When ChatGPT was released to the public in November 2022, advocates and watchdogs warned about the potential for racial bias. The new large language model was created by harvesting 300 billion words from books, articles and online writing, which include racist falsehoods and reflect writers’ implicit biases. Biased training data is likely to generate biased advice, answers and essays. Garbage in, garbage out. 

Researchers are starting to document how AI bias manifests in unexpected ways. Inside the research and development arm of the giant testing organization ETS, which administers the SAT, a pair of investigators pitted man against machine in evaluating more than 13,000 essays written by students in grades 8 to 12. They discovered that the AI model that powers ChatGPT penalized Asian American students more than other races and ethnicities in grading the essays. This was purely a research exercise and these essays and machine scores weren’t used in any of ETS’s assessments. But the organization shared its analysis with me to warn schools and teachers about the potential for racial bias when using ChatGPT or other AI apps in the classroom.

AI and humans scored essays differently by race and ethnicity

“Take a little bit of caution and do some evaluation of the scores before presenting them to students,” said Mo Zhang, one of the ETS researchers who conducted the analysis. “There are methods for doing this and you don’t want to take people who specialize in educational measurement out of the equation.”

That might sound self-serving for an employee of a company that specializes in educational measurement. But Zhang’s advice is worth heeding in the excitement to try new AI technology. There are potential dangers as teachers save time by offloading grading work to a robot.

In ETS’s analysis, Zhang and her colleague Matt Johnson fed 13,121 essays into one of the latest versions of the AI model that powers ChatGPT, called GPT 4 Omni or simply GPT-4o. (This version was added to ChatGPT in May 2024, but when the researchers conducted this experiment they used the latest AI model through a different portal.)  

A little background about this large bundle of essays: students across the nation had originally written these essays between 2015 and 2019 as part of state standardized exams or classroom assessments. Their assignment had been to write an argumentative essay, such as “Should students be allowed to use cell phones in school?” The essays were collected to help scientists develop and test automated writing evaluation.

Each of the essays had been graded by expert raters of writing on a 1-to-6 point scale with 6 being the highest score. ETS asked GPT-4o to score them on the same six-point scale using the same scoring guide that the humans used. Neither man nor machine was told the race or ethnicity of the student, but researchers could see students’ demographic information in the datasets that accompany these essays.

GPT-4o marked the essays almost a point lower than the humans did. The average score across the 13,121 essays was 2.8 for GPT-4o and 3.7 for the humans. But Asian Americans were docked by an additional quarter point. Human evaluators gave Asian Americans a 4.3, on average, while GPT-4o gave them only a 3.2 – roughly a 1.1 point deduction. By contrast, the score difference between humans and GPT-4o was only about 0.9 points for white, Black and Hispanic students. Imagine an ice cream truck that kept shaving off an extra quarter scoop only from the cones of Asian American kids. 

“Clearly, this doesn’t seem fair,” wrote Johnson and Zhang in an unpublished report they shared with me. Though the extra penalty for Asian Americans wasn’t terribly large, they said, it’s substantial enough that it shouldn’t be ignored. 

The researchers don’t know why GPT-4o issued lower grades than humans, and why it gave an extra penalty to Asian Americans. Zhang and Johnson described the AI system as a “huge black box” of algorithms that operate in ways “not fully understood by their own developers.” That inability to explain a student’s grade on a writing assignment makes the systems especially frustrating to use in schools.

This one study isn’t proof that AI is consistently underrating essays or biased against Asian Americans. Other versions of AI sometimes produce different results. A separate analysis of essay scoring by researchers from University of California, Irvine and Arizona State University found that AI essay grades were just as frequently too high as they were too low. That study, which used the 3.5 version of ChatGPT, did not scrutinize results by race and ethnicity.

I wondered if AI bias against Asian Americans was somehow connected to high achievement. Just as Asian Americans tend to score high on math and reading tests, Asian Americans, on average, were the strongest writers in this bundle of 13,000 essays. Even with the penalty, Asian Americans still had the highest essay scores, well above those of white, Black, Hispanic, Native American or multi-racial students. 

In both the ETS and UC-ASU essay studies, AI awarded far fewer perfect scores than humans did. For example, in this ETS study, humans awarded 732 perfect 6s, while GPT-4o gave out a grand total of only three. GPT’s stinginess with perfect scores might have affected a lot of Asian Americans who had received 6s from human raters.

