Author: admin

  • How do Kids Learn to Read? There Are as Many Ways as There Are Students – The 74

    How do Kids Learn to Read? There Are as Many Ways as There Are Students – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Five years after the pandemic forced children into remote instruction, two-thirds of U.S. fourth graders still cannot read at grade level. Reading scores lag 2 percentage points below 2022 levels and 4 percentage points below 2019 levels.

    This data from the 2024 report of National Assessment of Educational Progress, a state-based ranking sometimes called “America’s report card,” has concerned educators scrambling to boost reading skills.

    Many school districts have adopted an evidence-based literacy curriculum called the “science of reading” that features phonics as a critical component.

    Phonics strategies begin by teaching children to recognize letters and make their corresponding sounds. Then they advance to manipulating and blending first-letter sounds to read and write simple, consonant-vowel-consonant words – such as combining “b” or “c” with “-at” to make “bat” and “cat.” Eventually, students learn to merge more complex word families and to read them in short stories to improve fluency and comprehension.

    Proponents of the curriculum celebrate its grounding in brain science, and the science of reading has been credited with helping Louisiana students outperform their pre-pandemic reading scores last year.

    In practice, Louisiana used a variety of science of reading approaches beyond phonics. That’s because different students have different learning needs, for a variety of reasons.

    Yet as a scholar of reading and language who has studied literacy in diverse student populations, I see many schools across the U.S. placing a heavy emphasis on the phonics components of the science of reading.

    If schools want across-the-board gains in reading achievement, using one reading curriculum to teach every child isn’t the best way. Teachers need the flexibility and autonomy to use various, developmentally appropriate literacy strategies as needed.

    Phonics fails some students

    Phonics programs often require memorizing word families in word lists. This works well for some children: Research shows that “decoding” strategies such as phonics can support low-achieving readers and learners with dyslexia.

    However, some students may struggle with explicit phonics instruction, particularly the growing population of neurodivergent learners with autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. These students learn and interact differently than their mainstream peers in school and in society. And they tend to have different strengths and challenges when it comes to word recognition, reading fluency and comprehension.

    This was the case with my own child. He had been a proficient reader from an early age, but struggles emerged when his school adopted a phonics program to balance out its regular curriculum, a flexible literature-based curriculum called Daily 5 that prioritizes reading fluency and comprehension.

    I worked with his first grade teacher to mitigate these challenges. But I realized that his real reading proficiency would likely not have been detected if the school had taught almost exclusively phonics-based reading lessons.

    Another weakness of phonics, in my experience, is that it teaches reading in a way that is disconnected from authentic reading experiences. Phonics often directs children to identify short vowel sounds in word lists, rather than encounter them in colorful stories. Evidence shows that exposing children to fun, interesting literature promotes deep comprehension.

    Balanced literacy

    To support different learning styles, educators can teach reading in multiple ways. This is called balanced literacy, and for decades it was a mainstay in teacher preparation and in classrooms.

    Balanced literacy prompts children to learn words encountered in authentic literature during guided, teacher-led read-alouds – versus learning how to decode words in word lists. Teachers use multiple strategies to promote reading acquisition, such as blending the letter sounds in words to support “decoding” while reading.

    Another balanced literacy strategy that teachers can apply in phonics-based strategies while reading aloud is called “rhyming word recognition.” The rhyming word strategy is especially effective with stories whose rhymes contribute to the deeper meaning of the story, such as Marc Brown’s “Arthur in a Pickle.”

    The rhyming structure of ‘Arthur in a Pickle’ helps children learn to read entire words, versus word parts.

    After reading, teachers may have learners arrange letter cards to form words, then tap the letter cards while saying and blending each sound to form the word. Similar phonics strategies include tracing and writing letters to form words that were encountered during reading.

    There is no one right way to teach literacy in a developmentally appropriate, balanced literacy framework. There are as many ways as there are students.

