Tag: shows

  • Poll shows most teens oppose classroom cellphone bans

    Poll shows most teens oppose classroom cellphone bans

    Dive Brief:

    • Only 41% of teens support cellphone bans in middle and high school classrooms, according to polling by Pew Research Center released Tuesday. That contrasts with most surveyed adults — 74% — who are supportive of similar prohibitions, earlier Pew research found.
    • Fewer teens (17%) are supportive of all-day cellphone bans, compared to 44% of adults. White students were more receptive to classroom and all-day cellphone bans compared to their Black and Hispanic peers, and students from families with higher household incomes favored school cellphone restrictions at a higher rate.
    • Separate research by Rand Corp. last year found school principals touted several benefits to cellphone restrictions in schools, including improved school climate, less inappropriate cellphone use and reduced cyberbullying.

    Dive Insight:

    Other research released last year by Phones in Focus, a nonpartisan research project supported by the National Governors Association, found that stricter cellphone policies, such as prohibiting students from carrying their cellphones during the school day, were associated with higher teacher satisfaction. 

    According to Ballotpedia, 38 states have enacted laws or policies on K-12 classroom or school cellphone usage as of Jan. 13. About 29 states have policies banning or limiting cellphones in classrooms.

    The exact policies differ state-by-state and even district-by-district.

    New Jersey, one of the most recent states to approve a school cellphone law, is requiring districts to adopt policies restricting the use of cellphones and other internet-enabled devices in K-12 schools.

    “With today’s bill signing, we are ensuring New Jersey schools are a place for learning and engagement, not distracting screens that detract from academic performance,” said Gov. Phil Murphy in a Jan. 8 statement. The state’s initiative includes $3 million in grants to schools that implement bell-to-bell cellphone bans. The funding will go toward purchasing equipment like cellphone storage pouches, training and engagement sessions.

    Andrew Matteo, superintendent of New Jersey’s Ramsey School District, said the district’s phone-free policy has “fundamentally transformed the daily experience for our students,” in the statement released by the governor’s office.

    “By removing the distraction of the cell phone, we have reclaimed the classroom as a space for deep academic focus and critical thinking,” said Matteo, adding that teachers have reported a significant increase in student engagement during instructional time. 

    But while cellphone restrictions in schools have garnered support from school administrators, policymakers and other adults, some in the disability rights community have raised concerns that these practices could conflict with education civil rights laws for students with disabilities who rely on assistive technology to access learning.

    Several state and local policies have incorporated language that provides exceptions for certain student groups, such as students with disabilities, English learners and parents of young children who may require access to their personal cellphones during the school day. 

    Additionally, Rand Corp. research published in October shows principals reported concerns from parents about cellphone bans due to having less access to their children during an emergency.

    A bill in Congress to create a national school cellphone ban also makes exceptions for students with disabilities, English learners and others who require the devices for learning or for medical reasons.

    The most recent Pew findings are based on an online survey of 1,458 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17, conducted from Sept. 25 to Oct. 9, 2025, through Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.

    Source link

  • Data Shows AI “Disconnect” in Higher Ed Workforce

    Data Shows AI “Disconnect” in Higher Ed Workforce

    Nearly half of higher ed workers feel a mix of caution and enthusiasm about AI.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | hoozone and PhonlamaiPhoto/iStock/Getty Images | skynesher/E+/Getty Images

    New data shows that while 94 percent of higher education workers use AI tools, only 54 percent are aware of their institution’s AI use policies and guidelines. And even when colleges and universities have transparent policies in place, only about half of employees feel confident about using AI tools for work.

    “[That disconnect] could have implications for things like data privacy and security and other data governance issues that protect the institution and [its] data users,” Jenay Robert, senior researcher at Educause and author of “The Impact of AI on Work in Higher Education,” said on a recorded video message about the report. Educause published the findings Monday in partnership with the National Association of College and University Business Officers, the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources and the Association for Institutional Research.