ETS’s researchers had asked GPT-4o to score the essays cold, without showing the chatbot any graded examples to calibrate its scores. It’s possible that a few sample essays or small tweaks to the grading instructions, or prompts, given to ChatGPT could reduce or eliminate the bias against Asian Americans. Perhaps the robot would be fairer to Asian Americans if it were explicitly prompted to “give out more perfect 6s.” 

The ETS researchers told me this wasn’t the first time that they’ve noticed Asian students treated differently by a robo-grader. Older automated essay graders, which used different algorithms, have sometimes done the opposite, giving Asians higher marks than human raters did. For example, an ETS automated scoring system developed more than a decade ago, called e-rater, tended to inflate scores for students from Korea, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong on their essays for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), according to a study published in 2012. That may have been because some Asian students had memorized well-structured paragraphs, while humans easily noticed that the essays were off-topic. (The ETS website says it only relies on the e-rater score alone for practice tests, and uses it in conjunction with human scores for actual exams.) 

Asian Americans also garnered higher marks from an automated scoring system created during a coding competition in 2021 and powered by BERT, which had been the most advanced algorithm before the current generation of large language models, such as GPT. Computer scientists put their experimental robo-grader through a series of tests and discovered that it gave higher scores than humans did to Asian Americans’ open-response answers on a reading comprehension test. 

It was also unclear why BERT sometimes treated Asian Americans differently. But it illustrates how important it is to test these systems before we unleash them in schools. Based on educator enthusiasm, however, I fear this train has already left the station. In recent webinars, I’ve seen many teachers post in the chat window that they’re already using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI-powered apps to grade writing. That might be a time saver for teachers, but it could also be harming students. 

This story about AI bias was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: Asian American students lose more points in an AI essay grading study — but researchers don’t know why appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

This is an edition of our Future of Learning newsletter. Sign up today to get it delivered straight to your inbox.

I’ve been reporting on data science education for two years now, and it’s become clear to me that what’s missing is a national framework for teaching data skills and literacy, similar to the Common Core standards for math or the Next Generation Science Standards.

Data literacy is increasingly critical for many jobs in science, technology and beyond, and so far schools in 28 states offer some sort of data science course. But those classes vary widely in content and approach, in part because there’s little agreement around what exactly data science education should look like. 

Last week, there was finally some movement on this front — a group of K-12 educators, students, higher ed officials and industry leaders presented initial findings on what they believe students should know about data by the time they graduate from high school. 

Data Science 4 Everyone, an initiative based at the University of Chicago, assembled 11 focus groups that met over five months to debate what foundational knowledge on data and artificial intelligence students should acquire not only in dedicated data science classes but also in math, English, science and other subjects. 

Among the groups’ proposals for what every graduating high schooler should be able to do: 

• Collect, process and “clean” data
• Analyze and interpret data, and be able to create visualizations with that data
• Identify biases in data, and think critically about how the data was generated and how it could be used responsibly 

On August 15, Data Science 4 Everyone plans to release a draft of its initial recommendations, and will be asking educators, parents and others across the country to vote on those ideas and give other feedback. 

Here are a few key stories to bring you up to speed:

Data science under fire: What math do high schoolers really need?

Earlier this year, I reported on how a California school district created a data science course in 2020, to offer an alternative math course to students who might struggle in traditional junior and senior math courses such as Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and Calculus, or didn’t plan to pursue science or math fields or attend a four-year college. California has been at the center of the debate on how much math, and what math, students need to know before high school graduation. 

Eliminating advanced math ‘tracks’ often prompts outrage. Some districts buck the trend 

Hechinger contributor Steven Yoder wrote about how districts that try to ‘detrack’ — or stop sorting students by perceived ability — often face parental pushback. But he identified a handful of districts that have forged ahead successfully with detracking.

PROOF POINTS: Stanford’s Jo Boaler talks about her new book ‘MATH-ish’ and takes on her critics

My colleague Jill Barshay spoke with Boaler, the controversial Stanford math education professor who has advocated for data science education, detracking and other strategies to change how math is taught. Jill writes that the academic fight over Boaler’s findings reflects wider weaknesses in education research.

What’s next: This summer and fall I’m reporting on other math topics, including a program to get more Black and Hispanic students into and through Calculus, and efforts by some states to revise algebra instruction. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these topics and other math ideas you think we should be writing about.  

