The Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation, or SWIFT, an initiative led by educational researchers from the University of Kansas, selected Willard and five other U.S. schools for their use of “inclusive education,” said Wayne Sailor, a professor in the University of Kansas’ School of Education and director of the SWIFT Center.

Inclusive education is a classroom model in which students of all learning types, such as gifted, special education and English as a Second Language students, learn in one general classroom setting rather than under separate programs, with the idea that all students mutually benefit from the shared learning environment.

“A big problem is that if you go into a typical low-performing school, there are lots of resources that could help, but they don’t connect with each other — special education being an example,” Sailor said. “It looks for its own resources and provides a system only for those identified as such.”

The six schools chosen by SWIFT are already successfully operating on an inclusive model and will be studied by Sailor and his affiliates so the advances these schools demonstrate can be applied elsewhere.

At Willard, inclusive education has been around for 11 years, said Willard Middle School Principal Robert Ithurburn.

“There is not so much an ‘us-them’ mentality,” Ithurburn said of the learning environment at Willard. “I think it’s more of a real-world situation.”

In the United States, there has been a trend toward including more students in general education classrooms, which has been accelerating for several decades, said Jennifer Russell, a graduate of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education who is now a professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

At Willard, students with severe disabilities have an instructional aid with them all day long, and there are teachers’ aids who check in on particular students throughout the day, said Jessica Lee, Willard’s teacher librarian. Lee is also a parent of a Willard Middle School student.

Teachers may also practice “modified education,” in which students of differing abilities can be given parallel assignments, with a co-teacher focusing on modifying the lesson for others based on learning needs, she added.

An increasing number of educators, including SWIFT researchers, tout the benefits of an inclusive classroom model over a segregated one, but it’s a model with potential that is not always realized, Russell said.

With $24.5 million in grant money from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, SWIFT will spend now until October researching the six inclusive model schools, Sailor said.

As compensation for cooperation with researchers, each of the six model schools will receive a one-time payment of $16,500, Sailor said. He added that the schools additionally benefit from getting national recognition on the researchers’ website.

The schools will continue working and perfecting their model of education in the coming months.

“We’re excited to find out what we can do to be stronger, taking strategies and techniques from the other five schools,” Ithurburn said.

Contact Christine Tyler at ctyler@dailycal.org.

The post Willard Middle School recognized for inclusive education appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The incident — and subsequent allegations that the Yale administration failed to respond adequately to the fraternity’s abhorrent behavior — provoked a national discussion about sexual violence and rape culture on college campuses.

While the Yale scandal was still simmering, in April 2011, the U.S. Department of Education ordered all American colleges and universities to comply with certain new disciplinary procedures for students accused of sexual misconduct. The new policies were apparently designed to encourage victims of sexual harassment and assault to come forward — by dramatically weakening protections afforded to students accused of sexual misconduct in campus disciplinary hearings.

Prominent New York University law professor Richard Epstein questioned the constitutionality of the directive, declaring that “the Department of Education is on a collision course with the Bill of Rights.” He took particular issue with the mandate that all schools use the weak “preponderance of the evidence” standard in disciplinary hearings regarding sexual misconduct. Former Department of Education attorney Hans Bader noted that this standard of proof “means that if a school thinks there is as little as a 50.001% chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must be disciplined,” and former American Civil Liberties Union board member Wendy Kaminer called it “practically a presumption of guilt.”

The directive takes other steps to erode the protections for students accused of sexual misconduct: It provides that the alleged perpetrator cannot have the right to appeal unless his accuser can appeal as well, exposing the accused to double jeopardy. It also strongly recommends that the student who is accused of misconduct not be allowed to confront or cross-examine his accuser.

Over the past several weeks, the issue of sexual violence on college campuses has been once again thrust into the spotlight because of occurrences at another elite northeastern institution. I’m referring, this time, to an Amherst student’s account of being raped and then being treated with indifference and hostility when she reached out to campus administrators and fellow students. According to The New York Times, the author, Angie Epifano, was prompted to write the story by a blog post about misogynistic T-shirts created and sold by members of an Amherst fraternity.

After Epifano’s account was published, other victims of sexual assault at Amherst came forward and said that they too had been poorly served by the Amherst administration.

The disturbing events at Amherst raise the question of how colleges can best encourage women who have been assaulted to come forward and ensure that their allegations are taken seriously. It’s hard to overstate the seriousness of this problem — a shocking 95 percent of campus rapes go unreported, according to the ACLU.

