Because of its broad membership, regional breadth, early creation and size, SREB President Stephen L. Pruitt said the commission is poised to produce critical recommendations that will inform not only Southern education decision makers but those throughout the nation.
“AI is fundamentally changing the classroom and workplace,” Pruitt said. “With that in mind, this commission is working to ensure they make recommendations that are strategic, practical and thoughtful.”
The commission is set to meet for another year and plans to release a second set of recommendations soon. Here are the first six:
Policy recommendation #1: Establish state AI networks States should establish statewide artificial intelligence networks so people, groups and agencies can connect, communicate, collaborate and coordinate AI efforts across each state. These statewide networks could eventually form a regional group of statewide AI network representatives who could gather regularly to share challenges and successes.
Policy recommendation #2: Develop targeted AI guidance States should develop and maintain targeted guidance for distinct groups using, integrating or supporting the use of AI in education. States should include, for example, elementary students, middle school students, high school students, postsecondary students, teachers, administrators, postsecondary faculty and administrators and parents.
Policy recommendation #3: Provide high-quality professional development State K-12 and postsecondary agencies should provide leadership by working with local districts and institutions to develop plans to provide and incentivize high-quality professional development for AI. The plans should aim to enhance student learning.
Policy recommendation #5: Assess local capacity and needs States should develop and conduct AI needs assessments across their states to determine the capacity of local districts, schools and postsecondary institutions to integrate AI successfully. These should be designed to help states determine which institution, district or school needs state support, what type of support and at what level.
Policy recommendation #6: Develop resource allocation plans States should develop detailed resource allocation plans for AI implementation in schools, school districts and institutions of postsecondary education to ensure that the implementation of AI is successful and sustainable. These plans should inform state fiscal notes related to education and AI.
The 60-plus member commission was established in February of 2024. Members include policymakers and education and business leaders throughout the 16-state SREB region.
For more information about the commission please see the following links:
SREB Staff
A nonprofit, nonpartisan interstate compact, SREB was created in 1948 by Southern governors and legislators who recognized the link between education and economic vitality. SREB states are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. More at SREB.org.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Attacks at the federal level on working families make state and local work like this all the more necessary. States can and must step up to create more protections for borrowers!
SALT LAKE CITY — Nineteen-year-old Nevaeh Parker spent the fall semester at the University of Utah trying to figure out how to lead a student group that had been undercut overnight by matters far beyond student control.
Parker, the president of the Black Student Union, feared that a new Utah law banning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at public colleges had sent a message to students from historically marginalized groups that they aren’t valued on campus. So this spring, while juggling 18 credit hours, an internship, a role in student government and waiting tables at a local cafe, she is doing everything in her power to change that message.
Because the university cut off support for the BSU — as well as groups for Asian American and for Pacific Islander students — Parker is organizing the BSU’s monthly meetings on a bare-bones budget that comes from student government funding for hundreds of clubs. She often drives to pick up the meeting’s pizza to avoid wasting those precious dollars on delivery fees. And she’s helping organize large community events that can help Black, Asian and Latino students build relationships with each other and connect with people working in Salt Lake City for mentorship and professional networking opportunities.
Nineteen-year-old University of Utah student Nevaeh Parker is working hard to keep the Black Student Union going after the organization lost financial support. Credit: Image provided by Duncan Allen
“Sometimes that means I’m sacrificing my grades, my personal time, my family,” Parker, a sophomore, said. “It makes it harder to succeed and achieve the things I want to achieve.”
But she’s dedicated to keeping the BSU going because it means so much to her fellow Black students. She said several of her peers have told her they don’t feel they have a place on campus and are considering transferring or dropping out.
Utah’s law arose from a conservative view that DEI initiatives promote different treatment of students based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. House Bill 261, known as “Equal Opportunity Initiatives,” which took effect last July, broadly banished DEI efforts and prohibited institutions or their representatives speaking about related topics at public colleges and government agencies. Violators risk losing state funding.
Now President Donald Trump has set out to squelch DEI work across the federal government and in schools, colleges and businesses everywhere, through DEI-related executive orders and a recent “Dear Colleague” letter. As more states decide to banish DEI, Utah’s campus may represent what’s to come nationwide.
Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Because of the new state law, the university last year closed the Black Cultural Center, the Center for Equity and Student Belonging, the LGBT Resource Center and the Women’s Resource Center – in addition to making funding cuts to the student affinity groups.