    In the fall, roughly three years after generative artificial intelligence tools went mainstream and some higher education institutions began partnering with tech companies, researchers surveyed 1,960 staff, administrators and faculty across more than 1,800 public and private institutions about AI’s relationship to their work. Ninety-two percent of respondents said their institution has a work-related AI strategy—which includes piloting AI tools, evaluating both opportunities and risks and encouraging use of AI tools. And while the vast majority of respondents (89 percent) said they aren’t required to use AI tools for work, 86 percent said they want to or will continue to use AI tools in the future.

    But the report also reveals concerns about AI’s integration into the campus workplace, and shows that not every worker is on the same page regarding which tools to implement and how.

    For example, 56 percent of respondents reported using AI tools that are not provided by their institutions for work-related tasks. Additionally, 38 percent of executive leaders, 43 percent of managers and directors, 35 percent of technology professionals and 30 percent of cybersecurity and privacy professionals reported that they are not aware of policies designed to guide their work-related use of AI tools.

    “Given that institutional leaders and IT professionals are the two groups of stakeholders most likely to have decision-making authority for work-related AI policies/guidelines, the data suggest that many institutions may simply lack formal policies/guidelines, rather than indicating insufficient communication about policies,” Robert wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    And even if they are aware of AI use policies, most workers still don’t know whether to fear or embrace AI.

    The majority of respondents (81 percent) expressed at least some enthusiasm about AI, with 33 percent reporting that they were “very enthusiastic/enthusiastic” and 48 percent reporting a mix of “caution and enthusiasm.” Meanwhile, 17 percent said they were “very cautious/cautious” about it.

    The survey yielded a similar breakdown of responses to questions about impressions of institutional leaders’ attitudes toward AI: 38 percent said they thought their leaders were “very enthusiastic/enthusiastic”; 15 percent said they were “very cautious/cautious” about it, and 36 percent said their leaders express a mix of “caution and enthusiasm.”

    But Kevin McClure, chair of the department of educational leadership at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, told Inside Higher Ed that embrace of AI may be skewed. That’s because only 12 percent of the survey’s respondents were faculty, whereas the rest held staff, management or executive roles.

    “This survey was also sent to institutional researchers and people affiliated with human resources,” he said. “Those people are working in the realm of technology, processing forms, paperwork data analysis and filing reports.”

    And the framing of the report’s questions about workers’ levels of caution and enthusiasm may have contributed to the elevated excitement about AI captured in the report, McClure added.

    So many people said they share a mix of caution and enthusiasm “because that was one of the choices,” he said. “To me, it reads like people are feeling it out—they can see the use cases for AI but also have concerns. That gets washed out by combining it with enthusiasm.”

    Risks and Rewards

    Nonetheless, that mix of caution and enthusiasm stems from the risks and benefits higher education workers associate with AI.

    Sixty-seven percent of respondents identified six or more “urgent” AI-related risks, including an increase in misinformation, the use of data without consent, loss of fundamental skills requiring independent thought, student AI use outpacing faculty and staff AI skills, and job loss. Some of those concerns align with the findings of Inside Higher Ed’s own surveys of provosts and chief technology officers, which found that the majority of both groups believe AI is a moderate or serious risk to academic integrity.

    “Almost more important than the specific risks that people are pointing out is the number of risks that people are pointing out,” Robert, the report’s author, said. “This really validates the feeling that we’re all having about AI when it comes to this feeling of overwhelm that there really are a lot of things to pay attention to.”

    At the same time, 67 percent of respondents to the Educause survey identified five or more AI-related opportunities as “most promising,” including automating repetitive processes, offloading administrative burdens and mundane tasks, and analyzing large datasets.

    “A lot of people want tools that will simplify the [administrative burden] of higher ed. Not a lot of that is going to save a ton of time or money. It’s just going to be less of an annoyance for the average worker,” McClure said. “That suggests that people aren’t looking for something that’s going to transform the workplace; they just want some assistance with the more annoying tasks.”