    What a truly balanced curriculum looks like

    The push for the phonics-based component of the science of reading is a response to the discrediting of the Lucy Calkins Reading Project, a balanced literacy approach that uses what’s called “cueing” to teach young readers. Teachers “cue” students to recognize words with corresponding pictures and promote guessing unfamiliar words while reading based on context clues.

    A 2024 class action lawsuit filed by Massachusetts families claimed that this faulty curriculum and another cueing-based approach called Fountas & Pinnell had failed readers for four decades, in part because they neglect scientifically backed phonics instruction.

    But this allegation overlooks evidence that the Calkins curriculum worked for children who were taught basic reading skills at home. And a 2021 study in Georgia found modest student achievement gains of 2% in English Language Arts test scores among fourth graders taught with the Lucy Calkins method.

    Nor is the method unscientific. Using picture cues with corresponding words is supported by the predictable language theory of literacy.

    This approach is evident in Eric Carle’s popular children’s books. Stories such as the “Very Hungry Caterpillar” and “Brown Bear, Brown Bear What do you See?” have vibrant illustrations of animals and colors that correspond with the text. The pictures support children in learning whole words and repetitive phrases, suchg as, “But he was still hungry.”

    The intention here is for learners to acquire words in the context of engaging literature. But critics of Calkins contend that “cueing” during reading is a guessing game. They say readers are not learning the fundamentals necessary to identify sounds and word families on their way to decoding entire words and sentences.

    As a result, schools across the country are replacing traditional learn-to-read activities tied to balanced literacy approaches with the science of reading. Since its inception in 2013, the phonics-based curriculum has been adopted by 40 states and the Disctrict of Columbia.

    Recommendations for parents, educators and policymakers

    The most scientific way to teach reading, in my opinion, is by not applying the same rigid rules to every child. The best instruction meets students where they are, not where they should be.

    Here are five evidence-based tips to promote reading for all readers that combine phonics, balanced literacy and other methods.

    1. Maintain the home-school connection. When schools send kids home with developmentally appropriate books and strategies, it encourages parents to practice reading at home with their kids and develop their oral reading fluency. Ideally, reading materials include features that support a diversity of learning strategies, including text, pictures with corresponding words and predictable language.

    2. Embrace all reading. Academic texts aren’t the only kind of reading parents and teachers should encourage. Children who see menus, magazines and other print materials at home also acquire new literacy skills.

    3. Make phonics fun. Phonics instruction can teach kids to decode words, but the content is not particularly memorable. I encourage teachers to teach phonics on words that are embedded in stories and texts that children absolutely love.

    4. Pick a series. High-quality children’s literature promotes early literacy achievement. Texts that become increasingly more complex as readers advance, such as the “Arthur” step-into-reading series, are especially helpful in developing reading comprehension. As readers progress through more complex picture books, caregivers and teachers should read aloud the “Arthur” novels until children can read them independently. Additional popular series that grow with readers include “Otis,” “Olivia,” “Fancy Nancy” and “Berenstain Bears.”

    5. Tutoring works. Some readers will struggle despite teachers’ and parents’ best efforts. In these cases, intensive, high-impact tutoring can help. Sending students to one session a week of at least 30 minutes is well documented to help readers who’ve fallen behind catch up to their peers. Many nonprofit organizations, community centers and colleges offer high-impact tutoring.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Ivy Tech in Indiana to lay off 200 employees (WSBT-TV)

    Ivy Tech in Indiana to lay off 200 employees (WSBT-TV)

    More than 200 jobs at Ivy Tech are being eliminated due to a cut in state funding, and some of that loss is impacting people in South Bend. The student in this story discusses questions about the value of a community college education and finding gainful employment after graduation.   

    Source link

  • Top takeaways from OCR nominee’s Senate confirmation hearing

    Top takeaways from OCR nominee’s Senate confirmation hearing

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is undergoing a slew of changes, including a significantly increased caseload after the Trump administration let go of hundreds of its employees. With the nomination of Kimberly Richey to fill the role of assistant secretary for civil rights, it’s likely the office tasked with enforcing equal educational access will shift even more.

