8 EDCAL February 26 , 2018
CDE announces resources available on marijuana
The California Department of Education is offering resources aimed at preventing those under 21 from using marijuana , something even more important now that Proposition 64 has taken effect .
Proposition 64 , besides legalizing the recreational use of cannabis for adults 21 and older , creates a tax on cannabis for wholesalers , retailers and purchasers of cannabis and cannabis products . Eventually , some of these tax funds will be directed by the CDE to promote health , education and drug prevention .
“ This is an excellent time to remind parents , students , educators , administrators and the public about the detrimental effects of marijuana , especially to the developing brains of children ,” said Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson . “ In this new environment , we need to be even more vigilant in making certain schoolaged children understand the importance of making healthy decisions . We are committed to making sure that new resources will effectively support schools , families , and communities in this charge .”
Torlakson said the new CDE webpage , Adult Use of Marijuana , located at www . cde . ca . gov / ls / he , provides information to assist students , parents , educators , and local education agencies in the prevention and intervention of cannabis use .
“ We look forward to working with our partners at the California Department of Health Care Services who have been leading the effort to share science-based facts about the effects of cannabis use ,” Torlakson said .
Proposition 64 does not change regulations regarding use of marijuana by preschool through grade 12 students . The California Education Code continues to prohibit use , possession , possession for sale , and being under the influence of a controlled substance .
Proposition 64 contains a number of safeguards against the use of marijuana by those under 21 years of age .
• It prohibits advertising aimed at children and bars any marijuana ads from within 1,000 feet of a school , day care center , or youth center .
• It prohibits marijuana businesses from being located within 600 feet of a school , day care center , or youth center unless allowed by local government .
• It bars anyone under the age of 21 from working for a marijuana business or being on the premises of a recreational marijuana retailer .
Torlakson said CDE will seek to use funds from Proposition 64 taxes to help students counter the negative effects of marijuana and address vital unmet needs in programs that have proven to be effective in preventing students from engaging in risky behaviors , as intended by Proposition 64 .
Additionally , CDE will identify critical needs in drug use education and prevention , school mental health , child development , parent and early education programs , career technical education , after school programs and school facilities .
Applications available for Summer Meal Programs
The California Department of Education has announced that applications are available for the Summer Food Service Program and Seamless Summer Option , both federally funded , state-administered programs that serve free meals to children when school is out of session .
“ For children who participate in the National School Lunch program during the school year , food insecurity during the summer is a serious issue ,” said Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson .
The summer food programs reimburse organizations that serve meals when students are on summer vacation or when students who attend year-round school are out of class for 15 or more consecutive days .
Summer meal sites are located in communities where at least 50 percent of the children qualify for free or reduced-price school meals . All meals meet the U . S . Department of Agriculture nutrition requirements , and no paperwork is required for children to participate . Applications are due by June 1 . For more information about Summer Meal Programs , visit the California Department of Education Summer Meal Programs webpage at www . cde . ca . gov / ls / nu / sf /.
PD DESIGN
Continued from page 7
Paid Advertisement
their desired outcome – for example , a 10-percent increase in reading scores – and about the professional learning activities they want to try – for example , monthly professional development sessions in literacy instruction and individual coaching .
Often , the most challenging part of developing a theory of change is identifying the intermediate outcomes and deciding how to measure them . Ideally , intermediate outcomes indicate whether change is occurring at the pace needed to achieve the ultimate goals . Thomas Guskey ’ s five-level model for evaluating professional development ( 2000 ) helps educators identify and measure intermediate outcomes .
According to Guskey , each of the five levels in his model is important in its own right , but each level also builds on the preceding levels . In addition , if the five levels are reversed , they can be used to plan professional learning in the same way that backward mapping is useful for curriculum planning .
The Guskey model can be used to address the middle section of a theory of change – the preconditions needed to achieve long-term goals for students . To apply the Guskey model in a school or district , education leaders should start by developing one or two questions for each level . Keeping the number of questions small simplifies the evaluation and ensures that administrators and staff are not burdened with too much data to analyze within a reasonable timeframe .
Then , for each question , a school or district should determine the best method of data collection . It would be wise to start by identifying methods that are already in place , such as classroom walk-throughs or post-session feedback surveys .
Data collection methods should include both quantitative and qualitative data . To continue with the example of improving literacy instruction , school leaders could survey teachers and ask them to rate the usefulness of professional development sessions on a five-point scale and to describe how they plan to apply the instructional techniques taught during those sessions . Then the leaders could observe classrooms two weeks after the session to see which techniques are being implemented and how well .
Addressing challenges
Having a sound theory of change and the ability to apply Guskey ’ s model will help education leaders evaluate professional learning tremendously , but these leaders may still face challenges , including the following :
• Limited time . Systematically evaluating professional learning adds to educators ’ already-full plates . The best solution to this challenge is to prioritize : Focus on the most important goals from the theory of change and evaluate the activities designed to meet those goals . Whenever possible , monitor activities with tools or processes that are already in place or that can serve a dual purpose , such as classroom observations , reviews of meeting agendas or student assessments .
• Resistance from staff . Leaders may face resistance from staff when evaluating professional learning because evaluation activities , such as classroom observations and analyzing student test scores , can leave teachers feeling vulnerable . Leaders need to reassure staff members that evaluations are done to help the whole school improve , not to discover individual teachers ’ challenges . It can help greatly to distribute responsibility for the evaluation of professional learning beyond the individuals who conduct performance evaluations . In addition , open communication with collective bargaining representatives about the purpose of evaluating professional learning may ease concerns .
• Limited skill with data . Some educators may feel intimidated by the need to work with quantitative data because they are out of practice or do not have experience analyzing survey or interview data . One way to overcome this is to utilize free web-based survey tools that automate data analysis and provide summaries of results as soon as surveys are completed . Observation data can be analyzed easily by tallying the number of classrooms engaged in new skills and practices . Interview data can be quickly analyzed by a group of people identifying the most common themes in interview transcripts or notes .
• Narrow perspective . When educators evaluate their own professional learning , they may misinterpret results because of possible blind spots : implicit bias , a fixed mindset about themselves or their students , or simply by being too close to the situation . Or they might make conclusions that are not warranted by the evidence . For these reasons , we believe it is prudent to periodically bring in someone who is external to the school or district to help interpret results . The external party could be a seasoned educator from a neighboring school or district , a professional external evaluator , or a coach – anyone who will ask challenging questions about an evaluation ’ s assumptions and conclusions .
A success story
One of the schools that we have worked with recently , an urban K-8 school , has markedly improved its system of professional learning , and the evaluation of it , in just three years . These efforts have led to more effective instruction and increases in student achievement .
In three years , math performance among Latino students increased from 6 percent on grade level to 37 percent , matching the district-wide average . Among English learners , reading performance rose from 0 percent on grade level to 32 percent , and math performance increased from 0 percent to 41 percent . African American students also made great strides , showing a 10-percentage point gain in reading and math during the same three-year span .
The school developed a theory of change for whole-school improvement , with professional learning playing a key role . Now , professional development sessions , coaching and collaboration among grade level teams are aligned and serve a common end goal .
To evaluate the intermediate outcomes of these professional learning efforts , the instructional leadership team considers data from teacher questionnaires , classroom walk-throughs and students ’ benchmark assessments .
This model demonstrates that distributing ownership of evaluation beyond the principal , utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data , and measuring intermediate outcomes among teachers can lead to great improvements in student outcomes without the addition of resources .