In place of these centers, the university opened a new Center for Community and Cultural Engagement, to offer programming for education, celebration and awareness of different identity and cultural groups, and a new Center for Student Access and Resources, to offer practical support services like counseling to all students, regardless of identity.
For many students, the changes may have gone unnoticed. Utah’s undergraduate population is about 63 percent white. Black students are about 1 percent, Asian students about 8 percent and Hispanic students about 14 percent of the student body. Gender identity and sexuality among students is not tracked.
For others, however, the university’s racial composition makes the support of the centers that were eliminated that much more significant.
In response to a new state law that broadly banned diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the University of Utah closed its Center for Equity and Student Belonging, the Black Cultural Center, the Women’s Resource Center and the LGBT Resource Center. Credit: Olivia Sanchez/The Hechinger Report
Some — like Parker — have worked to replace what was lost. For example, a group of queer and transgender students formed a student-run Pride Center, with support from the local Utah Pride Center. A few days a week, they set up camp in a study room in the library. They bring in pride flags, informational fliers and rainbow stickers to distribute around the room, and sit at a big table in case other students come looking for a space to study or spend time with friends.
Lori McDonald, the university’s vice president of student affairs, said so far, her staff has not seen as many students spending time in the two new centers as they did when that space was the Women’s Resource Center and the LGBT Resource Center, for example.
“I still hear from students who are grieving the loss of the centers that they felt such ownership of and comfort with,” McDonald said. “I expected that there would still be frustration with the situation, but yet still carrying on and finding new things.”
One of the Utah bill’s co-sponsors was Katy Hall, a Republican state representative. In an email, she said she wanted to ensure that support services were available to all students and that barriers to academic success were removed.
“My aim was to take the politics out of it and move forward with helping students and Utahns to focus on equal treatment under the law for all,” Hall said. “Long term, I hope that students who benefitted from these centers in the past know that the expectation is that they will still be able to receive services and support that they need.”
The law allows Utah colleges to operate cultural centers, so long as they offer only “cultural education, celebration, engagement, and awareness to provide opportunities for all students to learn with and from one another,” according to guidance from the Utah System of Higher Education.
Given the anti-DEI orders coming from the White House and the mandate from the Department of Education earlier this month calling for the elimination of any racial preferences, McDonald said, “This does seem to be a time that higher education will receive more direction on what can and cannot be done.”
But because the University of Utah has already had to make so many changes, she thinks that the university will be able to carry on with the centers and programs it now offers for all students.
Research has shown that a sense of belonging at college contributes to improved engagement in class and campus activities and to retaining students until they graduate.
“When we take away critical supports that we know have been so instrumental in student engagement and retention, we are not delivering on our promise to ensure student success,” said Royel M. Johnson, director of the national assessment of collegiate campus climates at the University of Southern California Race and Equity Center.
Creating an equitable and inclusive environment requires recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to supporting students, said Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. A student who grew up poor may not have had the same opportunities in preparing for college as a student from a wealthy or middle-class family. Students from some minority groups or those who are the first in their family to go to college may not understand how to get the support they need.
“This should not be a situation where our students arrive on campus and are expected to sink or swim,” she said.
Student Andy Whipple wears a beaded bracelet made at a “Fab Friday” event hosted by the LGBT Resource Center at the University of Utah. The LGBT Resource Center was closed recently to comply with a new state law that limits diversity, equity and inclusion work. Credit: Olivia Sanchez/The Hechinger Report
Kirstin Maanum is the director of the new Center for Student Access and Resources; it administers scholarships and guidance previously offered by the now-closed centers. She formerly served as the director of the Women’s Resource Center.
“Students have worked really hard to figure out where their place is and try to get connected,” Maanum said. “It’s on us to be telling students what we offer and even in some cases, what we don’t, and connecting them to places that do offer what they’re looking for.”
That has been difficult, she said, because the changeover happened so quickly, even though some staffers from the closed centers were reassigned to the new centers. (Others were reassigned elsewhere.)
“It was a heavy lift,” Maanum said. “We didn’t really get a chance to pause until this fall. We did a retreat at the end of October and it was the first time I felt like we were able to really reflect on how things were going and essentially do some grief work and team building.”
Before the new state law, the cultural, social and political activities of various student affinity groups used to be financed by the university — up to $11,000 per group per year — but that money was eliminated because it came from the Center for Equity and Student Belonging, which closed. The groups could have retained some financial support from the university if they agreed to avoid speaking about certain topics considered political and to explicitly welcome all students, not just those who shared their race, ethnicity or other personal identity characteristics, according to McDonald. Otherwise, the student groups are left to fundraise and petition the student government for funding alongside hundreds of other clubs.