More on the Future of Learning

“How did students pitch themselves to colleges after last year’s affirmative action ruling?,” The Hechinger Report

“PROOF POINTS: This is your brain. This is your brain on screens,” The Hechinger Report

“Budget would require districts to post plans to educate kids in emergencies,” EdSource

“Turmoil surrounds LA’s new AI student chatbot as tech firm furloughs staff just 3 months after launch,” The 74

“Oklahoma education head discusses why he’s mandating public schools teach the Bible,” PBS

This story about data science standards was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

The post Do we need a ‘Common Core’ for data science education?  appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Reports about schools squandering their $190 billion in federal pandemic recovery money have been troubling.  Many districts spent that money on things that had nothing to do with academics, particularly building renovations. Less common, but more eye-popping were stories about new football fields, swimming pool passes, hotel rooms at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas and even the purchase of an ice cream truck. 

So I was surprised that two independent academic analyses released in June 2024 found that some of the money actually trickled down to students and helped them catch up academically.  Though the two studies used different methods, they arrived at strikingly similar numbers for the average growth in math and reading scores during the 2022-23 school year that could be attributed to each dollar of federal aid. 

One of the research teams, which includes Harvard University economist Tom Kane and Stanford University sociologist Sean Reardon, likened the gains to six days of learning in math and three days of learning in reading for every $1,000 in federal pandemic aid per student. Though that gain might seem small, high-poverty districts received an average of $7,700 per student, and those extra “days” of learning for low-income students added up. Still, these neediest children were projected to be one third of a grade level behind low-income students in 2019, before the pandemic disrupted education.

“Federal funding helped and it helped kids most in need,” wrote Robin Lake, director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, on X in response to the two studies. Lake was not involved in either report, but has been closely tracking pandemic recovery. “And the spending was worth the gains,” Lake added. “But it will not be enough to do all that is needed.” 

The academic gains per aid dollar were close to what previous researchers had found for increases in school spending. In other words, federal pandemic aid for schools has been just as effective (or ineffective) as other infusions of money for schools. The Harvard-Stanford analysis calculated that the seemingly small academic gains per $1,000 could boost a student’s lifetime earnings by $1,238 – not a dramatic payoff, but not a public policy bust either. And that payoff doesn’t include other societal benefits from higher academic achievement, such as lower rates of arrests and teen motherhood. 

The most interesting nuggets from the two reports, however, were how the academic gains varied wildly across the nation. That’s not only because some schools used the money more effectively than others but also because some schools got much more aid per student.

The poorest districts in the nation, where 80 percent or more of the students live in families whose income is low enough to qualify for the federally funded school lunch program, demonstrated meaningful recovery because they received the most aid. About 6 percent of the 26 million public schoolchildren that the researchers studied are educated in districts this poor. These children had recovered almost half of their pandemic learning losses by the spring of 2023. The very poorest districts, representing 1 percent of the children, were potentially on track for an almost complete recovery in 2024 because they tended to receive the most aid per student. However, these students were far below grade level before the pandemic, so their recovery brings them back to a very low rung.

Some high-poverty school districts received much more aid per student than others. At the top end of the range, students in Detroit received about $26,000 each – $1.3 billion spread among fewer than 49,000 students. One in 10 high-poverty districts received more than $10,700 for each student. An equal number of high-poverty districts received less than $3,700 per student. These surprising differences for places with similar poverty levels occurred because pandemic aid was allocated according to the same byzantine rules that govern federal Title I funding to low-income schools. Those formulas give large minimum grants to small states, and more money to states that spend more per student. 

On the other end of the income spectrum are wealthier districts, where 30 percent or fewer students qualify for the lunch program, representing about a quarter of U.S. children. The Harvard-Stanford researchers expect these students to make an almost complete recovery. That’s not because of federal recovery funds; these districts received less than $1,000 per student, on average. Researchers explained that these students are on track to approach 2019 achievement levels because they didn’t suffer as much learning loss.  Wealthier families also had the means to hire tutors or time to help their children at home.

Middle-income districts, where between 30 percent and 80 percent of students are eligible for the lunch program, were caught in between. Roughly seven out of 10 children in this study fall into this category. Their learning losses were sometimes large, but their pandemic aid wasn’t. They tended to receive between $1,000 and $5,000 per student. Many of these students are still struggling to catch up.

