House Republicans are moving to slash federal education spending by $11 billion, endorsing a $72 billion package that falls $14.5 billion below the Biden administration’s budget request.

The FY 2025 bill, approved by an appropriations subcommittee, would reduce funding for Title I state grants by 25%, hurting schools that receive supplemental aid for enrolling 40% or more children from low-income families, according to a bill summary. The GOP-led House reasoned that student test scores continue to decline despite year-over-year increased funding and a nearly $200 billion boost in pandemic-based aid.

Furthermore, any program “support[ing] organizations that seek to undermine the unity of our country and… that are duplicative or narrowly tailored to a small set of recipients” will be axed. For example, programs related to advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government will not be eligible for funding, according to the bill.

Lastly, weekend teacher training workshops would be eliminated in the measure, which must next be approved by the full Appropriations Committee.

Teaching apprenticeships: Here are 3 models that work

Democrats raised dire alarms, accusing its GOP counterpart of abandoning low-income students.

Despite the slashes, several facets of K12 could see elevated funding, including:

• STEM education: $135 million
• New grants for school safety infrastructure: $135 million
• Special education: $30 million
• School resource officer training: $20 million
• Charter schools: $10 million
• Career and technical education state grants: $10
• Impact Aid Program: $5 million

“The bill pushes back on the Biden Administration’s out-of-touch progressive policy agenda, preventing this White House from finalizing or implementing controversial rules or executive orders,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in the markup session. “Each dollar is directed toward initiatives that truly help our communities, students and workforce.”

The post “We fail to build strong children:” This bill slashes education budget by 13% appeared first on District Administration.

The devices cherished by students and adults alike now face bans in entire states and some of the nation’s largest districts. On Tuesday, Los Angeles USD approved the nation’s largest districtwide cellphone ban, which will take effect in January and also targets social media.

“It is time to formulate a legal strategy that contemplates, but is not restricted to, litigation against social media entities that use algorithms designed to directly appeal and eventually develop, an unhealthy addiction with mental and physical deleterious consequences for our youth,” Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho said in a statement. “When coupled with social media, phones are a harmful vehicle that negatively impacts young people.”

‘Talking Out of School’ podcast: Why K12 branding and marketing are more important than ever

“Kids no longer have the opportunity to just be kids,” added LAUSD school board member Nick Melvoin, the sponsor of the ban. “I’m hoping this resolution will help students not only focus in class but also give them a chance to interact and engage more with each other—and just be kids.”

The entire state of California may soon vanquish cellphones from its K12 system. Gov. Gavin Newsom revealed to Politico this week that he intends to work with state lawmakers in the coming months to “severely restrict” the presence of phones in public schools.

Newsom spoke to the news outlet the day after U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy called for placing warning labels on social media to alert children and parents to potential health risks that include depression and anxiety. “When children and teens are in school, they should be focused on their studies—not their screens,” Newsom told Politico.

Florida, Indiana and Ohio have enacted statewide restrictions on cellphones in schools. Lawmakers in South Carolina are—with full support from education officials and teachers—embedding cellphone restrictions in the state budget. To continue to receive state funding, districts must adopt a ban that will soon be created by the state’s department of education, The74 reported.

LAUSD was not the only district that took action on Tuesday. Marietta City Schools in Georgia also banned cellphones for middle school students in a unanimous school board vote.

“We really want kids to be focused on learning,” said Superintendent Grant Rivera in a statement reported by FOX 5. “Cellphones, smartwatches, and social media have significant impacts on our students’ learning and mental health. School should be a place to learn and grow; that can’t happen if students are distracted by their phones.”

The post School cellphones: 2 more states consider big bans appeared first on District Administration.

Understanding the problem

Transgender students often face significant challenges in the school environment, including bullying, discrimination, and lack of access to appropriate facilities. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, nearly 75% of transgender youth feel unsafe at school. This pervasive lack of safety can lead to severe consequences, including higher rates of absenteeism, lower academic performance, and mental health issues.

The 2024 Title IX regulations specifically mandate that schools address harassment based on gender identity, making it more crucial than ever to take proactive steps.