    Right now, attorneys are juggling on average 115 cases, according to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who shared the number with witnesses at a Thursday nomination hearing held by the Senate’s Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee. 

    Prior to the March layoffs that resulted in the shuttering of seven out of 12 OCR offices nationwide, attorneys tasked with protecting the civil rights of students and educators had about 42 cases on their plate. That caseload was characterized as “untenable” by the former assistant secretary for civil rights, Catherine Lhamon, and had prompted former U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to advocate for an increase in the office’s funding under the Biden administration.

    Murray said the newer caseload was now “making it difficult for those investigators to meaningfully investigate discrimination and to protect students’ rights.” 

    Thursday’s hearing was held to discuss the nomination of Richey to lead OCR, among nominations of other officials such as Penny Schwinn to be deputy secretary of education. Richey served under the first Trump administration as acting assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and then as acting assistant secretary for civil rights.

    Being ‘strategic’ with resources

    When asked by multiple Democratic senators about how she would navigate a backlog of OCR complaints — which exceeds 25,000, said Murray — with half of the office’s former headcount and a budget that would be significantly slashed under President Donald Trump’s FY 26 proposal, Richey said she would have to be “strategic.” 

    “One of the reasons why this role is so important to me is because I will always advocate for OCR to have the resources to do its job,” said Richey. However, she dodged questions about whether OCR had enough resources to do its job under Trump’s first administration.  

    “I think that what that means is that I’m going to have to be really strategic if I’m confirmed, stepping into this role, helping come up with a plan where we can address these challenges,” she said.

    That would include evaluating the current caseload and determining where complaints stand in their investigative timeline. It would also include looking at the current staff distribution and organizational structure of OCR, and helping Secretary of Education Linda McMahon come up with a plan to “ensure that OCR is able to meet its mission and its statutory purpose to prioritize all complaints.”

    Richey said that rather than put certain investigations on pause, as has been the case under the second Trump administration, she would prioritize all complaints that fall at OCR’s footsteps.

    Changes in Title IX enforcement

    Richey raised the eyebrows of some Republican leaders when she said that she would enforce Title IX, the anti-sex discrimination statute, to protect LGTBQ+ students from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The Trump administration and Republican leaders have prioritized enforcing the statute to exclude transgender students from women’s and girls’ athletics teams, locker rooms and other facilities. 

    When pressed, however, Richey clarified that she would enforce Title IX to protect LGTBQ+ students in a narrow number of cases, related to different treatment, bullying and harassment. 

    “We would also look at the relevance of sex in our cases,” Richey said. “Sex is relevant in regards to restrooms, and sex is relevant in regards to locker rooms and sex is relevant in regards to athletics.” 

    The Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County protected LGTBQ+ students, including transgender students, on athletic teams in some cases. It prohibited blanket bans of transgender students from athletics.

    “That is not what we did under President Trump’s first term, and that is not what we will do under President Trump’s second term,” she said. 

    Source link

  • Same old playbook, new target: AI chatbots

    Same old playbook, new target: AI chatbots

    Chatbots are already transforming how people access information, express themselves, and connect with others. From personal finance to mental health, these tools are becoming an everyday part of digital life. But as their use grows, so does the urgency to protect the First Amendment rights of both developers and users.

    That’s because some state lawmakers are pursuing a familiar regulatory approach: requiring things like blanket age verification, rigid time limits, and mandated lockouts on use. But like other means of digital communication, the development and use of chatbots have First Amendment protection, so any efforts to regulate them must carefully navigate significant constitutional considerations.

    Prompting a chatbot involves … the user choosing words to communicate ideas, seek information, or express thoughts. That act of communication is protected under the First Amendment, even when software generates the specific response.