In the second study, researchers Dan Goldhaber of the American Institutes for Research and Grace Falken of the University of Washington estimated that schools around the country, on average, would need an additional $13,000 per student for full recovery in reading and math.  That’s more than Congress appropriated.

There were signs that schools targeted interventions to their neediest students. In school districts that separately reported performance for low-income students, these students tended to post greater recovery per dollar of aid than wealthier students, the Goldhaber-Falken analysis shows.

Impact differed more by race, location and school spending. Districts with larger shares of white students tended to make greater achievement gains per dollar of federal aid than districts with larger shares of Black or Hispanic students. Small towns tended to produce more academic gains per dollar of aid than large cities. And school districts that spend less on education per pupil tended to see more academic gains per dollar of aid than high spenders. The latter makes sense: an extra dollar to a small budget makes a bigger difference than an extra dollar to a large budget. 

The most frustrating part of both reports is that we have no idea what schools did to help students catch up. Researchers weren’t able to connect the academic gains to tutoring, summer school or any of the other interventions that schools have been trying. Schools still have until September to decide how to spend their remaining pandemic recovery funds, and, unfortunately, these analyses provide zero guidance.

And maybe some of the non-academic things that schools spent money on weren’t so frivolous after all. A draft paper circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research in January 2024 calculated that school spending on basic infrastructure, such as air conditioning and heating systems, raised test scores. Spending on athletic facilities did not. 

Meanwhile, the final score on pandemic recovery for students is still to come. I’ll be looking out for it.

This story about federal funding for education was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: Some of the $190 billion in pandemic money for schools actually paid off appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Studies show that students of all ages, from elementary school to college, tend to absorb more when they’re reading on paper rather than screens. The advantage for paper is a small one, but it’s been replicated in dozens of laboratory experiments, particularly when students are reading about science or other nonfiction texts.

Experts debate why comprehension is worse on screens. Some think the glare and flicker of screens tax the brain more than ink on paper. Others conjecture that students have a tendency to skim online but read with more attention and effort on paper. Digital distraction is an obvious downside to screens. But internet browsing, texting or TikTok breaks aren’t allowed in the controlled conditions of these laboratory studies.

Neuroscientists around the world are trying to peer inside the brain to solve the mystery. Recent studies have begun to document salient differences in brain activity when reading on paper versus screens. None of the studies I discuss below is definitive or perfect, but together they raise interesting questions for future researchers to explore. 

One Korean research team documented that young adults had lower concentrations of oxygenated hemoglobin in a section of the brain called the prefrontal cortex when reading on paper compared with screens. The prefrontal cortex is associated with working memory and that could mean the brain is more efficient in absorbing and memorizing new information on paper, according to a study published in January 2024 in the journal Brain Sciences. An experiment in Japan, published in 2020, also noticed less blood flow in the prefrontal cortex when readers were recalling words in a passage that they had read on paper, and more blood flow with screens.

But it’s not clear what that increased blood flow means. The brain needs to be activated in order to learn and one could also argue that the extra brain activation during screen reading could be good for learning. 

Instead of looking at blood flow, a team of Israeli scientists analyzed electrical activity in the brains of 6- to 8-year-olds. When the children read on paper, there was more power in high-frequency brainwaves. When the children read from screens, there was more energy in low-frequency bands. 

The Israeli scientists interpreted these frequency differences as a sign of better concentration and attention when reading on paper. In their 2023 paper, they noted that attention difficulties and mind wandering have been associated with lower frequency bands – exactly the bands that were elevated during screen reading. However, it was a tiny study of 15 children and the researchers could not confirm whether the children’s minds were actually wandering when they were reading on screens. 

Another group of neuroscientists in New York City has also been looking at electrical activity in the brain. But instead of documenting what happens inside the brain while reading, they looked at what happens in the brain just after reading, when students are responding to questions about a text. 

The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE in May 2024, was conducted by neuroscientists at Teachers College, Columbia University, where The Hechinger Report is also based. My news organization is an independent unit of the college, but I am covering this study just like I cover other educational research. 

In the study, 59 children, aged 10 to 12, read short passages, half on screens and half on paper. After reading the passage, the children were shown new words, one at a time, and asked whether they were related to the passage they had just read. The children wore stretchy hair nets embedded with electrodes. More than a hundred sensors measured electrical currents inside their brains a split second after each new word was revealed.