But several states have declared their intention not to comply with the new Title IX regulations related to gender identity discrimination, including Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. These states argue that the new Title IX regulations conflict with state law and contradict the original purpose of Title IX. If you live in such a state, consult your general counsel on your legal obligations.

Practical solutions

1. Policy review: Start by reviewing your district’s current policies to ensure they are inclusive of transgender students and compliant with the new Title IX regulations. This includes anti-bullying policies and Title IX harassment procedures, as well as dress code and facility access policies.

2. Training and education: Provide regular training for staff on issues related to transgender inclusion. This training should cover the basics of gender identity, the specific challenges faced by transgender students and strategies for creating an inclusive classroom environment.

Superintendent turnover: Frenzy of moves as school year ends

The 2024 Title IX regulations also require all employees be trained on conduct that constitutes gender identity-based harassment. Consider bringing in experts from local LGBTQ+ organizations or hiring an attorney with knowledge of these issues.

3. Support systems: Establish support systems for transgender students. This could include access to on-site counseling, peer support groups, peer mentors and designated safe spaces where students can feel secure and supported.

4. Accessible facilities: Ensure all students have access to facilities, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, that correspond to their gender identity. This is required in some states, such as those in the Fourth Circuit, as a result of recent litigation.

Also have gender-neutral, single-stall facilities for students who do not feel comfortable in a multi-stall facility for whatever reason, whether that is due to their gender identity or their religious convictions.

5. Inclusive curriculum: Where not prohibited, incorporate LGBTQ+ topics into curriculum to promote understanding and acceptance among all students. This can be integrated into subjects such as social studies, the sciences, English and health education.

LGBTQ+ history and innovations by LGBTQ+ individuals can be incorporated into curriculum instead of having a separate lesson that may make transgender students feel alienated.

6. Inclusive language: Use inclusive language and examples that reflect LGBTQ+ identities in classroom materials and discussions. Calling students “friends” instead of “boys and girls” and asking students what name and pronouns they use at the start of the year can go a long way in helping transgender students feel like they belong.

7. Engage with the community: Host informational sessions and create resources to educate the community about gender identity and the importance of inclusivity. Partner with local LGBTQ+ organizations to provide additional resources and support for students and staff, such as outside support groups and alternative proms.

8. Legal compliance: Regularly consult with legal counsel to ensure your school district’s policies and practices comply with the law. This is a rapidly changing landscape and vigilance is required.

Moving forward

Creating a supportive environment for transgender students is a continuous process that requires commitment and proactive effort. By taking these initial steps, you can ensure that your school district complies with legal requirements and fosters a culture of inclusivity and respect for all students.

The post How to create safe spaces for transgender students appeared first on District Administration.

According to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in N.D. v. Reykdal, No. 23-35580 (9th Cir. 05/22/24), the answer is “yes,” and the state of Washington violated the IDEA by limiting special education to the end of the school year in which students with autism turned 21.

The case arose because Washington cut off special education services at the end of the school year in which the students turned 21, but it offered adult-education programs to 21-year-olds who did not have disabilities.

‘Talking Out of School’ podcast: The principalship requires student-centered leadership

Specifically, Washington created a system of community and technical colleges that offered two education programs: 1.) High School+, which allowed students who demonstrated competency in specified subjects to receive a high school diploma, and 2.) GED preparation classes. In these programs, some students received the benefit of a waiver of the $25-per-quarter tuition.

The IDEA requires states to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities until their 22nd birthday, but an exception allows states to discontinue services as early as age 18 if providing special education to older students would be “inconsistent with state law or practice.”

The students brought an IDEA action against their district, and the District Court eventually denied their request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the students did not show “irreparable harm” or a “likelihood of success on the merits.”

The students appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit held that the students made their case based on its previous ruling in E.R.K. v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 728 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2017), which ruled that a state could not deny special education to students with disabilities aged 18 through 21 if it provides free publication education to students without disabilities in that range of ages. In this case, the state of Washington did just that.