    And according to the report, most colleges don’t know how efficient those tools are: Just 13 percent of respondents said their institution is measuring the return on investment (ROI) for work-related AI tools.

    “Measuring the ROI of specific technologies is challenging, and this is likely one of the biggest reasons we see this gap between adoption and measurement,” Robert said. “As higher education technology leaders consider longer term investments, ROI is becoming a more pressing issue.”

    Source link

  • Education Department data shows slight dip in public school enrollment

    Education Department data shows slight dip in public school enrollment

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

    Public school student enrollment across the U.S. dipped slightly by 0.3% to 49.3 million in the 2024-25 school year compared to the year before, according to data released in December by the U.S. Department of Education for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

    Meanwhile, the number of operating elementary and secondary public schools decreased by 0.2% — from 99,297 in 2023-24 to 99,073 in 2024-25. 

    The data release, part of the Education Department’s annual Common Core of Data collection, does not offer explanations for the trends, but it does mirror reported enrollment dips that are leading some school systems to consider school closures or consolidations. 

    Although many factors may contribute to each community’s school enrollment figures, nationally, some experts have said lower birthrates and increased school choice competition are having an adverse impact on public school enrollment. 

    On the other hand, some states are seeing year-over-year enrollment increases, including the District of Columbia (2%) and Arkansas (1.2%), according to an analysis of the federal data by Burbio, a business intelligence service that works with suppliers to K-12 education. The three states that lost the most students between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years were Louisiana (5.9%), Maine (3.5%), and West Virginia (1.9%).

    Here are some other figures from the Education Department and from the Burbio’s analysis:

     

    By the numbers

     

    19,183

    The number of operating public school districts nationwide in 2024-25.

     

    -2.8%

    The percent decrease in the number of public school students between 2019-2020 and 2024-25.

     

    +2.6%

    The percent increase in the number of public charter school students between 2023-24 and 2024-25. Charter school students make up 8% of all public school students.

     

    1,859

    The number of special education-specific public schools in 2024-25. That’s down 3.8% from 2019-2020.

     

    +1.8%

    The percent increase in number of students in the Philadelphia City school district between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

     

    -0.9%

    The percent decrease in the number of students in New York City Public Schools between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

     

    -2.8%

    The percent decrease in the number of students attending Los Angeles Unified School District between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

     

    10.3-to-1

    The student-teacher ratio in Vermont classrooms in 2024-25 — the lowest of all states and the District of Columbia.

     

    21.7-to-1

    The student-teacher ratio in California classrooms in 2024-25 — the highest nationwide.

    Source link

  • Duke shows what not to do when feds come knocking

    Duke shows what not to do when feds come knocking

    This op-ed originally appeared in the Duke Chronicle on Dec. 21, 2025.

    Duke’s fight against the Trump administration has a new front: employee speech. After the White House accused the school of maintaining unlawful racial preferences and cut millions of dollars in research funding as punishment, the University ordered its employees to keep silent.

    In late August, Jenny Edmonds, Sanford School of Public Policy’s associate dean of communications and marketing, emailed faculty members that all requests about “Duke and current events” must go through the University’s PR office. She cited increased scrutiny on universities and their policies and admonished faculty to stay in their lanes, discussing only their research with the media. While Edmonds’s message was limited to the public policy school, faculty across the university got similar messages. President Vincent Price and Academic Council Chair Mark Anthony Neal praised the faculty, with Neal remarking it was “pretty amazing” that the Times received no comment from faculty members.

    This kind of restriction is offensive to free speech principles. Students and employees of private universities — that promise not suppress speech — have a right to speak with the media on matters of public concern. At public schools, those rights are protected by the First Amendment, but at Duke, it is the University’s own promises that enshrine employees’ rights to speak freely, without fear of university retaliation.