For most words, there was no difference in brain activity between screens and paper. There was more positive voltage when the word was obviously related to the text, such as the word “flow” after reading a passage about volcanoes. There was more negative voltage with an unrelated word like “bucket,” which the researchers said was an indication of surprise and additional brain processing. These brainwaves were similar regardless of whether the child had read the passage on paper or on screens. 

However, there were stark differences between paper and screens when it came to ambiguous words, ones where you could make a creative argument that the word was tangentially related to the reading passage or just as easily explain why it was unrelated. Take for example, the word “roar” after reading about volcanoes. Children who had read the passage on paper showed more positive voltage, just as they had for clearly related words like “flow.” Yet, those who had read the passage on screens showed more negative activity, just as they had for unrelated words like “bucket.”

For the researchers, the brainwave difference for ambiguous words was a sign that students were engaging in “deeper” reading on paper. According to this theory, the more deeply information is processed, the more associations the brain makes. The electrical activity the neuroscientists detected reveals the traces of these associations and connections. 

Despite this indication of deeper reading, the researchers didn’t detect any differences in basic comprehension. The children in this experiment did just as well on a simple comprehension test after reading a passage on paper as they did on screens. The neuroscientists told me that the comprehension test they administered was only to verify that the children had actually read the passage and wasn’t designed to detect deeper reading. I wish, however, the children had been asked to do something involving more analysis to buttress their argument that students had engaged in deeper reading on paper.

Virginia Clinton-Lisell, a reading researcher at the University of North Dakota who was not involved in this study, said she was “skeptical” of its conclusions, in part because the word-association exercise the neuroscientists created hasn’t been validated by outside researchers. Brain activation during a word association exercise may not be proof that we process language more thoroughly or deeply on paper.

One noteworthy result from this experiment is speed. Many reading experts have believed that comprehension is often worse on screens because students are skimming rather than reading. But in the controlled conditions of this laboratory experiment, there were no differences in reading speed: 57 seconds on the laptop compared to 58 seconds on paper –  statistically equivalent in a small experiment like this. And so that raises more questions about why the brain is acting differently between the two media. 

“I’m not sure why one would process some visual images more deeply than others if the subjects spent similar amounts of time looking at them,” said Timothy Shanahan, a reading research expert and a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago. 

None of this work settles the debate over reading on screens versus paper. All of them ignore the promise of interactive features, such as glossaries and games, which can swing the advantage to electronic texts. Early research can be messy, and that’s a normal part of the scientific process. But so far, the evidence seems to be corroborating conventional reading research that something different is going on when kids log in rather than turn a page.

This story about reading on screens vs. paper was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: This is your brain. This is your brain on screens appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

An AI chatbot that walks students through how to solve math problems. An AI instructional coach designed to help English teachers create lesson plans and project ideas. An AI tutor that helps middle and high schoolers become better writers.

These aren’t tools created by education technology companies. They were designed by teachers tasked with using AI to solve a problem their students were experiencing.

Over five weeks this spring, about 300 people – teachers, school and district leaders, higher ed faculty, education consultants and AI researchers – came together to learn how to use AI and develop their own basic AI tools and resources. The professional development opportunity was designed by technology nonprofit Playlab.ai and faculty at the Relay Graduate School of Education.

For many of the educators, the workshop was their first exposure to generative AI models and writing code. Educators say they want opportunities like this one: According to a recent report from nonprofit Educators for Excellence, many teachers say they are hesitant to use AI in the classroom but would feel more comfortable with training about it.

During the workshop, Karen Zutali, an English teacher who works in the Canton City School District in Ohio, created a chatbot to help English teachers design lesson plans and projects that integrate other subjects into lessons.

Using the Playlab platform builder, Zutali started by creating a “background” for her AI chatbot – telling the bot that it was an expert in project and problem-based learning skilled at helping English and language arts teachers create lessons and unit plans. Then she wrote step-by-step directions for the chatbot to follow in conversations with users: For example, if a teacher expressed interest in more detailed lesson plans, the AI would ask which subject the plans should cover.

Most of the apps were designed to help students in specific subjects like math or English, or to provide instant feedback on projects and assignments. Others were meant to lessen teacher workload by helping with lesson planning or project ideas; several were designed to assist English language learners.