    Take New York’s S 5668, which would make every user, including adults, verify their age before chatting, and would fine chatbot providers when a “misleading” or “harmful” reply “results in” any kind of demonstrable harm to the user. This is, in effect, a breathtakingly broad “misinformation” bill that would permit the government to punish speech it deems false — or true but subjectively harmful — whenever it can point to a supposed injury. This is inconsistent with the First Amendment, which precludes the government from regulating chatbot speech it thinks is misleading or harmful — just as it does with any other expression.

    S 5668 would also require that certain companion bots be shut down for 24 hours whenever expressions of potential self-harm are detected, complementing a newly enacted New York prohibition that requires companion chatbots to include protocols to detect and address expressions of self-harm and direct users to crisis services. Both the bill and the new law also require chatbots to remind users that they are AI and not a human being. 

    Sound familiar? States like California, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas all attempted similar regulatory measures targeting another digital speech technology: social media. Those efforts have resulted in several court injunctionsrepealsvetoes, and blocked implementation because they violated the First Amendment rights of the platforms and users. 

    New York is just one of a few states that have introduced similar chatbot legislation. Minnesota’s SF 1857 requires age verification while flatly banning anyone under age 18 from “recreational” chatbots. California’s SB 243 targets undefined “rewarding” chat features, leaving developers to guess what speech is off-limits and pressuring them to censor conversations.

    As we’ve said before, the First Amendment doesn’t evaporate when the speaker’s words depend on computer code. From the printing press to the internet, and now AI, each leap in expressive technology remains under its protective umbrella.  

    This is not because the machine itself has rights; rather, it’s protected by the rights of the developer who created the chatbot and of the users who create the prompts. Just like asking a question in a search engine or posting on social media and the responses they generate, prompting a chatbot involves a developer’s expressive design and the user choosing words to communicate ideas, seek information, or express thoughts. That act of communication is protected under the First Amendment, even when software generates the specific response.

    FIRE will keep speaking out against these bills, which show a growing pattern of government overreach into First Amendment rights when it comes to digital speech. 

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump’s international enrolment ban

    Judge blocks Trump’s international enrolment ban

    The temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued by federal judge Allison Burroughs on June 5, just one day after President Trump’s signing of a proclamation to suspend the issuing of US visas to international students entering Harvard for an initial six months.   

    During the Massachusetts hearing, Burroughs said Trump’s directive would cause “immediate and irreparable injury” to America’s oldest institution, temporarily blocking it “until there is opportunity to hear from all parties”. 

    The judge also extended a 23 May restraining order which prevents DHS’s attempt to strip Harvard of its ability to enrol international students, until June 20 or when a preliminary injunction is issued, with a hearing set for June 16. 

    The June 4 proclamation came in addition to, and aims to circumvent, DHS secretary Kristi Noem’s revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification, which was also blocked by the courts.  

    Wednesday’s directive – which incorrectly refers to SEVP as the “Student and Exchange Visa Program” – attempts to bar all new international students, scholars and exchange visitors from pursuing any course of study at the university, for a period of six months. 

    With the stroke of a pen, the DHS Secretary and the President have sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body

    Harvard University

    This time, the government framed the ban as a matter of national security, accusing Harvard of collaborating with China. It has repeatedly criticised the institution for failing to root out antisemitism on campus and failing to hand over information on international students.  

    For its part, hours before judge Burroughs’ ruling, Harvard amended a previous lawsuit, alleging both the June 4 proclamation and the DHS revocation were “part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government” in clear retribution for Harvard’s exercising its First Amendment rights to free speech.  

    “With the stroke of a pen, the DHS Secretary and the President have sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body,” it reads, in what the complaint calls a “government vendetta against Harvard”.  

    Last year, Harvard hosted 6,793 international students, totalling over 27% of the entire student body, though Trump has mistakenly called the figure 31%.

    Meanwhile, on June 5, Harvard’s President Garber sent a letter to the Harvard community, informing students that “contingency plans” were being drawn up to allow students to continue their studies during the summer and the upcoming academic year.

