Across the country, states are moving to education systems that are more student centered, equitable, and competency based. They are doing so because they understand that the legacy model for educating our young people is not working. Although graduation rates have increased, other markers of progress have not. Standardized test scores remain relatively flat. Achievement and opportunity gaps persist despite decades of increased funding and abundant strategies to reduce them. Chronic absenteeism is near an all-time high. The reality is that too many students do not find school to be interesting, engaging, or relevant for their futures. This is particularly true for youth of color and other marginalized student populations. Rather than continuing to tinker around the edges, we can advance real change! Here’s how.
Artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses a broad set of tools developed to perform tasks that have historically required human intelligence. The new generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are not programmed with a specific set of instructions; rather, they are trained on sets of data and algorithms that guide how they respond to prompts. We are increasingly using a range of AI tools—such as autopopulate suggestions, navigation systems, facial recognition on phones, and ChatGPT—in many aspects of our lives. Because of the prevalence and power of these tools, their rapid development, and their potential to be truly disruptive—in positive and negative ways—it is critical that school districts develop policies, guidelines, and supports for the productive use of AI in schools. Later in this commentary, we discuss many of the short-term positives and negatives of using AI in schools. The greatest impact of AI, however, is how it can transform teachers’ roles and student learning.
During the 2022–23 school year, artificial intelligence (AI) evolved from an experimental technology few had heard of into readily available technology that has become widely used by educators and students. There are many ways educators can use AI that may positively revolutionize education to benefit classroom instruction, to support data use and analysis, and to aid in decision-making. The biggest potential upsides of AI for education will be accompanied by major disruptions, however, and districts will need time for thoughtful consideration to avoid some of the worst possible pitfalls. This commentary focuses not on how best to harness the potential of AI in education over the long term but instead on the urgent need for districts to respond to student use of AI. We argue that during summer 2023, districts should adopt policies for the 2023–24 school year that help students to engage with AI in productive ways and decrease the risk of AI-related chaos due to society’s inability to detect inappropriate AI use.
The commentary is a guidebook for districts, schools, and expanded learning providers in better serving California's 60,000 foster care youth amid the pandemic. For these vulnerable youth, COVID-19 worsened existing trauma, isolation, and educational disruptions due to frequent home and school changes. Collaboration among public systems and community partners is crucial to create caring systems acknowledging individual strengths and needs. To bolster pandemic recovery, the approach should prioritize tailored programs by consulting foster youth about their needs, amplifying community expertise, employing staff knowledgeable about schools, and ensuring accessible health services and multilingual resources. Creativity, flexibility, and continuous learning are vital in addressing the immediate and long-term needs of foster care youth, emphasizing constant evaluation through their perspectives for effective support.
The impact of the pandemic on California students' learning, gauged from 18 school districts in the CORE Data Collaborative, highlights significant learning loss in English Language Arts (ELA) and Math, primarily affecting younger grades. The equity gap is pronounced, notably among low-income students and English language learners (ELLs), experiencing more substantial setbacks than their counterparts. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students faced slower growth, while others accelerated their learning, intensifying existing achievement disparities. Upper-grade ELLs encountered severe setbacks due to challenges in virtual language development. These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted support to redress these disparities, emphasizing the gravity of unequal experiences during the pandemic. Yet, data limitations call for deeper investigations into absent student groups to refine learning loss estimates. Addressing this crisis necessitates a student-centric approach, prioritizing social-emotional well-being and systemic educational reforms to accommodate diverse student needs.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) revolutionized school assessment by emphasizing a comprehensive approach over No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) test-focused model. California shifted from NCLB's single-number school ratings to a multi-dimensional dashboard system to better assess school performance. However, ESSA's current draft regulations advocate for a single, summative rating for identifying struggling schools, contradicting the spirit of multiple measures. The approach of condensing diverse measures into one rating would yield misleading outcomes. For instance, PACE found that schools performing poorly on one indicator might fare well on others. Such simplification fails to identify struggling schools accurately, a crucial step for offering necessary support. PACE recommends a tiered approach, considering each indicator separately, rather than amalgamating them into a single score. California's pursuit of a detailed, dashboard-style accountability system aligns with this approach, offering a more nuanced understanding of school performance and supporting tailored improvement strategies. A dashboard not only informs parents better but also enables informed decisions on school choices, focusing on continuous improvement rather than misleading rankings.