Nkomo Morris, a special education teacher at The James Baldwin School, a public school in New York City, said education technology companies often pitch products to schools without a real understanding of what teachers and students need.

“We know our students, we know the capability of the building and the tech we have, and so we can make stuff that is very tailored to the needs that we have,” said Morris, who created an AI chatbot that helps social studies teachers create activities and games to supplement their lessons. With so many AI tools out there, she said it can be difficult to find one that meets exactly what you need, but “it’s so easy to just create your own” with coaching and platforms such as Playlab.ai.

Playlab.ai co-founder Yusuf Ahmad said school districts should provide professional development opportunities for teachers on AI, teaching them to ask tough questions about the technology in their classrooms. The most important question, he said, is: “How does this advance their work and student learning?”

“I think one of the mindset shifts that’s really cool is, actually, you can also create,” he added. “You can bend this technology, you can adapt it to meet your needs.”

This story about AI for teachers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

The post What teachers want from AI appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Two new surveys, both released this month, show how high school and college-age students are embracing artificial intelligence. There are some inconsistencies and many unanswered questions, but what stands out is how much teens are turning to AI for information and to ask questions, not just to do their homework for them. And they’re using it for personal reasons as well as for school. Another big takeaway is that there are different patterns by race and ethnicity with Black, Hispanic and Asian American students often adopting AI faster than white students.

The first report, released on June 3, was conducted by three nonprofit organizations, Hopelab, Common Sense Media, and the Center for Digital Thriving at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. These organizations surveyed 1,274 teens and young adults aged 14-22 across the U.S. from October to November 2023. At that time, only half the teens and young adults said they had ever used AI, with just 4 percent using it daily or almost every day. 

Emily Weinstein, executive director for the Center for Digital Thriving, a research center that investigates how youth are interacting with technology, said that more teens are “certainly” using AI now that these tools are embedded in more apps and websites, such as Google Search. Last October and November, when this survey was conducted, teens typically had to take the initiative to navigate to an AI site and create an account. An exception was Snapchat, a social media app that had already added an AI chatbot for its users. 

More than half of the early adopters said they had used AI for getting information and for brainstorming, the first and second most popular uses. This survey didn’t ask teens if they were using AI for cheating, such as prompting ChatGPT to write their papers for them. However, among the half of respondents who were already using AI, fewer than half – 46 percent – said they were using it for help with school work. The fourth most common use was for generating pictures.

The survey also asked teens a couple of open-response questions. Some teens told researchers that they are asking AI private questions that they were too embarrassed to ask their parents or their friends. “Teens are telling us I have questions that are easier to ask robots than people,”  said Weinstein.

Weinstein wants to know more about the quality and the accuracy of the answers that AI is giving teens, especially those with mental health struggles, and how privacy is being protected when students share personal information with chatbots.

The second report, released on June 11, was conducted by Impact Research and  commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation. In May 2024, Impact Research surveyed 1,003 teachers, 1,001 students aged 12-18, 1,003 college students, and 1,000 parents about their use and views of AI.

This survey, which took place six months after the Hopelab-Common Sense survey, demonstrated how quickly usage is growing. It found that 49 percent of students, aged 12-18, said they used ChatGPT at least once a week for school, up 26 percentage points since 2023. Forty-nine percent of college undergraduates also said they were using ChatGPT every week for school but there was no comparison data from 2023.

Among 12- to 18-year-olds and college students who had used AI chatbots for school, 56 percent said they had used it for help in writing essays and other writing assignments. Undergraduate students were more than twice as likely as 12- to 18-year-olds to say using AI felt like cheating, 22 percent versus 8 percent. Earlier 2023 surveys of student cheating by scholars at Stanford University did not detect an increase in cheating with ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. But as students use AI more, students’ understanding of what constitutes cheating may also be evolving. 

More than 60 percent of college students who used AI said they were using it to study for tests and quizzes. Half of the college students who used AI said they were using it to deepen their subject knowledge, perhaps, as if it were an online encyclopedia. There was no indication from this survey if students were checking the accuracy of the information.

Both surveys noticed differences by race and ethnicity. The first Hopelab-Common Sense survey found that 7 percent of Black students, aged 14-22, were using AI every day, compared with 5 percent of Hispanic students and 3 percent of white students. In the open-ended questions, one Black teen girl wrote that, with AI, “we can change who we are and become someone else that we want to become.” 