“Tens of thousands of Washington students participate in the High School+ and GED programs at zero cost—receiving ‘free’ education under any definition of that word—because they have been granted waivers of the $25 tuition fee,” the court wrote. “Thus, it cannot be said that providing free public education to 21-year-olds is ‘inconsistent with State law or practice.’”

As a result, the 9th Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings that included issuing a preliminary injunction.

Bus driver’s inaction doesn’t show ‘state-created danger’ for pre-kindergartner’s repeated sexual assaults

Sometimes, it seems like the choice to do nothing can be as harmful as doing something. However, as the court in Payne v. Indep. Sch. Dist. I-001, 2024 WL 2224669 (W.D. Okla. 05/16/24) explained, a mother could not show that a school bus driver created a “state-created” danger when he failed to stop a pre-kindergartner from experiencing multiple sexual assaults.

Allegedly, a high schooler on three occasions kissed and touched a pre-kindergartner on the bus. On these occasions, the high schooler allegedly kissed and touched the pre-kindergartner in a sexual manner, kissed the pre-kindergartner and physically assaulted the pre-kindergartner by touching her under her clothes and having her sit on his lap.

After the second of these incidents, the pre-kindergartner told her mother, who notified school officials of the high schooler’s sexually inappropriate behavior. The bus driver was not one of the officials notified.

In addition to suing the school district, the mother brought a substantive due process action against the driver, alleging that he violated the pre-kindergarnter’s 14th Amendment rights.The mother relied on a state-created danger theory to advance her substantive due process claim.

Generally, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment does not require school districts to “protect life, liberty, and property” of students against “invasion by private actors,” but cases have recognized a narrow exception known as the “state-created danger theory.”

As explained in Est. of B.I.C. v. Gillen, 710 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2013), the state-created danger theory provides that state officials can be liable for the acts of private parties where those officials created the “very danger that caused the harm.”

To invoke the state-created danger theory, a plaintiff must show there was violent conduct by a private actor and affirmative conduct by a state actor. The mother’s case fell apart on this requirement because she did not “plausibly allege” that any of the driver’s actions constituted affirmative conduct.

“Essentially, all of [the mother’s] allegations regarding [the driver’s] conduct pertain to actions that he did not take — i.e., passive conduct,” the court wrote.

The court cited two cases that supported its conclusion that nonaction could not amount to state-created danger:

• Graham v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No-I89, 22 F.3d. 991 (10th Cir. 1994). In this case, a mother alleged that another student shot and killed her son after district employees had received prior warnings that a student who had threatened violence against her son was on school grounds with a gun. The 10th Circuit upheld dismissal of the case because the mother failed to allege “affirmative actions” by the district that created or increased the danger to the son.
• Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1999). Here, a child told his mother that he had been sexually assaulted at school while using the bathroom. Allegedly, after the principal assured the mother that her son would be supervised at all times while in the bathroom, the child was sexually assaulted in the bathroom a second time. The 10th Circuit held that the state-created danger substantive due process claim failed because the complaint did not sufficiently plead “affirmative acts” on the part of the principal.

The court in this case explained that the takeaway from previous decisions was that “knowing that an act of private violence is ongoing nor failing to stop such violence” is not enough to demonstrate affirmative conduct. “The court concludes [the mother] has not sufficiently alleged that [the driver] created or increased the danger to [the student] through any affirmative action,” the court wrote in dismissing the mother’s claim.

ED secretary pens ‘dear colleague letter’ to encourage states to address chronic absenteeism

Chronic absenteeism and great educational outcomes don’t go together, and the former doubled between 2018 and 2022, so it’s not surprising that the Biden administration wants to find ways to keep students in school.