Parker said the restrictions on speech felt impossible for the BSU, which often discusses racism and the way bias and discrimination affect students. She said, “Those things are not political, those things are real, and they impact the way students are able to perform on campus.”
She added: “I feel as though me living in this black body automatically makes myself and my existence here political, I feel like it makes my existence here debatable and questioned. I feel like every single day I’m having to prove myself extra.”
In October, she and other leaders of the Black Student Union decided to forgo being sponsored by the university, which had enabled traditional activities such as roller skating nights, a Jollof rice cook-off (which was a chance to engage with different cultures, students said) and speaker forums.
Alex Tokita, a senior who is the president of the Asian American Student Association, said his group did the same. To maintain their relationship with the university by complying with the law, Tokita said, was “bonkers.”
Alex Tokita, a senior at the University of Utah, is the president of the Asian American Student Association. The organization chose to forgo university sponsorship because it did not want to comply with a new state law that restricts speech on certain topics. Credit: Olivia Sanchez/The Hechinger Report
Tokita said it doesn’t make sense for the university to host events in observation of historical figures and moments that represent the struggle of marginalized people without being able to discuss things like racial privilege or implicit bias.
“It’s frustrating to me that we can have an MLK Jr. Day, but we can’t talk about implicit bias,” Tokita said. “We can’t talk about critical race theory, bias, implicit bias.”
As a student, Tokita can use these words and discuss these concepts. But he couldn’t if he were speaking on behalf of a university-sponsored organization.
LeiLoni Allan-McLaughlin, of the new Center for Community and Cultural Engagement, said that some students believe they must comply with the law even if they are not representing the university or participating in sponsored groups.
“We’ve been having to continually inform them, ‘Yes, you can usethose words. We cannot,’” Allan-McLaughlin said. “That’s been a roadblock for our office and for the students, because these are things that they’re studying so they need to use those words in their research, but also to advocate for each other and themselves.”
Last fall, Allan-McLaughlin’s center hosted an event around the time of National Coming Out Day, in October, with a screening of “Paris Is Burning,” a film about trans women and drag queens in New York City in the 1980s. Afterward, two staff members led a discussion with the students who attended. They prefaced the discussion with a disclaimer, saying that they were not speaking on behalf of the university.
Center staffers also set up an interactive exhibit in honor of National Coming Out Day, where students could write their experiences on colorful notecards and pin them on a bulletin board; created an altar for students to observe Día de los Muertos, in early November, and held an event to celebrate indigenous art. So far this semester, the center has hosted several events in observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black History Month, including an educational panel, a march and a pop-up library event.
Such events may add value to the campus experience overall, but students from groups that aren’t well represented on campus argue that those events do not make up for the loss of dedicated spaces to spend time with other students of similar backgrounds.
Sophomore Juniper Nilsson looks at a National Coming Out Day exhibit in the student union at the University of Utah. The exhibit was set up by the new Center for Community and Cultural Engagement. Credit: Olivia Sanchez/The Hechinger Report
For Taylor White, a recent graduate with a degree in psychology, connecting with fellow Black students through BSU events was, “honestly, the biggest relief of my life.” At the Black Cultural Center, she said, students could talk about what it was like to be the only Black person in their classes or to be Black in other predominantly white spaces. She said without the support of other Black students, she’s not sure she would have been able to finish her degree.
Nnenna Eke-Ukoh, a 2024 graduate who is now pursuing a master’s in higher educational leadership at nearby Weber State University, said it feels like the new Center for Community and Cultural Engagement at her alma mater is “lumping all the people of color together.”
“We’re not all the same,” Eke-Ukoh said, “and we have all different struggles, and so it’s not going to be helpful.”
Contact staff writer Olivia Sanchez at 212-678-8402 or [email protected].
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Legacy preferences in college admissions have plummeted to their lowest recorded level, with just 24% of four-year colleges still considering family alumni status in admissions decisions, according to a comprehensive new report from Education Reform Now. The dramatic decline signals a potential end to a controversial practice that critics have long condemned as perpetuating inequality in higher education.