This is one of the most exciting, daunting and critically important moments in California's education policy history. We are all in uncharted territory. Policymakers and educators at all levels of the system are wrestling with the virtually simultaneous implementation of four radically new and promising policy initiatives: the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); computer adaptive assessments developed by the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium; the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); and a new accountability system that focuses on Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and an evaluation rubric rather than the traditional Academic Performance Index (API) scores. The implementation of these major reforms has redefined the roles and responsibilities of virtually every education actor—from state policymakers to county superintendents to local school boards, teacher, and parents. States across the country are watching to see whether California will succeed in implementing these reforms and how they can replicate parts of what state superintendent Tom Torlakson calls "the California Way."
The Urban School Leaders (USL) program at California State University Dominguez Hills, backed by a five-year federal grant, embodies a partnership between LAUSD districts and the university. Its goal is to prepare leaders for high-needs schools, enhance staff development, and foster student achievement. Adapting to students' needs and the evolving demands on schools has prompted ongoing reflections and changes within the program. Continual adjustments maintain curriculum rigor while integrating theoretical knowledge with practical experiences. The program's evolution is a collaborative effort involving curriculum review, aligning with standards, and emphasizing research-based practices. Forming and nurturing partnerships with school districts necessitates time, flexibility, and creativity, ensuring meaningful dialogues among stakeholders to address LAUSD's student needs. This ongoing learning process emphasizes the importance of active experiences and reflective learning for educational leaders. The success of the program holds promise for policy implications, establishing a new paradigm in leader development, emphasizing ongoing university-district partnerships, transforming urban communities, and embedding research as a regular practice within educational settings. This model foresees universities becoming hubs for continual development, fostering a transformed educational landscape by nurturing stable communities and promoting ongoing research-driven improvements.
Advancing Towards a Student-Centered Approach to Education
Across the country, states are moving to education systems that are more student centered, equitable, and competency based. They are doing so because they understand that the legacy model for educating our young people is not working. Although graduation rates have increased, other markers of progress have not. Standardized test scores remain relatively flat. Achievement and opportunity gaps persist despite decades of increased funding and abundant strategies to reduce them. Chronic absenteeism is near an all-time high. The reality is that too many students do not find school to be interesting, engaging, or relevant for their futures. This is particularly true for youth of color and other marginalized student populations. Rather than continuing to tinker around the edges, we can advance real change! Here’s how.
From Reactive to Proactive
Artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses a broad set of tools developed to perform tasks that have historically required human intelligence. The new generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are not programmed with a specific set of instructions; rather, they are trained on sets of data and algorithms that guide how they respond to prompts. We are increasingly using a range of AI tools—such as autopopulate suggestions, navigation systems, facial recognition on phones, and ChatGPT—in many aspects of our lives. Because of the prevalence and power of these tools, their rapid development, and their potential to be truly disruptive—in positive and negative ways—it is critical that school districts develop policies, guidelines, and supports for the productive use of AI in schools. Later in this commentary, we discuss many of the short-term positives and negatives of using AI in schools. The greatest impact of AI, however, is how it can transform teachers’ roles and student learning.
The Urgent Need to Update District Policies on Student Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education
During the 2022–23 school year, artificial intelligence (AI) evolved from an experimental technology few had heard of into readily available technology that has become widely used by educators and students. There are many ways educators can use AI that may positively revolutionize education to benefit classroom instruction, to support data use and analysis, and to aid in decision-making. The biggest potential upsides of AI for education will be accompanied by major disruptions, however, and districts will need time for thoughtful consideration to avoid some of the worst possible pitfalls. This commentary focuses not on how best to harness the potential of AI in education over the long term but instead on the urgent need for districts to respond to student use of AI. We argue that during summer 2023, districts should adopt policies for the 2023–24 school year that help students to engage with AI in productive ways and decrease the risk of AI-related chaos due to society’s inability to detect inappropriate AI use.