    Reaffirming the “outstanding contributions” of international students, Garber vowed to “celebrate them, support them, and defend their interests as we continue to assert our Constitutional rights”.  

    Source link

  • Emails Shed Light on UNC’s Plans to Create a New Accreditor

    Emails Shed Light on UNC’s Plans to Create a New Accreditor

    Last month, Peter Hans, president of the University of North Carolina system, casually dropped a bombshell announcement that the system and others were in talks to launch a new accreditor.

    “We’ve been having a number of discussions with several other major public university systems, where we’re exploring the idea of creating an accreditor that would offer sound oversight,” Hans said at a UNC system Board of Governors meeting last month, The News & Observer reported.

    Since then, no additional details have emerged, though Hans teased an update to come in July.

    But public records obtained by Inside Higher Ed show UNC system officials have been quietly engaged in conversations about launching a new accreditor for at least a year, including discussions with unnamed collaborators in Florida, where the effort could be headquartered. UNC officials have also spoken with officials at the U.S. Department of Education, even getting a heads-up on what an April 23 executive order from the Trump administration on accreditation would entail. 

    Here’s what those documents show.

    ‘The Florida Project’

    In early April, UNC officials appeared ready to tell the world about their plans for a new accreditor that “would be publicly accountable, outcomes-based, and more efficient and effective in its reviews,” according to the draft of a statement that was never publicly released.

    “We believe it is past time for the creation of a new accreditor focused on the unique needs of public colleges and universities,” the statement said. “We have worked collaboratively over the past year to explore and develop such a cross-state partnership.”

    Andrew Kelly, a senior adviser to Hans, sent a draft of the statement to other UNC officials. The statement argued that accreditors “wield enormous power, but too often have opaque and counterintuitive governance” and fail to “focus on matters that are significant to students.” He argued in the statement that the current model “creates unnecessary duplication and cost, conflicts with the authority of state governments, and does little to ensure educational quality.”

    An unidentified number of state systems of higher education were supposed to sign the statement, according to the draft.

    Kelly drafted the statement in response to the Trump administration’s anticipated changes to accreditation, which included streamlining the processes for ED to recognize accreditors and for institutions to switch agencies, among other changes to the system that serves as gatekeeper to federal financial aid.

    But the public did not hear about the UNC system’s quiet effort to launch a new accreditor until Hans spoke up at the May board meeting.

    Other emails yielded some insights into whom the UNC system might be partnering with.

    Daniel Harrison, vice president for academic affairs at the UNC system, sent an email on April 23 to fellow officials recapping a call with the U.S. Department of Education and what could be expected in the coming executive order on accreditation (which was issued shortly after his email).

    In that email, Harrison also pointed to potential partners in the accreditation effort.

    “An update on the Florida project—we met with the new entities [sic] attorneys and made substantial progress toward determining the legal structure of the new accreditor. It is likely to be a single member Florida nonprofit corp. Florida would be the sole member, but would delegate all delegable powers to a Board of Directors made up of the participating states,” Harrison wrote.

    But despite having met with potential partners, UNC considered going its own way.

    In a response to Harrison, Hans asked him to convene several system officials involved with the effort to weigh the pros and cons of “joining [a] multi-state coalition” or “forming a NC entity.” Email records obtained by Inside Higher Ed don’t show what the group recommended, but remarks made by Hans at May’s meeting indicate the system opted for the coalition approach.

    UNC system officials did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    System leaders also appear to have discussed the effort with state legislators in private. On May 15, Hans asked senior vice president of government relations Bart Goodson to set up a meeting with Michael Lee, the Senate majority leader in the Republican-dominated Legislature. When Goodson asked about the topic, Hans replied, “accreditation update with good news.”

    Lee did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Potential Partners?

    Like their UNC counterparts, other public systems are staying quiet on the effort.

    Inside Higher Ed contacted a dozen public university systems, all in red states, to ask if they are partnering with UNC or others in an effort to launch a new accreditor, or if they participated in such discussions. Only two replied: the Arkansas State University system and the University of Alabama system. Both noted they had not been involved in those accreditation discussions.