The report, authored by James Murphy, director of Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy, found that 420 institutions continue to provide admissions advantages to children of alumni, marking a sharp decline from previous years. The practice has seen particularly steep drops since 2015, when nearly half of all four-year colleges considered legacy status. Between 2022 and 2023 alone, 92 colleges abandoned legacy preferences, representing an 18% decrease that coincided with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to ban race-conscious admissions.
This decline stems from both voluntary institutional decisions and new state legislation. In 2024, California, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia joined Colorado in restricting legacy admissions through state laws. The report indicates that 86% of colleges that ended legacy consideration did so voluntarily, while 14% were required by state legislation. Several more states are expected to introduce similar legislation in 2025.
Legacy preferences remain most entrenched at selective private institutions, particularly in the Northeast. More than half of colleges that admit 25% or fewer applicants still provide advantages to alumni children. The practice is now rare at public institutions, with just 11% still considering legacy status. In 24 states, no public colleges provide legacy preferences at all. New York stands out as having the highest concentration of colleges maintaining legacy admissions, with one in seven U.S. institutions still using the practice located in the Empire State.
The report challenges several common defenses of legacy admissions, including arguments that they help build campus community or are necessary for fundraising. It cites evidence that 76% of colleges successfully foster campus communities without legacy preferences, and questions whether wealthy institutions with multi-billion dollar endowments truly need to “trade admissions advantages for money.”
The analysis also addresses claims that ending legacy admissions could hurt diversity, particularly following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. The report argues that legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white and wealthy applicants, citing research showing that Asian American applicants face significantly lower odds of admission compared to white applicants with similar qualifications at selective institutions. According to one study, Asian American applicants had 28% lower odds of attending elite schools than white applicants with similar academic and extracurricular qualifications.
The report suggests that Congress could potentially impose additional endowment taxes on universities that maintain legacy preferences while offering reduced penalties to institutions that increase enrollment of Pell Grant recipients, community college transfers, and veterans. This approach would create financial incentives for institutions to abandon the practice.
“The shame of belonging to this group of colleges that think children of alumni have somehow earned an extra advantage in admissions is likely to push more colleges to drop the practice,” Murphy writes. “This is not a club that most colleges belong to or will want to belong to.”
The report also criticizes the Common Application for potentially enabling legacy admissions by requiring all applicants to identify where their parents earned bachelor’s degrees, even though this information is irrelevant for more than three-quarters of colleges. The report suggests that removing this question would be a significant step toward making college admissions more equitable.
“Ultimately, the reason to eliminate legacy preferences is not to achieve some other goal,” the report concludes. “The reason to get rid of them is that they are profoundly unfair and make a mockery of merit. Legacy preferences award some of the most advantaged students an additional advantage in the college admissions process on the basis of ancestry alone.”
From the small town of Lyman, South Carolina, Dr. James L. Moore’s journey to success is one he attributes to the steadfast support of his mother and the historical Dr. James L. Moore IIItrailblazers whose influence shaped his path to distinction.
On Saturday, Jan. 25, Moore—a Distinguished Professor of Urban Education at The Ohio State University (OSU) and executive director of the Todd Anthony Bell National Resource Center—was awarded the Order of the Palmetto—South Carolina’s highest civilian honor established in 1971. The prestigious award is presented by the governor to individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary lifetime achievement, service, and contributions of national or statewide significance.
“To be honored and to receive the highest honor to a civilian of South Carolina is so humbling,” said Moore in an interview with Diverse. “Service to humanity is the hallmark of philosophy, and in many ways, it shaped who I am and what I’m about in my day to day. All that I am and that I hope to be, has been shaped by my experience growing up in South Carolina.”
Moore follows in the footsteps of other legendary leaders from South Carolina who’ve received the honor, many of whom broke down barriers throughout history, paving the way for him and others to succeed. Moore said that it’s not lost on him that he’s in the tradition of a long line of South Carolina humanitarians.
“The state has a complex history, some of which is painful to reflect on, but it is where my family, some of whom arrived as enslaved Africans, created community from the most difficult of circumstances,” he said. “They built opportunities for people like me. South Carolina is special to me, not only for its rich and sometimes painful history, but because 10% to 15% of all Black Americans can trace their roots here.”
The state, he said, has produced a legacy of excellence, from singer James Brown and tennis great Althea Gibson to educator Mary McLeod Bethune.
“I just want to make sure that I forever acknowledge and recognize the contributions and the giants that I stand on their shoulders,” said Moore, who pointed to the late Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays—the former president of Morehouse College—as a model for educational and humanitarian excellence.