    Restricting their expression not only hurts these community members’ speech rights but also the rights of other concerned citizens to listen to expert opinions about the institutions they know best. And imposing a restraint — even an implicit one — on what employees can say to the media makes Duke a liar, belying its posturing as a university committed to open discourse.

    Suppressing student and employee speech instead of standing up for an institution’s autonomy and legal rights will always be a losing battle.

    Unfortunately, Duke isn’t alone in targeting speech to avoid political ire. Just ask student journalists at Purdue University, which broke off its longstanding agreement to distribute student newspaper The Exponent, citing a fear that others would conflate the paper’s positions with the university’s. Even though Purdue never cited the Trump administration’s campaign against higher education institutions, the insistence that honoring its agreement would constitute endorsing everything printed in a 135-year-old student newspaper suggests it, like Duke, wanted to make sure nothing its constituents said could draw unwanted government scrutiny.

    And one can understand why Duke and Purdue felt pressure to censor their community members. There are countless examples of the Trump administration bringing the heat to universities, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. Outspoken students have even led federal officials to investigate — and pause funding for — major institutions.

    What free speech rights do government employees have?

    Does the First Amendment protect public employees when they speak? It depends.


    Read More

    The fear that they could be next has not only chilled institutions; it’s led them to punish their own press corps and cut themselves off from other journalists. These responses, while noxious for a culture of free expression, may seem logical to administrators in the face of a government hellbent on attacking higher education. But even if such efforts seem like a good way to dodge pressure from Washington, universities are chilling speech that the Trump administration dislikes without the White House having to do anything.

    But the Trump administration’s aggression can only explain so much. Some universities, like Harvard, have minced no words in rebuffing attacks on their institutional independence. Why not Duke? Purdue?

    These universities are hurting their own case by targeting employees’ media comments. When they issue edicts restricting what employees can say, what this strongly suggests to an outside observer is that the university is in fact trying to hide something. It’s the higher-ed equivalent of Tony Soprano frantically stashing money in an air vent seconds before the FBI busts down his door. 

    Suppressing student and employee speech instead of standing up for an institution’s autonomy and legal rights will always be a losing battle. Harvard knew that, and has enjoyed numerous court rulings affirming its First Amendment freedoms. Duke and its peers are facing jarring federal overreach, and one can understand their fear. But in choosing censorship over principle, they hurt their students, their faculty and themselves.

    Source link

  • College costs grew 3.6% in fiscal 2025, HEPI shows

    College costs grew 3.6% in fiscal 2025, HEPI shows

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • College operating costs increased 3.6% in fiscal 2025, according to the latest Higher Education Price Index, which tracks the sector’s inflation.
    • “HEPI inflation rates are again elevated above what many consider the norm, set by expectations from prior decades,” according to a report from Commonfund Institute, which is responsible for the index. For the past five years, the HEPI rate has been above the prior decade’s annual average of 2.2%. 
    • HEPI’s latest inflation rate continues a period of elevated cost increases for colleges and universities that began with the COVID-19 pandemic. The latest annual price increase of 3.6% is higher than the prior year’s rate of 3.4%. However, it’s much lower than the most recent peak of 5.2% in fiscal 2022. 

    Dive Insight: 

    HEPI found cost increases for colleges outpaced those tracked by the Consumer Price Index, which showed inflation for the general public rising 2.6% in fiscal year 2025. HEPI’s inflation rate has been higher than the CPI’s in nine out of the past 11 years. 

    The cost increases are putting immense pressure on many colleges. Some institutions that have closed in recent years have even cited inflation as one of the reasons they’re shutting down. 

    For others, the price hikes mean shrinking margins and the need for budget cuts. All three major credit rating agencies issued a gloomy 2026 outlook for either nonprofit colleges or the entire higher education sector, with each citing rising costs as a factor. 

    Out of eight cost categories that the HEPI tracks, administrative salaries grew the most in fiscal 2025, increasing by 4.8%. 