    The State University System of Florida—which did not reply to media inquiries—is the most likely potential partner, given the details in Harrison’s email and the governor’s recent political fury with accreditors. 

    In 2022, Florida’s dark-red Legislature passed a law requiring state institutions to switch accreditors regularly. That move came after the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, which accredited all 40 of Florida’s public institutions, inquired about a potential conflict of interest at Florida State University, which was considering Richard Corcoran for its presidency despite his role on the Florida Board of Governors. (He now leads New College of Florida.)

    SACS also raised questions about an effort by the University of Florida to prevent professors from testifying against the state in a legal case challenging voting-rights restrictions. (UF later dropped that policy amid a torrent of criticism.) Both incidents occurred in 2021.

    Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been a vocal critic of the federal accreditation system. 

    Joe Raedle/Getty Images
     

    Following the 2022 law, some institutions began the process of switching accreditors, though state officials argued that the Biden administration slowed down that effort and Florida tried unsuccessfully to get a federal judge to rule the current system of accreditation unconstitutional.

    Outside of Florida, North Carolina is the only other state with a similar law. In 2023, legislators quietly slipped a provision into a state budget bill that required state institutions to change accreditors every cycle. The law was passed with no debate among North Carolina lawmakers. The change came after UNC clashed with SACS in early 2023 over shared governance.

    Florida governor Ron DeSantis did not confirm to Inside Higher Ed whether the state is launching a new accreditor, but recent remarks from the GOP firebrand suggest, albeit vaguely, that something is in the works.

    “For too long, academic accreditors have held our colleges and universities hostage,” DeSantis said in an emailed statement. “These accreditation cartels have worked behind the scenes to shape university behavior, embedding ideological concepts like Diversity, Equity, and Exclusion Indoctrination into the accreditation process. If you weren’t meeting politically motivated standards, like enthusiastic participation in DEI, they would hamper your accreditation and access to federal funding. In Florida, we refuse to let academic accreditation cartels hold our colleges and universities hostage to ideology at the expense of academic excellence. Stay tuned.”

    DeSantis also promised “more to come” on accreditation at an education event on Wednesday.

    Long Road Ahead

    Reactions to Hans’s announcement have been mixed.

    Wade Maki, Faculty Assembly chair and a philosophy professor at UNC Greensboro, said he and other faculty members recently met with system officials to share their thoughts on the plan. 

    “We had a very open conversation with the system office and shared our hopes that we get an accreditor that is independent, that maintains the strong reputation of the UNC system and helps keep the politics out of higher ed and the curriculum, whether that’s from the politicians or the accreditors themselves,” Maki said. “We’ve seen it come from both directions over the years.”

    He also thinks the narrow focus of such an accreditor could be a positive.

    “My leadership team, the Faculty Assembly Executive Committee and the faculty that we’ve talked to on campuses, we see the potential benefits of trying something like this, of having an accreditor that focuses just on the accrediting of state-supported public institutions,” Maki said.

    Outside observers were more critical of the UNC system’s plans.

    Accreditation expert Paul Gaston III, an emeritus trustees professor at Kent State University, argued that building an accreditor composed only of public institutions would omit valuable perspectives in review processes. He argued that colleges undergoing accreditation reviews benefit from the diversity of experiences from evaluators working at a broad range of institutions.

    “What would be the advantage of, in a sense, separating classes of institutions for accreditation? I think one of the strengths of accreditation has been that it brings a variety of perspectives to the evaluation of a particular institution,” Gaston said.

    Then there’s the arduous process of getting a new accrediting agency up and running; gaining federal recognition, which is required, takes years. Although Trump’s executive order on accreditation promised a smoother pathway to recognition for new entrants, it does not supersede federal regulations. 

    “Becoming federally recognized, typically, is a five-plus-year process,” said Edward Conroy, a senior policy manager at the left-leaning think tank New America. Under current federal regulations, Conroy doesn’t expect the new accreditor to be recognized until 2030 or so.