A nationally recognized education expert and leader, Moore has had a distinguished career in higher education and has been applauded for his work promoting educational excellence and access for all. Throughout his fabulous career, he has won numerous international and national accolades.
His research spans multiple disciplines, including school counseling, urban education, and STEM education. He has co-authored seven books and more than 160 publications, secured nearly $40 million in funding, and delivered more than 200 scholarly presentations globally. Moore’s contributions to education have earned him recognition, including being named one of Education Week’s 200 most influential scholars in the U.S. since 2018.
Dr. Jerlando F.L. Jackson, Dean of the College of Education and Foundation Professor of Education at Michigan State University, praised Moore’s impact, citing the ripple effect his leadership has created within the American education system.
“Dr. Moore’s influence extends far beyond his own accomplishments,” said Jackson, who has known Moore since their days as graduate students and have collaborated with him on a number of initiatives and projects, including the International Colloquium on Black Males in Education. “Through his leadership, he is empowering educators, policymakers, and community leaders to reimagine what is possible with South Carolina in mind,” Jackson said.
Moore’s focus on education access, preparation, innovation, and opportunities “has not only improved outcomes for today’s students but has also laid the foundation for a brighter future for generations to come,” Jackson added. “He is the kind of leader who sees potential in everyone, and he works tirelessly to help others realize their dreams, regardless of their backgrounds. Whether mentoring a young scholar or speaking at a community event, Dr. Moore connects with people in ways that are deeply inspiring and transformative.”
Moore’s work has focused on closing opportunity gaps, increasing access to quality education, and addressing disparities that disproportionately affect educational vulnerable student populations. Through his research and leadership, Jackson said that Moore has not only informed policy, but also directly influenced educational practices that all have benefited from, including South Carolina.
Dr. Eric Tucker, President & CEO of The Study Group, agrees.
“His tireless dedication to inclusive excellence proves that one visionary can unite and uplift entire communities, sparking transformative educational change at the secondary and postsecondary levels,” said Tucker, who lauded Moore’s efforts to help undergraduate scholars secure prestigious fellowships, including the Rhodes and Truman Scholarships. As executive director of the Todd Anthony Bell National Resource Center on the African American Male, he reimagined OSU’s Early Arrival Program, offering mentorship and leadership opportunities to support young Black men and boys in their pursuit of higher education.
“From a small-town upbringing to a national and international stage, Dr. Moore has used his expertise to bring fresh opportunities and shape educational transformation across the United States and other parts of the globe,” said Tucker. “His leadership and forward-thinking approaches demonstrate how determination can unite communities and open new doors for students in all zip codes, regions, and jurisdictions,” he added.
And no matter how many times you ask Moore about his own influences and success, he never forgets his family and the village who raised him. As one of three siblings, he remembers his late mother Edna, whose sacrifices and love shaped her children’s lives in South Carolina.
“My mother did everything for her three kids, and my mother was an inspiration to not only me, but for those who knew her,” Moore said. “And even though she’s not here with me, she lives inside me, and she always told me that ‘family lives inside of you, and everywhere you go, son, take family with you,’ So I can hear her. She was the best coach I ever had. This is for her,” he said.
Jill Norton, an education policy adviser in Massachusetts, has a teenage son with dyslexia and ADHD. Shelley Scruggs, an electrical engineer in the same state, also has a teenage son with ADHD. Both students go to the same technical high school.
But last fall, Norton and Scruggs advocated on opposite sides of a Massachusetts ballot referendum scrapping the requirement that high school kids pass a standardized state test to graduate.
Norton argued that without the high bar of the standard exam, kids like hers won’t have an incentive to strive. But Scruggs maintained that kids with learning disorders also need different types of measurements than standardized tests to qualify for a high school diploma.
Voters approved the referendum last November, 59% to 41%, ending the Massachusetts requirement. There and in most other states, Scruggs’ position against testing is carrying the day.
Just seven states now require students to pass a test to graduate, and one of those — New York — will end its Regents Exam as a requirement by the 2027-28 school year. Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and Virginia still require testing to graduate, according to the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, a group that opposes such mandates.
In Massachusetts, teachers unions favored getting rid of the exam as a graduation requirement. They argued it forced them to teach certain facts at the expense of in-depth or more practical learning. But many business leaders were in favor of keeping the test, arguing that without it, they will have no guarantee that job applicants with high school diplomas possess basic skills.