    Similarly, faculty salaries rose 4.3%, the highest rate recorded since HEPI began tracking inflation in the category in 1998. Inflation in faculty salaries has only reached 4% or higher two other times — a 4% increase in 2023 and a 4.1% increase in 2008. Faculty salaries have the most impact on the index. 

    Increases for the other categories were: 

    • 4.2% for utilities.
    • 4.1% for service employees. 
    • 3.7% for miscellaneous services. 
    • 3.3% for clerical costs. 
    • 2.4% for fringe benefits. 

    Only supplies and materials saw deflation, with a 0.2% decline in costs. 

    Across institutions, two-year public colleges saw the highest overall cost increases at 4.6%. No other institution type had inflation above 4%. Part of this was due to inflation in faculty salaries at those institutions reaching 8.7% in fiscal 2025 — by far the highest out of any institution type. 

    Overall, public institutions had higher increases in faculty salaries than public colleges, 4.7% versus 3.6%. This breaks with the trend of private institutions more often seeing higher annual inflation in faculty costs, according to the Commonfund Institute report.

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s defense of First Amendment protections for drag shows

    Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s defense of First Amendment protections for drag shows

    Drag shows are inherently expressive and protected under the First Amendment. That’s what a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held back in August, reversing a district court’s decision that had upheld West Texas A&M University’s campus-wide drag show ban. 

    Yet several weeks later, the Fifth Circuit elected to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the case en banc, meaning the full Court will consider whether the First Amendment permits government officials to ban a drag show because they disagree with the show’s message. As FIRE fights to preserve the panel’s decision upholding the right of public university students to engage in expressive conduct, a broad coalition of free speech advocates has rallied to file “friend of the court” briefs in support.

    Here’s what happened: West Texas A&M University maintains Legacy Hall as an open forum for students and the public to interact and engage in expression. FIRE’s client in this case is Spectrum WT, a long-recognized student organization that seeks to provide support for and promote acceptance of the LGBTQ+ student body. To that end, Spectrum WT hosts a wide range of campus events, both social and educational, to raise awareness of issues important to LGBTQ+ students and foster a strong sense of community and acceptance.

    The Constitution prohibits University officials from censoring student expression on campus because they happen to disagree with its underlying message.

    Several years ago, Spectrum WT began planning a charity drag performance to be held at Legacy Hall. Proceeds from the event would benefit the Trevor Project, an organization dedicated to suicide prevention in the LGBTQ+ community. 

    But eleven days before the performance’s scheduled date, the university’s President, Walter Wendler, canceled the event. In a lengthy public statement, Wendler announced that “West Texas A&M will not host a drag show on campus,” even while conceding that drag performance is “artistic expression” and that “the law of the land” requires him to let the show go on. According to Wendler, he opposes drag’s underlying “ideology,” believing it “demeans” women and that there is “no such thing” as a “harmless drag show.”

    West Texas A&M President cancels student charity drag show for second time

    West Texas A&M President Wendler enforced his unconstitutional prior restraint by canceling a student-organized charity drag show for the second time.


    Read More

    That’s when FIRE stepped in. Our country’s universities are bastions of free expression, exploration, and self-discovery. They are uniquely places where young adults may have their opinions tested and viewpoints expanded. And the Constitution prohibits university officials from censoring student expression on campus because they happen to disagree with its underlying message. 

    That was what the Fifth Circuit panel held when it heard this case on appeal. Yet several weeks later, the court decided to vacate the panel’s decision and consider the case a second time. So the fight to preserve First Amendment protections for students’ artistic performance, regardless of whether university officials agree with the message, continues.