In “Letter to Chief State School Officers,” U.S. Education Department Secretary Miguel Cardona encouraged states to take three “key actions” to help more students attend and engage in school each day. In the letter, Cardona noted that as of SY 2021-22, over 14 million students nationwide were chronically absent, but three steps might curb the problem:

1. Supporting schools in increasing regular attendance through a state’s consolidated state plan. “States can enhance their accountability systems by partnering with local universities or their Department Regional Educational Lab to analyze data and ensure that a chronic absenteeism or related measure is playing a meaningful role in school identification,” Cardona wrote. “This could involve analyzing how well the indicator differentiates among different school types and how potential variations in the calculation and reporting of the measure might alter the list of identified schools.” Additionally, the letter suggested states invest in and use real-time tracking and intervention systems that identify students who are or are at risk of becoming chronically absent.
2. Accessing ED resources and training to promote regular school attendance and encouraging districts to do the same. For example, ED’s Student Engagement and Attendance Center and National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments offer resources and technical assistance on engagement, multi-tiered systems of support, school climate and more.
3. Redoubling efforts to “urgently invest” remaining ARP funds in evidence-based strategies for improving regular school attendance. “As you lead planning for the school year ahead, please remind LEAs of the Department’s guidance on use of ARP funds, work with LEAs that may benefit from liquidation extension, and let my team know if we can offer additional support or technical assistance to help you maximize the benefits of these funds,” Cardona wrote. “And because students experiencing homelessness face particular challenges in attending school regularly, please make sure that your State and LEAs are on track to exhaust funds this fall.”

Some examples of successful efforts to combat excessive absenteeism that Cardona cited included:

• In the Fort Worth Independent School District, for example, 100 family engagement specialists hired using ARP funds have helped improve regular daily attendance for nearly 3,000 students.
• The Los Angeles Unified School District conducted more than 19,300 home visits to establish stronger and trusting relationships between schools and families, reducing chronic absenteeism by more than a third.
• Rhode Island launched “Attendance Matters Rhode Island,” creating community data dashboards to spur an all-hands-on-deck approach to increasing the number of students who attend school regularly.
• Connecticut and several other states have found success in reporting chronic absenteeism data on a monthly, as opposed to annual, basis.

The post Washington must provide FAPE to students until their 22nd birthday appeared first on District Administration.

Date & Time: Tuesday, June 11th at 2 pm ET

K-12 school districts nationally are facing billions of dollars in deferred maintenance and other costs associated with aging buildings, while energy costs continue to rise, and inflation is putting additional pressure on education budgets.

In this 20-minute DA Ed Talk, an advisor from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of State and Community Energy Programs and an education facilities expert from Trane will discuss how to access and use newly available funding from the federal government to finance much-needed school facilities improvements in any district.

Topics will include:

• Using energy savings performance contracting (ESPC) programs in K-12
• What resources are available through the DOE’s new ESPC Campaign
• How to leverage expanded incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
• Practical implementation examples from school districts

Presenters

Laura Carpenter, Advisor for Partnerships and Technical Assistance, Office of State and Community Energy Programs, U.S. Department of Energy

Michael Hines, Education Leader, Trane

Register Now

Sponsored by

The post School Renewal: Accessing New Funding for Facilities and Energy Projects appeared first on District Administration.

Pringle joined senior writer Matt Zalaznick and education reporter Micah Ward on the latest episode of District Administration’s “Talking Out of School” podcast. She was clear on what teachers need when it comes to support from their principals, superintendents and other administrators.

“When we interview teachers who have left the profession, they always talk about the administrators in their schools who did not give them the space to be the professionals they were, who did not collaborate with them, who did not stop the crazy and stupid from getting to them,” Pringle explained.

Read more from DA: Bias is still a big obstacle for women in K12 leadership

Pringle is a former middle school science teacher who has made social justice a key focus of her leadership. She’s also a strong advocate for all students’ access to a high-quality and inclusive public education.

In the interview, Pringle also discusses discipline, how NEA is dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline and what the union will be doing to advocate for students during the 2024 elections. “I call it securing the environment so we have everything our kids need and deserve and the resources educators need to do the jobs they love,” she points out.

“Part of [our members’] role is to ensure we elect people who are pro-education, pro-union, pro-working families and pro-the promise of the democracy of this country.”

You can listen to this episode at any time on Apple, Spotify, Podbean or down below.

The post ‘Talking Out of School’ podcast: Teachers need ‘professional authority’ appeared first on District Administration.

