we should.
It is bad enough how many students already see their teacher as their only audience. Or worse, when students are writing for teachers who see their written work strictly through the lens of a rubric, their audience is limited to the rubric. Even those options are better than writing for a bot. Instead, let’s question how often our students write to a broader audience of their peers, parents, community, or a panel of judges for a writing contest. We need to reengage with writing as a process and implement AI as a guide or aide rather than a judge with the last word on an essay score.
Our best foot forward is to put AI in its place. The use of AI in the writing process is better served in the developing stages of writing. AI is excellent as a guide for brainstorming. It can help in a variety of ways when a student is struggling and looking for five alternatives to their current ending or an idea for a metaphor. And if you or your students like AI’s grading feature, they can paste their work into a bot for feedback prior to handing it in as a final draft.
We need to recognize that there are grave consequences if we let a bot do all the grading. As teachers, we should recognize bot grading for what it is: automated education. We can and should leave the promises of hundreds of essays graded in an hour for the standardized test providers. Our classrooms are alive with people who have stories to tell, arguments to make, and research to conduct. We see our students beyond the raw data of their work. We recognize that the poem our student has written for their sick grandparent might be a little flawed, but it matters a whole lot to the person writing it and to the person they are writing it for. We see the excitement or determination in our students’ eyes when they’ve chosen a research topic that is important to them. They want their cause to be known and understood by others, not processed and graded by a bot.
The adoption of AI into education should be conducted with caution. Many educators are experimenting with using AI tools in thoughtful and student-centered ways. In a recent article, David Cutler describes his experience using an AI-assisted platform to provide feedback on his students’ essays. While Cutler found the tool surprisingly accurate and helpful, the true value lies in the feedback being used as part of the revision process. As this article reinforces, the role of a teacher is not just to grade, but to support and guide learning. When used intentionally (and we emphasize, as in-process feedback) AI can enhance that learning, but the final word, and the relationship behind it, must still come from a human being.
When we hand over grading to AI, we risk handing over something much bigger–our students’ belief that their words matter and deserve an audience. Our students don’t write to impress a rubric, they write to be heard. And when we replace the reader with a robot, we risk teaching our students that their voices only matter to the machine. We need to let AI support the writing process, not define the product. Let it offer ideas, not deliver grades. When we use it at the right moments and for the right reasons, it can make us better teachers and help our students grow. But let’s never confuse efficiency with empathy. Or algorithms with understanding.
[ad_2]
Dennis Magliozzi & Kristina Peterson, University of New Hampshire’s Writers Academy
Source link
[ad_1]
It started with Harvard University. Then Notre Dame, Cornell, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan.
Colleges are racing to close or rename their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices, which serve as the institutional infrastructure to ensure fair opportunity and conditions for all. The pace is disorienting and getting worse: since last January, 181 colleges in all.
Often this comes with a formal announcement via mass email, whispering a watered-down name change that implies: “There is nothing to see here. The work will remain the same.” But renaming the offices is something to see, and it changes the work that can be done.
Colleges say the changes are needed to comply with last January’s White House executive orders to end “wasteful government DEI programs” and “illegal discrimination” and restore “merit-based opportunity,” prompting them to replace DEI with words like engagement, culture, community, opportunity and belonging.
One college went even further this month: The University of Alabama ended two student-run magazines because administrators perceived them to be targeting specific demographics and thus to be out of compliance with Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s anti-discrimination guidance. Students are fighting back while some experts say the move is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
With the one-year mark of the original disruptive executive orders approaching, the pattern of response is nearly always the same. Announcements of name changes are followed quickly by impassioned pronouncements that schools should “remain committed to our long-standing social justice mission.”
University administrators, faculty, students, supporters and alumni need to stand up and call attention to the risks of this widespread renaming.