    Last week, a bipartisan coalition of university professors, prominent legal scholars, and no fewer than thirteen organizations filed five amicus briefs in support of Spectrum WT:

    • The ACLU of Texas and Equality Texas highlight the district court’s doctrinal errors in upholding Wendler’s blanket drag ban, including the court’s failure to recognize the message, history, and context of drag performance and its reliance on a standard for protected expression the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected. As the ACLU of Texas and Equality Texas explain: “The district court’s narrowing of the First Amendment’s protective scope sets an alarming precedent, which, if left uncorrected, could extend beyond the drag performance at issue in this case.”
    • The First Amendment Lawyers Association argues that the lower court’s decision violates the “bedrock First Amendment principle” that government officials may not censor speech merely because they dislike the message. They emphasize how this violation is even more egregious in the university setting, “where speech rights are particularly important.” As FALA describes, Wendler “suppressed protected speech, impoverished public discourse, and denied students and the broader community the right to engage, critique, and learn in a free marketplace of ideas.”
    • The National Coalition Against Censorship, Dramatists Guild of America, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Fashion Law Institute, Authors Guild, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Freedom to Read Foundation, American Booksellers Association, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State emphasize the evidence establishing that Wendler’s blanket prohibition was inherently a viewpoint-based prior restraint that finds no support in First Amendment law. They argue that Wendler’s prohibition is, in fact, “a ‘classic’ example of a prior restraint” that is “unmoored from any objective standards” constraining his censorship authority. As they explain, such prior restraints are unconstitutional as reflected in the “text, history, and tradition of the First Amendment.”
    • The CATO Institute and renowned legal scholars Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter describe the applicable legal doctrine to explain why it ultimately does not matter whether Legacy Hall is classified as a limited public forum or nonpublic forum: because Wendler’s viewpoint discrimination is impermissible everywhere. They argue that drag performance is clearly protected expression under the First Amendment and that Wendler violated that protection by censoring drag performance because he disagrees with its message.
    • A coalition of eight professors specializing in LGBTQ+ studies delve into the history of drag performance as artistic expression. They describe how drag has long existed as a medium to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and defy gender norms and stereotypes. They argue that its message is unmistakable among the general public, and that Wendler’s sole motivation in censoring this artistic expression was his personal disagreement with that message.

    Source link

  • Alabama HBCU Shows Interest in Trump’s Compact

    Alabama HBCU Shows Interest in Trump’s Compact

    Oakwood University supports the Trump administration’s controversial compact for higher education that would require signatories to make changes to their policies in order to receive a potential edge in federal funding, Religion News Service (RNS) reported.

    The historically Black university in Alabama wrote a Nov. 18 letter to the Education Department about its interest in the compact. Oakwood is the second HBCU to show interest in signing on. Like the other HBCU, Saint Augustine’s University, Oakwood officials say the compact needs to change for them to actually sign it. 

    Of concern for the HBCUS are provisions that would cap undergraduate international student enrollment at 15 percent, require a five-year tuition freeze and limit the use of race in admissions and other decisions.

    Most Popular

     “While we strongly support the Compact’s overarching goals, several provisions of the draft framework raise important concerns that, if left unaddressed, could unintendedly hinder HBCUs’ ability to participate fully or effectively,” Oakwood President Gina Brown wrote in the letter, according to RNS. “Absent a mission-based exemption, HBCUs would face an untenable choice between compliance and fulfilling their congressionally mandated purpose.”

    Oakwood is affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and RNS noted that faith-based institutions would still be able to consider religion in admissions and hiring.

    The Trump administration invited nine universities to give feedback on the proposed compact. Most of that group declined outright to sign it, saying that federal funding should be based on merit, not adherence to a president’s priorities. Since then, New College of Florida, Valley Forge Military College and Saint Augustine’s have indicated interest in joining the compact.

    Source link

  • Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74

    Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74


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

    North Carolina’s Advanced Teaching Roles program, which allows highly effective teachers to receive salary supplements for teaching additional students or supporting other teachers, is having positive effects on math and science test scores, according to an evaluation presented by NC State University’s Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at the State Board of Education meeting last week.