    Conroy also questioned whether the effort to create a new accreditor is about institutional quality assurance or political control.

    “Everything Florida has done on accreditation over the past few years appears to be politically and ideologically driven, rather than about what is best for students and ensuring that they go to high-quality institutions and get a good education when they’re paying a lot of money for it and when taxpayers are investing a lot of money in public funding for higher education,” he said.

    Conroy worries that state lawmakers in either Florida or North Carolina would require public colleges in their state to be accredited by their new accreditor. That would undermine the current requirement that colleges get to choose their own accreditor.

    “It undercuts the principle of the higher education accountability triad, where states, accreditors and the Department of Education are all meant to do different things,” Conroy said. “If you have a state that becomes both, to some degree or another, the accreditor, as well as the state authorizing entity, then we’ve combined two legs of a three-legged stool.”

    Source link

  • Why Teachers Can’t Afford to Wait on the Sidelines

    Why Teachers Can’t Afford to Wait on the Sidelines

    Tired of talking about AI? That’s too bad. The technology remains the most impactful force in education. The challenge becomes avoiding all the Claptrap. Thankfully, that’s where Denise Pope, Co-Founder of Challenge Success at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, comes in.

    I had the chance to explore the current AI state-of-play from her perspective. One striking disparity I haven’t heard talked about: While AI usage among students has skyrocketed—from 25% to 60% at the middle school level and 45% to 75% at the high school level over just two school years—only 32% of teachers report using AI for academic purposes.

    This gap has created what Denise describes as an educational “La La Land,” where students are experimenting with AI tools while many schools lack clear policies or guidance. The absence of structured approaches is breeding anxiety among both educators and students, who are left wondering when and how AI should appropriately be used in academic settings.

    Click through to hear how Denise believes this issue can be addressed:

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media

    Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently signed legislation banning cellphone use during school hours for all students. The law makes Virginia the 21st state to ban or limit cellphones in schools, according to a legislation tracker by Ballotpedia. 
    • Starting January 2026, children in Virginia under the age of 16 will also only be allowed to use social media for an hour per day under another law signed by Youngkin in early May. That law, SB 854, mandates that social media companies verify a minor’s age and enforce a time limit of one hour per day for children and young teens.
    • In Florida, a similar — albeit stricter — law passed in 2024 that bans social media use for children under 14 years old hit a roadblock in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily barred parts of HB 3 from being enforced while the case moves forward, saying that the law’s restrictions are “likely facially unconstitutional.”

    Dive Insight:

    Pushes for bans or limits on cellphone and social media use among children are growing as lawmakers and some advocates note the harmful effects of technology on young people’s mental health and wellbeing.

    In 2024, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for social media platforms to display warning labels similar to messages that accompany alcohol and cigarettes. Murthy said at the time that social media is an “important contributor” to the nation’s worsening teen mental health crisis.

    Teens themselves are also increasingly aware of the harmful impacts social media can have on their mental health. A recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens found that 48% said social media has a mostly negative impact on their peers — up 16 percentage points from 2022.

    Laws enforcing cellphone bans in schools have also largely gained bipartisan support in both liberal and conservative-leaning states.

    Upon signing Virginia’s K-12 cellphone ban, Youngkin said in a May 30 statement that “students will learn more and be healthier and safer” under this new legislation. “School should be a place of learning and human interaction — free from the distractions and classroom disruptions of cell-phone and social media use.”

    Research from Common Sense Media finds that 1 in 4 children had their own cellphone by the age of 8 in 2024. A separate study from 2023 also revealed that 97% of teens use their phones to some extent during the school day, and that students were most likely to turn to social media, YouTube or gaming when doing so.

    However, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns are rising alongside states’ efforts to enforce broader social media bans outside of school.