True, there are risks to not complying. The U.S. State Department recently proposed to cut research funding to 38 elite universities in a public-private partnership for what the Trump administration perceived as DEI hiring practices. Universities removed from the partnership will be replaced by schools that the administration perceives to be more merit-based, such as Liberty University and Brigham Young University.
In addition to the freezing of critical research dollars, universities are being fined millions of dollars for hiring practices that use an equity lens — even though those practices are merit-based and ensure that all candidates are fairly evaluated.
Northwestern University recently paid $75 million to have research funding that had already been approved restored, while Columbia University paid $200 million. Make no mistake: This is extortion.
Some top university administrators have resigned under this pressure. Others seem to be deciding that changing the name of their equity office is cheaper than being extorted.
Many are clinging to the misguided notion that the name changes do not mean they are any less committed to their equity and justice-oriented missions.
As a long-standing faculty member of a major public university, I find this alarming. In what way does backing away from critical, specific language advance social justice missions?
In ceding ground on critical infrastructure that centers justice, the universities that are caving are violating a number of historian and author Timothy Snyder’s 20 lessons from the 20th century for fighting tyranny.
The first lesson is: “Do not obey in advance.” Many of these changes are not required. Rather, universities are making decisions to comply in advance in order to avoid potential future conflicts.
The second is: “Defend institutions.” The name changes and reorganizations convey that this infrastructure is not foundational to university work.
What Snyder doesn’t warn about is the loss of critical words that frame justice work.
The swift dismantling of the infrastructures that had been advancing social justice goals, especially those secured during the recent responses to racial injustice in the United States and the global pandemic, has been breathtaking.
Related: Trump administration cuts canceled this college student’s career start in politics
This is personal to me. Over the 15 years since I was hired as a professor and community health equity researcher at Chicago’s only public research institution, the university deepened its commitment to social justice by investing resources to address systemic inequities.
Directors were named, staff members hired. Missions were carefully curated. Funding mechanisms were announced to encourage work at the intersections of the roots of injustices. Award mechanisms were carefully worded to describe what excellence looks like in social justice work.
Now, one by one, this infrastructure is being deconstructed.
The University of Illinois Chicago leadership recently announced that the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Equity and Diversity will be renamed and reoriented as the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Engagement. The explanation noted that this change reflects a narrowed dual focus: engaging internally within the university community and externally with the City of Chicago.
This concept of university engagement efforts as two sides of one coin oversimplifies the complexity of the authentic, reciprocal relationship development required by the university to achieve equity goals.
As a community engagement scientist, I feel a major loss and unsettling alarm from the renaming of “Equity and Diversity” as “Engagement.” I’ve spent two decades doing justice-centered, community-based participatory research in Chicago neighborhoods with community members. It is doubtful that the work can remain authentic if administrators can’t stand up enough to keep the name.
As a professor of public health, I train graduate students on the importance of language and naming. For example, people in low-income neighborhoods are not inherently “at risk” for poor health but rather are exposed to conditions that impact their risk level and defy health equity. Health is “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being,” while health equity is “the state in which everyone has the chance to attain full health potential.” Changing the emphasis from health equity to health focuses the system’s lens on the individual and mutes population impact.
Similarly, changing the language around DEI offices is a huge deal. It is the beginning of the end. Pretending it is not is complicity.
Jeni Hebert-Beirne is a professor of Community Health Sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.
Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.
This story about colleges and DEI was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.
[ad_2]
Jeni Hebert-Beirne
Source link
[ad_1]
Last year, Project 2025 was a conservative wish list: a grab bag of proposals large and small that would transform the federal government, including in education.
Months later, many of those wishes have become reality. That includes, at least in part, Project 2025’s ultimate goal of doing away with the Education Department.
The department still exists — getting rid of it completely would require congressional action— but it is greatly diminished: Much of the department’s work is being farmed out to other federal agencies. Half of its workforce of about 4,100 people have left or been fired. And Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote after her confirmation that she was leading the department’s “final mission.”