The Department of Education directive, issued in the wake of the Yale controversy, represents one approach to the issue. It presumes that women are more likely to report sexual misconduct — and that college administrations are more likely to respond to allegations effectively — if procedural protections and civil liberties for the accused are eviscerated.

It’s impossible to know whether cutting back on protections for the accused actually encourages victims to come forward, but it is clear that this approach can lead to intolerable injustices. Just ask Caleb Warner, who, as a student at the University of North Dakota, was found guilty  of sexual assault under the shameful “preponderance of the evidence” standard. He was banned from campus and sentenced to three years of suspension. A year and a half later, he was exonerated because law enforcement determined that his accuser was lying and charged her with filing a false report.

As the instances at Yale and Amherst have amply illustrated, there are unacceptable strains within the culture at American colleges that create an environment conducive to sexual violence. But restricting the civil liberties of students accused of sexual misconduct does nothing to address this. On the contrary, this approach merely formalizes the unhealthy perception that sexual assault is a “different” type of crime that should be subject to a different set of rules and procedures — inviting more cultural baggage and stigma.

As colleges around the country grapple with sexual misconduct issues in the wake of the Amherst scandal, they should not draw their inspiration from the Department of Education directive, which does violence to America’s tradition of civil liberties and due process. I am hopeful that the soul-searching brought about by Epifano’s courageous account of her experience at Amherst will give rise to serious ideas about how to improve colleges’ responses to sexual misconduct so that they can protect the rights of all of their students.

Contact Jason Willick at jwillick@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @jawillick.

The post Guilty until proven innocent appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Recently, the campus administration announced a set of proposed policy changes pursuant to the settlement of a lawsuit which alleged that UC Berkeley and the UC system failed to curb a climate hostile to Jewish students. The lawsuit took specific issue with Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual demonstration intended to draw attention to alleged human rights violations in Israel. The changes — which the settlement only requires the campus to consider — aim to clarify policies regarding the use of firearms and obstruction of pathways.

One specific policy alteration would allow students to use imitation firearms — which have been present at Apartheid Week before — in demonstrations only if “it would be obvious to a reasonable observer” that the weapons are fake and if they were approved beforehand by UCPD. If implemented, this rule would place a heavy amount of subjective authority on the campus police, who could unnecessarily censor legitimate protest.

Overall, the proposed changes are very reactionary — to address this important issue of campus climate, administrators and student leaders must do more than making bureaucratic changes. Additionally, Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard said the clarifications “merely put in writing existing practices,” and Tom Pessah, a member of Students for Justice in Palestine, indicated that the group already follows those rules. If those claims are true, then the policies would likely do little to affect the way demonstrations during Apartheid Week and at other times are conducted on campus.

In any case, these changes do not give the impression that the campus is addressing the larger issue of whether UC Berkeley has a significant campus climate problem. Pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student groups have a storied history of contention that is extremely divisive. This tension became apparent during previous Apartheid Week protests, when students on both sides clashed on Sproul Plaza. There is an apparent lack of constructive dialogue between these groups that must be mended.

But any effort to alleviate a problematic campus climate cannot come at the cost of squelching free speech. In response to a complaint from the same students who sued the university, the U.S. Department of Education’s civil rights office recently confirmed that it is investigating allegations of an anti-Semitic climate on campus. While such concerns should be taken seriously, the department must be very sensitive to students’ rights to free expression.

In the end, more dialogue is better than narrow policy changes when it comes to campus climate. While the Israel-Palestine dispute is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, we have a unique opportunity as members of the UC Berkeley community to engage in some of the most insightful conversations about this conflict. Peaceful, productive conversations should prevail over protests that divide the student body.

The post Dialogue over division appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The Policy to Performance initiative aims to assist states by advancing their efforts in building a strong foundation for growth and economic development through implementing assistance services targeted towards low-skilled adults transitioning into postsecondary education and employment.

The initiative, which stems from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education, was designed in a manner that supports the goals of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which in turn relates to President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative to strengthen the nation’s community colleges.

California was among eight states, including Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, Wisconsin, New York and Massachusetts, selected to participate in this initiative.

Mindi Yates, the initiative’s Education Program Consultant for California, said the project’s purpose is to serve as a model program for establishing state and nationwide educational policies regarding the provision of services for postsecondary education and transitions to such. Ten adult education agencies were selected to participate in the pilot project for the 2011-2012 school year following a competitive grant process and were granted $75,000 each, according to Yates.

Berkeley Adult School was selected as one of the aforementioned 10 agencies to participate in this project, according to Yates.