Those numbers mean book bans, which are taking place in both red and blue districts, are “soaring to a record level,” PEN America says in its latest report, “Banned in the USA: Narrating the Crisis.”

“Book bans are targeting narratives about race and sexual identities and sexual content writ large, and they show no sign of stopping,” said Sabrina Baêta, Freedom to Read program manager at PEN America and a lead author of the report.

‘Talking out of School’ podcast: Can we conquer chronic absenteeism?

“The bans we’re seeing are broad, harsh and pernicious–and they’re undermining the education of millions of students across the country.”

The latest report focuses on books about women, sexual violence and rape that are being challenged based on obscenity. It also found that titles on race and racism, LGBTQ+ and transgender identities remain frequent targets of censors.

PEN America has tracked over 10,000 removals between July 2021 to December 2023, with Florida tallying the most bans at 3,135 across 11 school districts. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill this week that limits residents without children in a particular school system to one book challenge per month. Parents can still contest as many books as they want at their children’s schools.

Meanwhile, according to PEN America’s research, censorship activity is accelerating in other states:

• Wisconsin: 481 bans across three school districts, including 444 books challenged by just one parent
• Iowa: 142 bans in three school districts
• Texas: 141 bans at four school districts
• Kentucky: One district, Boyle County Schools, removed 106 books
• Virginia: Three school districts banned 100 titles.

Pushback on book bans

The good news, the report asserts, is that students are taking action. Students are protesting, forming after-school banned book clubs and “working with teachers to distribute books under the radar,” the report points out.

“Students are at the epicenter of the book-banning movement, and they’re fearlessly spearheading the fight against this insidious encroachment into what they can read and learn across the country,” said Kasey Meehan, Freedom to Read program director at PEN America. “By suppressing these stories, censors seek to delegitimize experiences that resonate deeply with young people.”

The post Book bans are hitting new heights this school year appeared first on District Administration.

According to the court in Osseo Area Schools v. A.J.T., No. 22-3137 (8th Cir. 03/21/24), regarding a middle schooler with a seizure disorder, not hitting annual IEP goals is not enough progress.

The student had seizures throughout the day, and they were so frequent in the morning that she could not attend school before noon. However, she was alert and able to learn between noon and 6 p.m.

‘Talking Out Of School’ podcast: How LAUSD gave every student a powerful AI ‘buddy’

Before the student moved to Minnesota, her Kentucky school district provided an individualized education program that included evening instruction at home, but the Minnesota district denied the parents’ requests for evening instruction. Instead, the district proposed cutting the student’s school day to three hours.

The parents filed a complaint with the state education department, and an administrative law judge determined that the district denied FAPE to the student and made maintaining “the regular hours of the school’s faculty” the “prevailing and paramount consideration” over the student’s educational needs. The judge ordered the district to provide 495 hours of compensatory education.

The district sought judicial review, and the court agreed with the administrative law judge, finding that the student would have made more progress if she had received evening instruction because a three- to four-hour school days “was insufficient to pursue many expert-recommended goals.” The district appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the IDEA, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), an IEP must be “tailored to the unique needs” of the individual student and “appropriately ambitious,” meaning it must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of [her] circumstances” and give her a “chance to meet challenging objectives.”

The 8th Circuit agreed with the district court, noting that the student’s “limited progress” was strong evidence that the district denied her FAPE, citing the following:

• The student met none of her annual goals in 2016 or 2017.
• By the end of 2018, the student had met a few short-term objectives but still had not met any annual goals.
• There were no progress reports for 2019.
• In 2020, she again met only a few objectives and not a single goal.

According to the court, the student wasn’t making anything more than “de minimis” progress from year to year. Thus, the 8th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling.

Reasons behind letter of concern don’t raise Title IX retaliation issues

No one likes getting the proverbial “nastygram” for something that happened at work, but what are the chances that a seemingly derogatory memo might be a cover for retaliation?
In Kincaid v. Unified School District No. 500, 94 F.4th 936 (10th Cir. 2024), the court held that legitimate reasons supported a Kansas district’s decision to place a warning letter in an employee’s record.