Eliminating the Education Department was just one of many goals, however. While the administration did not meet all the other tasks in this “to-do” list below, compiled by The Hechinger Report and taken directly from Project 2025, there’s still three more years to go.
Eliminate Head Start: NO. Head Start, which provides free preschool for low-income children, still exists, though some individual centers had problems accessing their money because of temporary freezes from the Department of Government Efficiency and the prolonged government shutdown. The federal government also closed five of 10 Head Start regional offices, which collectively served 22 states.
Pay for in-home child care instead of universal (center-based) daycare: NO. Project 2025 states that “funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare.” There have been no moves to fulfill this goal, but the budget reconciliation bill the president signed in July increased the child tax credit and introduced “Trump Accounts” for children under age 18.
Expand child care for military families: YES. The National Defense Authorization Act, passed on Dec. 17 and sent to the president for his signature, authorizes over $491 million to design and build new child care centers for these families, among other provisions. The Department of Defense provides child care to military families on a sliding scale based on income. However, about 20 percent of military families who need child care can’t get it because there is not enough space.
Give businesses an incentive to provide “on-site” child care: NO. Project 2025 states that “across the spectrum of professionalized child care options, on-site care puts the least stress on the parent-child bond.”
Move the National Center for Education Statistics to the Census Bureau; transfer higher education statistics to the Labor Department: NO. Education data collection remains at the Education Department. However, the agency’s capacity has been sharply reduced following mass firings and the termination of key contracts — a development not envisioned in Project 2025. At the same time, Donald Trump directed the center to launch a major new data collection on college admissions to verify that colleges are no longer giving preferences based on race, ethnicity or gender.
Expand choice for families by making federal funding portable to many school options: PARTIAL. In January, the president signed an executive order encouraging “educational freedom.” One of the order’s provisions requires the departments of Defense and Interior — which run K-12 schools for military families and tribal communities, respectively — to allow parents to use some federal funding meant for their children’s education at private, religious and charter schools. However, that initiative for Indian schools ended up being scaled back after tribes protested. The “big, beautiful” spending bill signed in July created a national voucher program, but states have to opt in to participate.
Send money now controlled by the federal government, such as Title I and special education funding, to the states as block grants: NO. In the current fiscal year, about $18.5 billion in Title I money flowed to districts to support low-income students. States received about $14 billion to support educating children with disabilities. Project 2025 envisions giving states that money with no strings attached, which it says would allow more flexibility. While the administration has not lifted requirements for all states, it is considering requests from Indiana, Iowa and Oklahoma that would allow those states to spend their federal money with less government oversight. Also, in his fiscal 2026 budget proposal, Trump floated the idea of consolidating several smaller education programs, such as those supporting rural students, homeless students and after-school activities, into one $2 billion block grant. That would be far less than the combined $6.5 billion set aside for these programs in the current budget.
Reject “radical gender ideology” and “critical race theory,” and eliminate requirements to accept such ideology as a condition of receiving federal funds: YES. Immediately after Trump was sworn into office, he reversed a Biden administration rule that included protection of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal money. Trump also signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal dollars from schools over what the order called “gender ideology extremism” and “critical race theory.” In the months since, the administration launched Title IX investigations in school districts where transgender students are allowed to participate on sports teams and use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. It sent letters to schools across the country threatening to pull funding unless they agree to its interpretation of civil rights laws, to include banning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and initiatives. The Education Department also pulled federal research grants and investigated schools and colleges over DEI policies it calls discriminatory.
Pass a federal “parents’ bill of rights,” modeled after similar bills passed at the state level: NO. House Republicans passed a Parents’ Bill of Rights Act two years ago, which would have required districts to post all curricula and reading materials, require schools receiving Title I money to notify parents of any speakers visiting a school, and mandate at least two teacher-parent conferences each year, among other provisions. The Senate did not take it up, and lawmakers have not reintroduced the bill in this session of Congress. About half of the states have their own version of a parentsʼ bill of rights.