Compassionate Partnerships for Youth in Foster Care
The commentary is a guidebook for districts, schools, and expanded learning providers in better serving California's 60,000 foster care youth amid the pandemic. For these vulnerable youth, COVID-19 worsened existing trauma, isolation, and educational disruptions due to frequent home and school changes. Collaboration among public systems and community partners is crucial to create caring systems acknowledging individual strengths and needs. To bolster pandemic recovery, the approach should prioritize tailored programs by consulting foster youth about their needs, amplifying community expertise, employing staff knowledgeable about schools, and ensuring accessible health services and multilingual resources. Creativity, flexibility, and continuous learning are vital in addressing the immediate and long-term needs of foster care youth, emphasizing constant evaluation through their perspectives for effective support.
COVID-19 and the Educational Equity Crisis
The impact of the pandemic on California students' learning, gauged from 18 school districts in the CORE Data Collaborative, highlights significant learning loss in English Language Arts (ELA) and Math, primarily affecting younger grades. The equity gap is pronounced, notably among low-income students and English language learners (ELLs), experiencing more substantial setbacks than their counterparts. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students faced slower growth, while others accelerated their learning, intensifying existing achievement disparities. Upper-grade ELLs encountered severe setbacks due to challenges in virtual language development. These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted support to redress these disparities, emphasizing the gravity of unequal experiences during the pandemic. Yet, data limitations call for deeper investigations into absent student groups to refine learning loss estimates. Addressing this crisis necessitates a student-centric approach, prioritizing social-emotional well-being and systemic educational reforms to accommodate diverse student needs.
California’s Dashboard Data Will Guide Improvement
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) revolutionized school assessment by emphasizing a comprehensive approach over No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) test-focused model. California shifted from NCLB's single-number school ratings to a multi-dimensional dashboard system to better assess school performance. However, ESSA's current draft regulations advocate for a single, summative rating for identifying struggling schools, contradicting the spirit of multiple measures. The approach of condensing diverse measures into one rating would yield misleading outcomes. For instance, PACE found that schools performing poorly on one indicator might fare well on others. Such simplification fails to identify struggling schools accurately, a crucial step for offering necessary support. PACE recommends a tiered approach, considering each indicator separately, rather than amalgamating them into a single score. California's pursuit of a detailed, dashboard-style accountability system aligns with this approach, offering a more nuanced understanding of school performance and supporting tailored improvement strategies. A dashboard not only informs parents better but also enables informed decisions on school choices, focusing on continuous improvement rather than misleading rankings.
The PACE Perspective on 'The California Way'
This is one of the most exciting, daunting and critically important moments in California's education policy history. We are all in uncharted territory. Policymakers and educators at all levels of the system are wrestling with the virtually simultaneous implementation of four radically new and promising policy initiatives: the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); computer adaptive assessments developed by the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium; the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF); and a new accountability system that focuses on Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs) and an evaluation rubric rather than the traditional Academic Performance Index (API) scores. The implementation of these major reforms has redefined the roles and responsibilities of virtually every education actor—from state policymakers to county superintendents to local school boards, teacher, and parents. States across the country are watching to see whether California will succeed in implementing these reforms and how they can replicate parts of what state superintendent Tom Torlakson calls "the California Way."
A Culture of Continuous Improvement for Improved Educational Leadership Development and Training
The Urban School Leaders (USL) program at California State University Dominguez Hills, backed by a five-year federal grant, embodies a partnership between LAUSD districts and the university. Its goal is to prepare leaders for high-needs schools, enhance staff development, and foster student achievement. Adapting to students' needs and the evolving demands on schools has prompted ongoing reflections and changes within the program. Continual adjustments maintain curriculum rigor while integrating theoretical knowledge with practical experiences. The program's evolution is a collaborative effort involving curriculum review, aligning with standards, and emphasizing research-based practices. Forming and nurturing partnerships with school districts necessitates time, flexibility, and creativity, ensuring meaningful dialogues among stakeholders to address LAUSD's student needs. This ongoing learning process emphasizes the importance of active experiences and reflective learning for educational leaders. The success of the program holds promise for policy implications, establishing a new paradigm in leader development, emphasizing ongoing university-district partnerships, transforming urban communities, and embedding research as a regular practice within educational settings. This model foresees universities becoming hubs for continual development, fostering a transformed educational landscape by nurturing stable communities and promoting ongoing research-driven improvements.