State by state, graduation tests have tumbled over the past decade. In 2012, half the states required the tests, but that number fell to 13 states in 2019, according to Education Week. The trend accelerated during the pandemic, when many school districts scrapped the tests during remote learning and some decided to permanently extend test exemptions.
Studies have found that such graduation exams disadvantage students with learning disabilities as well as English language learners, and that they aren’t always a good predictor of success in careers or higher education.
An oft-cited 2010 article by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin may have ignited the trend to scrap the tests. Researchers’ review of 46 earlier studies found that high school exit exams “produced few of the expected benefits and have been associated with costs for the most disadvantaged students.”
Some states began to find other ways to assess high school competency, such as grades in mandatory courses, capstone projects or technical milestones.
“Minimum competency tests in the 1980s drove the idea that we need to make sure that students who graduate from high school have the bare minimum of skills,” said John Papay, an associate professor of education at Brown University. “By the mid-2000s, there was a reaction against standardized testing and a movement away from these exams. They disappeared during the pandemic and that led to these tests going away.”
Despite the problems with the tests for English learners and students with learning disabilities, Papay said, the tests are “strong predictors of long-term outcomes. Students who do better on the tests go on to graduate [from] college and they earn more.”
Papay, who remains neutral on whether the tests should be required, pointed out that high school students usually have many opportunities to retake the tests and to appeal their scores.
Anne Hyslop, director of policy development at All4Ed, a think tank and advocacy group for underserved communities, noted that in many states, the testing requirements were replaced by other measures.
The schools “still require some students or all students to demonstrate competency to graduate, but students have many more options on how they could do that. They can pass a dual credit [high school/college] course, pass industry recognized competency tests. …
“A lot of states still have assessments as part of their graduation requirements, but in a much broader form,” she said.
Massachusetts moves
Scruggs said her son took Massachusetts’ required exam last spring; he passed the science and math portions but fell 1 point short in English.
“He could do well in his classes, but if he didn’t pass the three tests, he wouldn’t get his regular diploma,” Scruggs said. “How do you go out into the working world, and you went to school every day and passed your classes, but got no diploma?”
Her son has taken the English test again and is awaiting his new score, she said.
Norton, by contrast, said the exam, called the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS, gave her son an incentive to work hard.
“I worry that kids like him … are going to end up graduating from high school without the skills they will need,” Norton said. “Without the test, they will just be passed along. I can’t just trust that my kid is getting the basic level of what he needs. I need a bar set where he will get the level of education he needs.”
Students in Massachusetts still will have to take the MCAS in their sophomore year of high school, and the scores will be used to assess their overall learning. But failing the test won’t be a barrier to graduation beginning with the class of 2025. The state is still debating how — or whether — to replace the MCAS with other types of required courses, evaluations or measurements.
High school students in Massachusetts and most states still have to satisfy other graduation requirements, which usually include four years of English and a number of other core subjects such as mathematics, sciences and social studies. Those requirements vary widely across the country, however, as most are set by individual school districts.
In New York, the State Education Department in 2019 began a multiyear process of rethinking high school graduation requirements and the Regents Exam. The department decided last fall to phase out the exit exam and replace it with something called a “Portrait of a Graduate,” including seven areas of study in which a student must establish proficiency. Credit options include capstone projects, work-based learning experiences and internships, as well as academic achievement. Several other states have moved recently to a similar approach.
Harry Feder, executive director of FairTest, an advocacy group that works to limit standardized testing, said course grades do a better job of assessing students’ abilities.
“Standardized tests are poor ways of incentivizing and measuring the kinds of skills and knowledge we should have high school kids focusing on,” Feder said. “You get ‘teaching to the test’ that doesn’t bear much of a relationship to the kinds of things that kids are being asked to do when they go on to college or the workplace.”
Max Page, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association union, said phrases such as “teaching to the test” disrespect teachers and their ability to know when students have mastered content and competency. The high school tests are first taken in the 10th grade in Massachusetts. If the kids don’t pass, they can retake the exam in the 11th or 12th grade.
“Educators are still evaluating students,” he said. “It’s a mirage to say that everything that a student does in education can be measured by a standardized test in the 10th grade. Education, of course, goes through the 12th grade.”
He added that course grades are still a good predictor of how much a student knows.
Colorado’s menu
Several of the experts and groups on both sides of the debate point to Colorado as a blueprint for how to move away from graduation test requirements.