    Since 2016, the ATR initiative has allowed districts to create new career pathways and provide salary supplements for highly effective teachers — or Advanced Teachers — who mentor and support other educators while still teaching part of the day. Their roles include Adult Leadership teachers, who lead small teams and receive at least $10,000 supplements, and Classroom Excellence teachers, who take on larger student loads and receive a minimum of $3,000 supplements. 

    Those in adult leadership roles teach for at least 30% of the day, lead a team of 3-8 classroom teachers, and share responsibility for the performance of all those teachers’ students. Classroom excellence teachers are responsible for at least 20% more students than before they enter the role.

    “Our ATR program was designed to allow highly effective classroom educators to reach more students and to support the professional growth of educators,” said Dr. Callie Edwards, the program’s lead evaluator, at the State Board of Education meeting last Wednesday. “ATR aims to improve the quality of classroom instruction, the recruitment and retention of teachers, as well as ultimately impact student academic achievement.”

    In the 2024-25 school year, 26 districts operated ATR programs across 400 schools — 56% of which were elementary schools — employing 1,494 Advanced Teachers who supported nearly 4,000 classroom teachers statewide, according to the evaluation. Edwards said that 88% of Adult Leadership teachers received at least $10,000, and 85% of Classroom Excellence teachers received $3,000 or more.

    Statistical analysis of the 2023-24 school year’s data found that students in ATR schools outperformed their peers in non-ATR schools in math and science, showing statistically significant learning gains. 

    “Across the various programs I’ve evaluated, these are positive results — especially in math and science — where the impact of ATR is equivalent to about a month of extra learning for students,” said Dr. Lam Pham, the leading quantitative evaluator. “The results in ELA are positive but not statistically significant, which has been consistent for the last three years,” Pham said, referring to English Language Arts.

    These effects on math and science grow over time, according to the evaluation. Math scores improved throughout schools’ first six years of ATR implementation — though they are no longer significant by the seventh year of implementation, according to the presentation. For science scores, statistically significant gains began in the fifth year after schools began implementing ATR.

    Additionally, math teachers in ATR schools reported higher EVAAS growth scores than their peers in comparable schools.

    Teachers in ATR schools also reported feeling like they have more time to do their work compared to teachers in non-ATR schools.

    This year’s report featured data on teachers supported by ATR teachers for the first time. The evaluation found no positive effects on test scores for students taught by supported teachers compared to students taught by teachers who are not in the program. The researchers also found no effect on turnover levels for teachers supported by Advanced Teachers. However, the report says additional years of data will be necessary to verify if those effects appear over time.  

    The evaluation recommended that principals in ATR schools should foster collaboration and communicate strategically about the program with staff, beginning during Advanced Teachers’ hiring and onboarding.

    “It’s important to integrate ATR into those processes,” Edwards told the Board. “That means introducing Advanced Teachers to new staff and making collaboration, especially mentoring and coaching, a structured part of the day.”

    Edwards said these practices have been adopted in some schools, but principals reported needing more time and support to build collaboration opportunities into the school schedule.

    The report also urges district administrators to coordinate with Beginning Teacher (BT) programs, advertise ATR in recruitment materials, and improve their data collection practices. It also calls on state leaders to standardize the program to ensure consistency across participating districts.

    “Districts need standardized messaging, professional learning opportunities, and technical assistance to support implementation,” Edwards said. “The state can also create more opportunities for districts to share what’s working with one another and expand the evaluation beyond test scores to capture things like classroom engagement, social, emotional development, and feedback from teachers and principals.”

    The evaluators also said “there’s more to do” to expand the program in western North Carolina after Board members raised concerns about uneven participation across the state’s regions.

    2026-27 participants

    After the Friday Institute’s presentation, Board members heard a presentation on proposals for the next round of districts to join the ATR program from Dr. Thomas R. Tomberlin, senior director of educator preparation, licensure, and performance.