“Agencies were asked to enroll at least 25 students who were close to receiving their high school diploma and who were interested in enrolling into post-secondary education,” Yates said.

With this grant, agencies provided various services to students, including academic support via, for example, academic tutoring, and college, career, and financial counseling.

“We recently received a no cost extension to continue working with the Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education to determine key findings and how they will be disseminated,” said Chrys Limardo, Project Director for the initiative, when asked of the project’s outcome.

The post Pilot project granting Berkeley Adult School $75,000 ends appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Continued cuts in state funding have forced some cash-strapped public schools to reduce class offerings and collapse programs, forcing students to turn to for-profits, a February study by the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley shows.

This trend may continue, as public universities would struggle to expand accessibility in the face of potential cuts of $200 million to the UC and CSU, should voters reject Gov. Jerry Brown’s November tax initiative.

The CSU announced earlier this week that it will not accept new students at most of its 23 campuses in spring 2013 and may reduce enrollment next fall if the initiative does not pass — cuts that could result in more students enrolling in for-profits.

But Rich Williams, higher education advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said he was concerned that for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix fall short in ensuring their students graduate with marketable skills.

“The incentive structure for for-profit schools is based on profit,” he said. “Their accountability is less to the students and more to their shareholders.”

For-profit schools represented just 12 percent of all higher education students in the nation in 2011 but accounted for 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

For-profits benefit tremendously from government grant programs.

A winter 2012 study by Harvard University economists found that in 2008-09, federal grants and loans received under Title IV of the Higher Education Act made up almost three-quarters of the revenues for eligible for-profit higher education institutions.

“The combination of relatively weak oversight — including virtually no oversight for a few recent years — and an unusually generous state grant program have made the state an attractive place for for-profit colleges to do business,” said Debbie Cochrane, program director of the Institute for College Access and Success, at a Feb. 14 state Assembly Higher Education Committee and Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development hearing.

Documents show that these institutions lobbied heavily last year when the state was considering budget cuts.

Bridgepoint Education, a for-profit college company, gifted Assemblymember and chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee Marty Block $346 worth of events tickets last year — the largest gift amount he received from any single source, according to recently released Form 700 statements of economic interest from 2011.

Without much regulation, for-profit colleges have engaged in predatory recruiting practices, said Ed Emerson, chief of federal policy and programs at the California Student Aid Commission.

“You had schools recruiting students from homeless shelters, admission counselors working on commission — a practice called churning, where you have to over-enroll — a lot of fairly unscrupulous effort,” he said.

Last March, Brown signed SB 70 into law to improve regulation. The legislation ties an institution’s eligibility to receive Cal Grants to the rate at which its students default on loans.

Now, higher education institutions in the state cannot have more than 30 percent of students default within three years of beginning payment on loans in order to receive Cal Grants starting in the 2012-13 academic year.

The California Student Aid Commission has already cut off about 70 for-profit campuses from Cal Grant money as a result, Emerson said.

Kent Jenkins, spokesperson for Corinthian Colleges, which operates a number of Everest College campuses in California, said the company acknowledges high student default rates.

But, he added, the company has improved student financial literacy over the past few years by spending around $8 million to $9 million on new programs to reduce default rates.

Emerson confirmed that a number of colleges, including those run by Kaplan, have recently established pre-enrollment programs to increase students’ awareness of their financial burdens.

“We understand that the money students invest in tuition needs to pay off for them in terms of a diploma and a degree and increased job skills, and we understand that taxpayers have to feel the money from Cal Grants is well spent,” Jenkins said.

Curan Mehra covers higher education.

The post Cuts to public higher education funnel students into for-profit colleges, raise financial concerns appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The Jan. 10 report was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education in an effort to reverse trends of low American political participation and suggests that colleges should take further steps to increase student interest in the political system.

“In addition to serving as an engine of economic development, higher education is a crucial incubator for fostering democratic voice, thought, and action,” states the report, entitled “A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future.”

The report — released by The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement — also suggests that colleges encourage students to work in public service after graduation.

The report draws upon the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 population survey as evidence for “citizens’ passivity,” which finds that between 2009 and 2010, only 10 percent of citizens contacted a public official.

The report argues that an increased emphasis on civic education in higher education, especially for undergraduates, would help reverse these trends.

According to the report, some calls for educational reform place too much emphasis on job training and do not focus enough on student preparation for involved citizenship.

“Colleges are no longer expected to educate leaders or citizens, only workers who will not be called to invest in lifelong learning, but only in industry-specific job training,” the report reads.