Colorado, which made the switch with the graduating class of 2021, now allows school districts to choose from a menu of assessment techniques, such as SAT or ACT scores, or demonstration of workforce readiness in various skill areas.
A state task force created by the legislature recently recommended some changes to the education accreditation system to “better reflect diverse student needs and smaller school populations.” They include creating assessments that adapt to student needs, offering multilingual options, and providing quicker results to understand student progress.
The state hopes the menu of assessment options will support local flexibility, said Danielle Ongart, assistant commissioner for student pathways and engagement at the Colorado Department of Education.
“Depending on what the student wants for themselves, they have the ability to show what they know,” she said in an interview. In particular, she said, the menu allows for industry certificates, if a student knows what type of work they want to do. That includes areas such as computer science or quantum computing.
“It allows students to better understand themselves and explain what they can do, what they are good at, and what they want to do,” she said.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected].
This article was originally published in December 2024 in the opinion page of The Los Angeles Times and is republished here with permission.
The Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten for every new communications technology. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this long-standing principle during its most recent term in applying the 1st Amendment to social media. The late Justice Antonin Scalia articulated it persuasively in 2011, noting that “whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press … do not vary.”
These principles should be front of mind for congressional Republicans and David Sacks, Trump’s recently chosen artificial intelligence czar, as they make policy on that emerging technology. The 1st Amendment standards that apply to older communications technologies must also apply to artificial intelligence, particularly as it stands to play an increasingly significant role in human expression and learning.
But revolutionary technological change breeds uncertainty and fear. And where there is uncertainty and fear, unconstitutional regulation inevitably follows. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in at least 45 states have introduced bills to regulate AI this year, and 31 states adopted laws or resolutions on the technology. Congress is also considering AI legislation.
Many of these proposals respond to concerns that AI will supercharge the spread of misinformation. While the worry is understandable, misinformation is not subject to any categorical exemption from 1st Amendment protections. And with good reason: As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson observed in 1945, the Constitution’s framers “did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us,” and therefore “every person must be his own watchman for truth.”
California nevertheless enacted a law in September targeting “deceptive,” digitally modified content about political candidates. The law was motivated partly by an AI-altered video parodying Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy that went viral earlier in the summer.
Two weeks after the law went into effect, a judge blocked it, writing that the “principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government … apply even in the new technological age” and that penalties for such criticism “have no place in our system of governance.”
Ultimately, we don’t need new laws regulating most uses of AI; existing laws will do just fine. Defamation, fraud, false light and forgery laws already address the potential of deceptive expression to cause real harm. And they apply regardless of whether the deception is enabled by a radio broadcast or artificial intelligence technology. The Constitution should protect novel communications technology not just so we can share AI-enhanced political memes. We should also be able to freely harness AI in pursuit of another core 1st Amendment concern: knowledge production.
When we think of free expression guarantees, we often think of the right to speak. But the 1st Amendment goes beyond that. As the Supreme Court held in 1969, “The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”
Information is the foundation of progress. The more we have, the more we can propose and test hypotheses and produce knowledge.
The internet, like the printing press, was a knowledge-accelerating innovation. But Congress almost hobbled development of the internet in the 1990s because of concerns that it would enable minors to access “indecent” content. Fortunately, the Supreme Court stood in its way by striking down much of the Communications Decency Act.
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s application of the 1st Amendment to that new technology was so complete that it left Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mike Godwin wondering “whether I ought to retire from civil liberties work, my job being mostly done.” Godwin would go on to serve as general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia — which, he wrote, “couldn’t exist without the work that cyberlibertarians had done in the 1990s to guarantee freedom of expression and broader access to the internet.”
Today humanity is developing a technology with even more knowledge-generating potential than the internet. No longer is knowledge production limited by the number of humans available to propose and test hypotheses. We can now enlist machines to augment our efforts.
We are already starting to see the results: A researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently reported that AI enabled a lab studying new materials to discover 44% more compounds. Dario Amodei, the chief executive of the AI company Anthropic, predicts that “AI-enabled biology and medicine will allow us to compress the progress that human biologists would have achieved over the next 50-100 years into 5-10 years.”
This promise can be realized only if America continues to view the tools of knowledge production as legally inseparable from the knowledge itself. Yes, the printing press led to a surge of “misinformation.” But it also enabled the Enlightenment.