    Tomberlin said DPI received 15 proposals representing 22 districts. These proposals have been evaluated by seven independent evaluators, Tomberlin said. The Board had to choose the program’s next participants by Oct. 15 to comply with a legislative requirement. 

    The state can only allocate $911,349 for new implementation grants in 2026-27 — less than one-sixth of the funding required to fund all applications. That level of funding is “very low” compared to previous years, Tomberlin said. In the 2023-25 state budget, the General Assembly appropriated $10.9 million in recurring funds for these supplements in each year of the biennium.

    Tomberlin recommended that the Board approve the three highest-scoring proposals for the 2026-27 fiscal year, and fund these districts at 85% of their request. If the Board approves this recommendation, the state would still have $37,981 in planning funds left over for districts approved during the 2026 proposal cycle.

    Tomberlin said districts are already struggling to pay for the program’s salary supplements. The Friday Institute’s report showed that, despite the high median supplements, some districts are offering supplements as little as $1,000.

    “Some districts are not able to pay the full $10,000 because they have more ATR teachers than the funding that we can give them in terms of those allotments,” Tomberlin said. “And we had requested the General Assembly, I think, an additional $14 million to cover those supplements, and we didn’t get any.”

    The Senate’s budget proposal this session included funds to expand the ATR program over the biennium, while the House proposal did not. The General Assembly has not yet passed a comprehensive state budget, and its mini-budget did not include ATR program funding.

    Tomberlin said DPI would be in touch with the three districts to verify if they can proceed with the program despite limited funding.

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • Transfer Data Shows Little Progress for First-Time Students

    Transfer Data Shows Little Progress for First-Time Students

    The new “Tracking Transfer” report from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center shows little improvement in transfer rates for first-time college students. But it also sheds light on factors that could contribute to better outcomes.

    The latest report, part of a series, examined transfer data for students who entered community college in 2017 and for former community college students enrolled at four-year institutions that academic year.

    It found that only 31.6 percent of first-time students who started community college in 2017 transferred within six years. And slightly fewer than half of those who transferred, 49.7 percent, earned a bachelor’s degree, consistent with outcomes for the previous cohort.

    But some types of students had better outcomes than others. For example, students who came to community college with some dual-enrollment credits had higher transfer and bachelor’s degree completion rates, 46.9 percent and 60.1 percent, respectively.

    Bachelor’s degree completion rates were also highest for transfer students at public four-year institutions compared to other types of institutions. Nearly three-quarters of students who transferred from community colleges to public four-year institutions in the 2017–18 academic year earned a bachelor’s degree within six years. The report also found that most transfer students from community colleges, 75.2 percent, attend public four-year colleges and universities.

    Retention rates among these students were also fairly high. Among students who transferred, 82 percent returned to their four-year institutions the following year. The retention rate was even higher for students who earned a certificate or an associate degree before they transferred, 86.8 percent, which was nearly 10 percentage points higher those who didn’t earn a credential before transferring.

    Source link

  • Survey Shows High Graduation and Employment Rates

    Survey Shows High Graduation and Employment Rates

    College Possible’s latest alumni survey shows strong outcomes for participants in its coaching program, including a 93 percent five-year graduation rate for those who attended a four-year college and high rates of employment and job satisfaction.

    According to the report, which is based on a survey of 1,300 of the college access nonprofit’s more than 100,000 graduates, 95 percent are employed, 83 percent are employed full-time and more than four in five respondents said they felt fulfilled by their jobs.

    The salaries of College Possible graduates are also high, with half reporting salaries over $60,000. The median salary for those working in STEM fields is $101,650, while those in non-STEM careers made a median income of $46,680. Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated they feel at least somewhat financially secure.

    The report also highlights that most of College Possible’s graduates say they benefited significantly from the coaching program, with nine in 10 saying they would recommend College Possible to others and 17 percent returning to coach other students or work for the organization in another capacity.

    Source link