The case arose when some girls reported that a male special education student had hugged them in the hallway, “touched their bottoms,” and made them feel uncomfortable, and the assistant principle did not discipline the student.

The next month, another female student reported that the same male student pushed her up against a while and “grinded up against her with his private parts.” The assistant principle wrote the student up for sexual assault. On the Monday following this incident, the assistant principle received an email from the principal that said there would be a “new protocol” under which “whenever there is an issue with a Sped kid who [would] potentially be given discipline,” the principal was to be involved.

Four days later, the principal sent the assistant principal a “formal letter of concern” expressing dissatisfaction with how the assistant principal handled both incidents. This letter informed the assistant principal that future concerns “of this nature” would lead to termination, and the letter was placed in her personnel file.

The assistant principal filed a claim of retaliation under Title IX, which the District Court rejected in granting summary judgment to the school district. The assistant principal appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under Title IX, an employee must show that her employer took a materially adverse action against her in retaliation for activity protected under the law and that the employer’s state reason for the adverse action was just pretext for retaliation.

In this case, the 10th Circuit explained that while the assistant principal’s reporting the sexual assault could count as protected activity under Title IX, the alleged adverse actions to which the assistant principal was subjected were not pretextual.

In particular, the court pointed out that the letter of concern was directed to the assistant principal for “facially nonretaliatory reasons” and to clarify the principal’s expectations going forward. As a result, the 10th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the district’s favor.

ED, HHS team up to remind districts, others about funding for mixed delivery preschool services

With public preschool attendance at only 17% for three-year-olds and 41% for four-year-olds, two Biden administration agencies have recently emphasized the role of, and opportunities for, mixed delivery programs to address the needs of the country’s youngest learners.

In a Dear Colleague letter, the U.S. Education Department’s deputy assistant secretary for policy and early learning, Swati Adarkar, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development touted funds available for early learning efforts in mixed-delivery settings.

“Mixed delivery preschool approaches should be inclusive of the full range of high-quality early care and education settings including community-based child care providers, schools, Head Start programs, and family child care homes,” the letter emphasized. “A successful mixed delivery approach requires careful planning, collaborative decision-making, and state and local coordination across Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administrators, school leaders, State educational agencies (SEAs) and local school districts, Head Start leaders, providers of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) services, early childhood providers (including family child care), early childhood professional organizations and labor unions, among others.”

The letter encouraged mixed delivery programs to explore funding possibilities such as:

• Head Start grants
• Child Care and Development Fund
• Preschool Development Grants Birth through 5 (PDG B-5)
• Title I, Part A of the ESEA (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies)
• Title II, Part A of the ESEA (Supporting Effective Instruction).
• Title III, Part A of the ESEA (English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement)
• Title IV, Part B of the ESEA (Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers)
• Full-Service Community Schools Program
• Promise Neighborhoods Program
• IDEA Part B and Part C

“Federal funds, when effectively layered and braided, can support greater access to preschool, provide full-day, full-year high-quality services to meet families’ needs, provide adequate wages and benefits to staff, and improve quality across programs,” the letter concluded.

The post Courts rule on missed IEP goals and Title IX; preschool guidance released appeared first on District Administration.

Over the last two years, some 18 states have passed at least one law barring educators from teaching about or even discussing race, sexual orientation, gender identity and other topics. “Students do not feel comfortable asking honest questions and teachers do not feel comfortable about giving honest answers,” one teacher said in the survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that is closely tracking the impact of curriculum restrictions.

About a quarter of the teachers participating in the nationwide survey said that race or gender restrictions are influencing their instruction. The rates were higher in conservative-leaning counties even in states without laws that narrowed curriculum.

Talking Out of School podcast: What leaders want to achieve at the 100 Superintendent March

Overall, nearly 30% of teachers reported that restrictions had negative impacts. They said the new regulations diminish students’ sense of belonging and “could lead to long-term consequences for the future of the education system, country, and democracy,” the survey noted. Black teachers and Eng,ish language arts and secondary teachers were the most likely to see limitations as harmful for student learning.