    In the Florida case, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. James Uthmeier, challenging the state’s 2024 social media ban for children, the plaintiffs have alleged the law violates the First Amendment and puts Floridians’ online security at risk. The recent order from Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker temporarily prevents the law from requiring those in Florida to provide identification to access social media apps, said NetChoice in a Tuesday statement. 

    “HB 3 violates the First Amendment by forcing all Floridians to hand over their personal data just to access lawful, protected speech online,” NetChoice said of Walker’s order. “It requires websites to collect their users’ sensitive documentation, creating a cybersecurity risk by making private data more vulnerable to hackers and predators.”

    Source link

  • the view from NAFSA 2025

    the view from NAFSA 2025

    As 8,000 delegates gathered in San Diego for the opening plenary of NAFSA 2025, the sector was hit with the news that the Trump administration was halting the scheduling of student visa interviews as it prepared to expand its social media vetting of prospective students.  

    Then, on day two of the conference – as friends and colleagues filtered out of the convention centre to drinks receptions across the city – they were rocked by more bad news. This time, that the State Department would “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students and enhance scrutiny of future visa applicants.

    The unexpected, inflammatory announcements alarmed delegates and immediately set the agenda for discussions across the four-day event.  

    Concern circulated about the characteristically broad scope and vague language of the announcements – which colleagues have come to expect from the administration. But while all of this could have quite reasonably created panic and confusion, in fact, there was an air of focus and unity.  

    For Brett Blacker, Duolingo’s managing director for Australia and New Zealand, the conference acted “a bit like a group therapy session”. Colleagues from across the globe were simply grateful to be together to process the rapidly changing policy environment and devise strategies for the future.  

    And while the deliberately disorientating barrage of attacks from the Trump administration demand that stakeholders are continuously adapting and reacting, attendees were also urged to take the long view. 

    “When the roots are deep, there is no reason to fear the wind,” said NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw, telling colleagues to pursue partnerships “not for prestige, but for shared progress”. 

    Aw extended a special welcome to NAFSA’s international participants – comprising 45% of attendees – whose very presence she said amounted to “an act of hope”.  

    While xenophobia disguised as nationalism and the politicisation of international students is by no means limited to the US, many of the conference’s most fruitful discussions came from cross-border comparisons.  

    Rather than remain despondent, NAFSA delegates have taken to LinkedIn with realism and pragmatism, laced with just a little bit of hope

    These were most stark when examining student mobility in the ‘big four’ study destinations, with several sessions highlighting the relative attractiveness of the UK amid visa challenges in Canada and Australia, not to mention extreme volatility in the US.  

    Elsewhere, discussions highlighted the rise of the ‘Asian decade’ and the increasing pull of destinations such as Ireland and Germany, with a sense of the sector at a tipping point as the dominance of traditional destinations and models is increasingly questioned.  

    This sense of unity continued as colleagues were united over the frustrating lack of detail about the latest policies from the White House. As the conference continued, attendees received no clarity from government about the length of the visa interview freeze, despite the initial cable indicating it would only last several days.  

    Ten days later, students remain unable to book visa appointments, and the administration has stayed similarly silent on the scope or character of its “aggressive” Chinese visa revocations. It’s a maddening state of affairs, stemming from an increasingly unpredictable administration that seems unable to see that peevish, retaliatory policies made in the spur of the moment are having real-world effects on institutions and students alike.

    Sadly, the onslaught shows no sligns of slowing down. Since the close of NAFSA 2025, the Trump administration has barred prospective international students in 19 countries from studying in the US. 

    And it has also attempted, once again, to strip students around the world of the right to study at America’s oldest institution, signing a proclamation to suspend Harvard’s international enrolments, which has since been temporarily blocked by a federal court.  

    As uncertainty prevails across much of the sector, emotions are understandably high. But rather than remain despondent, NAFSA delegates have taken to LinkedIn with realism and pragmatism, laced with just a little bit of hope.

    As attendees heard from Intead’s Ben Waxman in the final session of the final day in the furthest away room: ““Now is not the time to get angry, now is the time to get focussed”. 

    Source link