The Walton Foundation survey found that Hispanic and Asian American students were sometimes more likely to use AI than white and Black students, especially for personal purposes. 

These are all early snapshots that are likely to keep shifting. OpenAI is expected to become part of the Apple universe in the fall, including its iPhones, computers and iPads.  “These numbers are going to go up and they’re going to go up really fast,” said Weinstein. “Imagine that we could go back 15 years in time when social media use was just starting with teens. This feels like an opportunity for adults to pay attention.”

This story about ChatGPT in education was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: Teens are looking to AI for information and answers, two surveys show appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

LEXINGTON, Neb. — Naidid Aguilera was feeling stuck.

Stuck at her job at a Tyson meatpacking plant. Stuck in a central Nebraska town after emigrating from Mexico roughly 15 years earlier with her husband. Instead of working in her dream role as an elementary school teacher, she spent her days hauling cow organs for inspection. 

Then she learned about one group’s effort to expand access to high-quality child care here, specifically for families who speak little English, through free training and help navigating state licensing laws. The classes would be entirely in Spanish, eliminating one of the single-biggest hurdles for expanding care in this town of 11,000, where 2 out of 3 residents are Hispanic. For years, it had just one Spanish-speaking child care provider.

As Aguilera dialed the phone to sign up for classes, she recalled feeling overcome with emotion because she had believed her goal of working with children was left back in Mexico.

“The only question they really asked me was why I would want to pursue a child care license,” Aguilera said through a Spanish interpreter. “My response was, ‘I want to do more than where I’m at right now at Tyson and move further in life. I’m looking for another opportunity.’”

Through the local advocacy of several organizations, the community will have nine Spanish-speaking providers by this summer — including Aguilera. Although Lexington still has a waiting list of 550 children in need of care, the town’s child care gap has been cut by nearly 100 children with the addition of new providers, according to local data. 

A nonprofit group called Communities for Kids, partnering with other organizations, began training providers after community surveys revealed the town’s need for Spanish-language child care. The group, founded in 2017, helps develop quality early care and education programs in Nebraska communities that don’t have enough of them.

“If you can’t communicate, or your culture is different, trusting a white English-speaking woman with your child — that’s a lot of trust,” said Shonna Werth, Communities for Kids’ assistant vice president of early childhood programs.

At the time, with only one bilingual provider, most Hispanic families were shuffling their children among neighbors or family members for care. It was the only way for Spanish-speaking parents to communicate with a provider directly.

Some parents employed by the local meatpacking plants worked split shifts to ensure their children were with someone they could communicate with.

“You wonder, ‘Where are those kids? What experiences are they having?’” Werth said. 

Related: Our biweekly Early Childhood newsletter highlights innovative solutions to the obstacles facing the youngest students. Subscribe for free. 

There’s a lack of Spanish-speaking or bilingual early childhood education providers across the nation, said Tania Villarroel, early childhood senior policy analyst for UnidosUS, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization. One of the barriers to growing the child care workforce is the process of getting certified.

“It’s a resource to speak Spanish, but if you don’t have good English skills, it can also be really hard to get those degrees,” Villarroel said. “It benefits Latino children to have a Latino provider because they have the same lived experience, same heritage — it’s easier for them to connect to families, to get more family engagement.”

Recent research from the National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families found that Latino families across the United States consider multiple factors when trying to find child care, like schedule flexibility and whether the provider offers culturally responsive care for their children.

“Some [places] serve only Hispanic children, and they have Hispanic providers. But then other sites have no Hispanic children, and probably no Hispanic representation. So we see this sort of segregation going on,” said Julia Mendez, a researcher for the center. “There’s the families who are seeking the care and the families can’t find what they need, because it’s not available.”

Mendez said it’s common for home-based care to be of lower quality for Hispanic families, becauseif their providers don’t speak English, they have fewer opportunities for professional development or credentialing.

Boosting the quality of Lexington’s child care — not just its accessibility — was crucial, Werth said. She joined two local child care advocates, sisters Stephanie and Maricela Novoa, to implement the free training. Maricela Novoa is an early learning bilingual specialist providing assistance to early childhood educators through the Nebraska Department of Education. Stephanie Novoa, a realtor, also works with Communities for Kids and volunteers as a special advocate with the courts.