UC Berkeley students had mixed reactions to the report’s findings.

Some students believed that their peers were well-informed about the federal government but also thought the campus should increase its focus on political education. Others felt that UC Berkeley students needed to learn more about civics but disagreed on whether the campus should play an active role in the learning process.

“I think that Cal students think they are informed about American government and how it works, but they are actually misinformed,” said freshman Stephanie Chamberlain.

College students served as an important base of support for President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, with the third-highest turnout of voters under 30 in the country’s history voting in that election. The report raises the question of whether youth voters will turn out in high numbers a second time.

“It’s not that hard to find out (about civic government) — if you were interested, the information is out there,” said sophomore Sameer Abraham. “Even if the university makes people take classes, if they’re not interested, they’re not going to learn anything.”

Franklin Krbechek covers research and ideas.

The post Report suggests colleges increase civic education appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Pell Grants are a form of federally funded financial aid aimed at helping low income students afford the cost of college. The grant sizes range from $555 to $5,550, and over 9 million students across the nation received grants in 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Education website.

Under the new legislation, the grants can only be used for 12 semesters rather than 18 semesters, as in the past. Additionally, the highest annual income level under which a student would automatically receive the maximum grant amount drops from $30,000 to $23,000.

The University of California has been a major beneficiary of Pell Grant funding. In 2010, 40 percent of all UC undergraduates were eligible for Pell Grants and UC students received a total of $286 million. Nearly 80 percent of UC Pell Grant recipients graduated within six years, according to a letter sent by UC President Mark Yudof and UC Student Association President Claudia Magana to Congress members representing California.

The changes to the eligibility criteria come as spending on the program has nearly doubled in the past two years while the number of participating students has increased by nearly 3 million. The reforms to the program are expected to save more than $11 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Rich Williams, the higher education advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said in a statement that Congress is “blindsiding about 143,000 students next year.”

“At a time when student debt is at an all time high, Congress has failed to deliver on an agreement which helps struggling students pay for college and make it to graduation,” he said in the statement.

Magana said the changes would be especially problematic for UC undergraduates because “the UC keeps raising tuition.”

However, the finalized legislation avoids a number of previously considered restrictions that would have eliminated the grants for 1 million students, said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education in an interview with The New York Times.

“We had to make some very painful cuts in this bill to meet our allocation,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in a statement to The Huffington Post. “So I am very pleased we could minimize the damage in education, maintain the maximum Pell grant award and actually provide some increases for Head Start, Title I, special education and Promise Neighborhoods.”

Curan Mehra covers higher education.

The post Federal bill cuts Pell Grants for about 100,000 students nationwide appeared first on The Daily Californian.

An Oct. 29 report by The Chronicle of Higher Education compiling data from the U.S. Department of Education shows that in 2008, 93.2 percent of freshmen at UC Berkeley were California residents. That number dropped almost 10 percent to 83.9 percent in 2010 due to a campus admissions policy weighted toward accepting more out-of-state applicants. The data only count first-time domestic students and exclude international applicants.

Statewide statistics for 2010 are awaiting final review and are not yet available, but in 2008, 90.8 percent of freshmen in California schools were residents. In terms of out-of-state numbers, California ranked eighth in 2008 with 10,202 freshmen.

However, the state ranked third on the list of states with the most in-state students, just behind Alaska and Texas — with 91.5 percent and 93.4 percent, respectively. To put that in perspective, Washington D.C. had the largest percentage of out-of-state freshmen with 87.9 percent.

UC Berkeley was the 13th most popular college for in-state freshmen in 2010, with 83.9 percent of the freshman class coming from California. Two years earlier, 93.2 percent were natives of the state. If you want a head count, 3,004 California natives made up the freshman class of 2010. That’s an 11.2 percent decline from 3,768 in 2006.

According to one of the charts displaying these results, it seems that smaller California colleges and universities are experiencing an increase of in-state freshmen, while larger schools are a mix of both. UC Davis, for example, reported a decline of 18.4 percent from 2006 to 2010, while CSU Northridge had a 40.7 percent influx of California freshmen. However, ntil statewide percentages for 2010 are available, a definite trend cannot be determined.

The decrease of in-state freshmen between 2008 and 2010 is not huge, but these results do not account for international students who attend UC Berkeley or other U.S. institutions. In light of the University of California’s funding difficulties, the growing trend of admitting out-of-state students may continue.

The post California freshmen decrease by 11.2 percent at UC Berkeley since 2006 appeared first on The Daily Californian.