The 1st Amendment is America’s great facilitator: Because of it, the government can no more regulate the printing press than it can the words printed on a page. We must extend that standard to artificial intelligence, the arena where the next great fight for free speech will be fought.
Authors: Lauren Asher, Nate Johnson, Marissa Molina, and Kristin D. Hultquist
Source: HCM Strategists
An October 2024 report, Beyond Sticker Prices: How States Can Make Postsecondary Education More Affordable, reviews data to evaluate affordability of postsecondary education across nine states, including Alabama, California, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
The authors emphasize the importance of considering net price, or the full cost of attendance less total aid. Depending on the state, low-income students pay 16-27 percent of their total family income to attend community college.
At public four-year colleges with high net prices, students with family income of $30,000-48,000 py more than half of their income (51-53 percent) for school in two of the nine states. Four-year colleges with low net prices show cost variability based on whether a student is the lowest income, earning $0-30,000, or has $30,000-48,000 in income. Students in the former group pay 21-27 percent of their family income toward education, while students in the latter group pay 40-41 percent of their income.
The brief recommends that policymakers take the following issues into account:
The way states fund public institutions is critical for low-income students. Consider increasing funding for community colleges as well as evaluating how student income factors into allocation of state funds.
Tuition policy is integral to making decisions about postsecondary education. Public perception of college affordability is influenced by tuition costs. States have the power to set limits on how much institutions can raise or change costs, but states also must be careful not to limit institutions from charging what they require to adequately support students’ needs.
Transparency and consistency among financial aid programs increase their reach. States should consider making financial aid programs more readily understandable. State financial aid policies should also increase flexibility to adjust for transferring, length of time to graduate, and financial aid from other sources.
How states support basic needs affects students’ ability to afford attending college. Policies at the state level can offer students more options for paying for food, housing, caregiving, and more.
A new survey of more than 400 New Mexico parents of school-aged children shows widespread dissatisfaction with the state’s public schools, that communication gaps between schools and parents are a serious concern, and that many parents have misperceptions about their children’s academic achievement.
Results of the survey, “The State of Educational Opportunity in New Mexico,” were released Oct. 2 by NewMexicoKidsCAN, an education advocacy organization (and parent organization of New Mexico Education), focused on improving New Mexico’s public education system.
The state survey was part of a national report authored by 50CAN, of which NewMexicoKidsCan is an affiliate. 50CAN is “focused on building the future of American education,” according to the organization’s website. That 214-page report, “The State of Educational Opportunity in America” provides a deep, 50-state dive into parental views of public education in their home states.
Researchers surveyed more than 20,000 parents across the country, making it one of the largest education-focused surveys of parents in the past decade. This survey explores the ecosystem of educational opportunities inside and outside of school, and how they interrelate and impact a child’s success.
“With such a large sample size, we are able to dig into the findings by state and across a range of important audiences. By making the findings publicly available, this is a gift of data that can inform conversations among communities and elected officials.” said Pam Loeb, Principal at Edge Research.
The New Mexico survey provides insight into the educational opportunities available to children across New Mexico.
The New Mexico survey uncovered key findings, including:
Parental dissatisfaction is widespread: Only about a third of New Mexico parents say they are “very satisfied” with their child’s school. Nationally, 45 percent of parents reported high satisfaction. New Mexico was one of the lower-ranked states in terms of parental satisfaction.
Communication Gaps Between Schools and Parents: Only 29% of New Mexico parents report feeling extremely confident in understanding their child’s academic progress ranking New Mexico second to last in the nation.
Misperceptions about Student Achievement: 41% of New Mexico parents believe their child is above grade level in reading, yet state assessments show only 39% of students are reading at grade level.
Afterschool Programs Show Promise: New Mexico ranks 22nd nationally in student participation in supervised afterschool programs, surpassing 28 other states. This success is likely attributed to increased state investments through the Extended Learning Time Program, which may have boosted overall participation rates.
“This survey amplifies the voices of New Mexico parents,” said Amanda Aragon, Executive Director of NewMexicoKidsCAN. “The results reveal significant misperceptions about student performance, serious communication gaps between schools and parents, and widespread concerns about school satisfaction.
“It’s clear that many parents are not getting the information they need about their children’s academic progress. We must do more to close this communication gap and empower parents to be true partners in their child’s education.”
“With such a large sample size, we are able to dig into the findings by state and across a range of important audiences. By making the findings publicly available, this is a gift of data that can inform conversations among communities and elected officials.” said Pam Loeb, Principal at Edge Research.