Teachers who favored the limitations contended that race and gender are better discussed at home because the topics are inappropriate for younger kids and divide and distract students.

Here is a sampling of what teachers told the researchers about curriculum laws:

• “It unnecessarily makes the learning environment more difficult and hostile to an open exchange of ideas.”
• “If I followed the state law to the letter of the law, I couldn’t teach basic history or connect student learning to current topics and modern books.”
• “I teach in a setting that is predominantly students of color. . . . To suppress the availability of materials that reflect their lived experiences will only harm them, both socially and academically.”
• “It makes it difficult to form relationships with students that are potentially struggling with their identity. When students identify as a different name/gender and if I can’t refer to them as their preferred name it doesn’t let that student know they are valued in my classroom. When they don’t feel like a valuable classroom community member, why would they want to learn and be involved in it?”
• “I’m very grateful that my state has placed limitations on discussions of gender expression because social media does a good enough job confusing and perverting the minds of our youth [on] their own, without help from the schools.”
• “Each human being has the right to believe whatever they choose, but I will not influence nor go against what their families teach them in the home in my classroom.”

Un-limited curriculums

Some states have done the opposite of limiting curriculum and have passed laws or offered guidance to help teachers include diverse identities in instruction.

New York has provided guidance to teachers around creating a “safe, supportive, and affirming school environment for transgender and gender expansive students.” Its Board of Regents has also developed a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Framework to encourage schools to adopt culturally responsive instruction.

California has funded professional development in creating a positive school climate around diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds while Washington requires educators to undergo PD in “cultural competency, diversity, equity, and inclusion,” RAND noted.

The post How are two years of teaching restrictions impacting classrooms? appeared first on District Administration.

As the focus shifts from cheating and plagiarism to how the rapidly advancing technology can be used to improve learning, just a handful of states have shared policies to help steer AI’s use in schools, says the latest report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education think tank at Arizona State University.

“AI recommendations, policies, and access to training for educators are, by and large, ambiguous and underdeveloped,” writes the report’s author, Bree Dusseault, the Center’s managing director.

‘Talking Out of School’ podcast: ‘The most complicated budget year ever’

California and Oregon were the first to offer their school districts roadmaps for navigating AI. North Carolina, West Virginia and Washington have since followed suit while Virginia Gov. Glen Youngkin has directed state agencies to begin setting the course for “AI integration throughout education.”

North Carolina’s and West Virginia’s AI recommendations are singled out in the report as the most substantial of the bunch. Both states recognize AI’s educational potential and the need to train students and teachers to use it safely. They also suggest curriculum and instructional resources.

North Carolina “takes a particularly innovative stance on plagiarism,” Dusseault writes. The state encourages educators to rethink cheating and assume that students will use AI for all writing assignments. It also suggests that schools adopt a red-yellow-green “AI Acceptable Use Scale” to determine whether AI can or should be used on an assignment, and to what extent.

“It is perhaps shortsighted to automatically consider all use of AI as ‘cheating,’” Dusseault notes.

West Virginia takes more of a zero-tolerance approach to cheating and will require that students get permission from parents to use artificial intelligence tools at school. The state also recommends that teachers focus on AI literacy, primarily in computer science and career and technical education.

North Carolina, on the other hand, envisions infusing artificial intelligence across the curriculum and provides strategies for teaching AI literacy in each grade level. The state is workforce-focused, noting in its policy that “75% of companies will implement generative AI by 2025” and that artificial intelligence and machine learning will be among the fastest-growing job fields.

But who’s taking the lead on AI?

While all five states offer “inspiration and ideas,” Dusseault contends that superintendents and their teams will have to take the lead on setting their AI strategies and adopting their state’s “broad suggestions” to the needs of their own students.

“Districts will still need to undertake the time-consuming task of determining which policies should change,” Dusseault concludes. “They will continue to have significant discretion in shaping their AI approaches, as these guidance documents are what they say they are: guidance. States plan to update them routinely, meaning that districts will have to do the same.”

The post AI focus is shifting from cheating to better learning appeared first on District Administration.