Shrink the pool of students eligible for free school meals by ending the “community eligibility provision” and reject universal school meal efforts: NO. Under current rules, schools are allowed to provide free lunch to all students, regardless of their family’s income, if the school or district is in a low-income area. That provision remains in place. The Trump administration has not changed income eligibility requirements for free and reduced-price lunch at schools: Families that earn within 185 percent of the federal poverty line still qualify for reduced lunch and those within 130 percent of the poverty line qualify for free lunch.
Roll back student loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment plans: PARTIAL. Three income-driven repayment plans will be phased out next year and a new one — the Repayment Assistance Plan — will be added. RAP requires borrowers to make payments for 30 years before they qualify for loan forgiveness. The administration also reached a proposed agreement to end even earlier the most controversial repayment plan known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education). Trump officials have referred to the SAVE plan as illegal loan forgiveness. Under the plan, some borrowers were eligible to have their loans cleared after only 10 years, while making minimal payments.
End Parent PLUS loans: PARTIAL. These loans, which parents take out to help their children, had no limit. They still exist, but as of July 2026, there will be an annual cap of $20,000 and a lifetime limit of $65,000 per child. Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to borrow directly on behalf of themselves, are being phased out. Under the Repayment Assistance Plan, graduates in certain fields, such as medicine, can borrow no more than $50,000 a year, or $200,000 over four years.
Privatize the federal student loan portfolio: NO. The Trump administration reportedly has been shopping a portion of the federal student loan portfolio to private buyers, but no bids have been made public. Project 2025 also called for eliminating the Federal Student Aid office, which is now housed in the Education Department and oversees student loan programs. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the Treasury Department would be a better home for the office, but no plans for a move have been announced.
End public service loan forgiveness: NO. PSLF allows borrowers to have part of their debt erased if they work for the government or in nonprofit public service jobs and make at least 120 monthly payments. The structure remains, but a new rule could narrow the definition of the kinds of jobs that qualify for loan forgiveness. The proposed rule raises concerns that borrowers working for groups that assist immigrants, transgender youth or provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, for example, could be disqualified from loan forgiveness. The new rule would go into effect in July.
Rescind Biden-era rules around sexual assault and discrimination: YES. The Department of Education almost immediately jettisoned changes that the Biden administration had made in 2024 to Title IX, which governs how universities and colleges handle cases of sexual assault and discrimination. Under the Biden rules, blocked by a federal judge days before Trump’s inauguration, accused students were no longer guaranteed the right to in-person hearings or to cross-examine their accusers. The Trump Education Department then returned to a policy from the president’s first term, under which students accused of sexual assault will be entitled to confront their accusers, through a designee, which the administration says restores due process but advocates say will discourage alleged victims from coming forward.
Reform higher education accreditation: YES. In an executive order, Trump made it easier for accreditors to be stripped of their authority and new ones to be approved, saying the existing bodies — which, under federal law, oversee the quality of colleges and universities — have ignored poor student outcomes while pushing diversity, equity and inclusion. Florida and Texas have started setting up their own accreditors and said the administration has agreed to expedite the typically yearslong approval process. The Department of Education has earmarked $7 million to support this work and help colleges and universities switch accreditors.
Dismantle DEI programs and efforts: PARTIAL. Though the administration called for eliminating college DEI programs and efforts, most of the colleges that have shut down their DEI offices have done so in response to state-level legislation. Around 400 books removed from the Naval Academy library because of concerns that they contained messages of diversity or inclusion, but most of the books were ultimately returned. The National Science Foundation canceled more than 400 grants related to several topics, including DEI.
Jill Barshay, Ariel Gilreath, Meredith Kolodner, Jon Marcus, Neal Morton and Olivia Sanchez contributed to this report.
This story about Project 2025 and education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
[ad_2]
Christina A. Samuels
Source link