The training in Lexington began in 2021 with a program called the “Professional Learning Series,” which included 55 hours of classes on the licensing process or required skills for high-quality early childhood education. The series was taught exclusively in English – and did not attract Spanish-speakers.

Another series followed in 2022, and this time, there was a professional interpreter and headsets available for translation. The class was held every Tuesday night from August through November at the local YMCA, with free child care and food available.

“We were kind of building that foundation of [making] sure there are things that if they want to get licensed, this will be useful for them if and when they ever get there,” Werth said. “Like, let’s not just do training for the sake of training, but training that has a dual purpose. They’re building their education and their skills so that they can have better interactions with the kids they are caring for or as parents, because not all of them are on that trajectory of being a child care provider.”

Related: Our child care system gives many moms a draconian choice: Quality child care or a career

Werth said when the classes first opened, the goal was to reach five or six participants. Twenty showed up.

“Midway through the classes, participants would bring a neighbor or a friend. And so we had to close the class because it was a small room,” said Maricela Novoa. “It was just that word of mouth, that trust piece — this is safe, this is good. This is something that you’ll value.”

Next was a 10-week business class in 2023, followed by courses on parenting and safety that were provided in English with a Spanish interpreter.

Aguilera said she remembers many long days last spring working at the meatpacking plant, then attending classes in the evening.

“The classes were one after another, but at the same time that was nice because it was just all over at once,” Aguilera said. “I was tired, but it was very worth it.”

Werth said it was slow-going to license the nine women, especially when they ran into language barriers.

“Stephanie and I met with six or eight participants one night. They all brought their licensing packets, and we sat down with them to help them just try to work through that. And [it] took hours to do, which should not be the case,” Werth said.

It took several hours more to help participants navigate an online class. Most of them had little experience working with technology other than their phones. Werth recalled the library closing around them one evening as they helped participants use computers for the first time.

Maricela Novoa said the lack of Spanish materials or Spanish-speaking representatives is a constant hurdle for future providers. Even now, a Lexington resident could call a state agency for help but not get anyone on the phone who can speak Spanish.

“It does get tiring, because you’re the only person in the room saying, ‘Hey, is this available in Spanish?’ when there’s a new resource available,” Maricela Novoa said. 

Mendez, of the National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families, said her organization calls these obstacles “administrative burden.”

“It’s true across the board that any barrier, like a language barrier, can keep people out,” Mendez said. “With administrative burden, you have to learn what the resources are, but first, you have to know about them. And then you have to navigate the systems to try to figure out how to get the credential or the support that you’re looking for.”

Related: In-home child care could be solution for rural working parents

Just a few years ago, Miriam Guedes was the only Spanish-speaking child care provider in Lexington. She started a daycare on her own after being a paraprofessional at the public school district’s preschool for 19 years.

She obtained her license by herself — an uphill battle, she said, with all the paperwork in English — but soon wanted to do more, although she didn’t know how. 

Guedes, whose business is attached to her house, said people started knocking on her door asking if she had room for more kids, but she could take only eight at a time. 

“People were coming in, asking for more and more and more,” she said.

She learned about the free training being offered through Communities for Kids and signed up. The training gave her business experience and the skills to expand her certification, allowing her to care for 12 children at once at her center, “Blooming Daycare.” Now she’s a mentor to Aguilera and the other women who are getting licenses.

Aguilera opened her own child care business, “El Niño Del Tambor Daycare” early this spring. The name means “little drummer boy.” It’s in her basement, recently renovated to include cribs, small chairs and a table, organizers filled with colorful books and crafts, an alphabet rug and more. Her new license is taped to a marker board at the entrance.

She enrolled her first child mid-March and now has four children in her care, in addition to two of her own children. Aguilera said she could easily see herself hiring an assistant and taking on more children in the near future.

It’s something that changed her life for the better, she said.

“When I first started taking in kids, I kind of broke down a little bit because it came full circle,” Aguilera said. “I didn’t have the opportunity to stay home with my kids. And now I get to do this. I’m so happy.”

This story about child care solutions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post A small rural town needed more Spanish-language child care. Here’s what it took appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

BOSTON — Madeline Szoo grew up listening to her grandmother talk of being laughed at when she spoke of going to college and becoming an accountant.

“‘No one will trust a woman with their money,’” relatives and friends would scoff.

When Szoo excelled at math in high school, she got her share of ridicule, too — though it was slightly more subtle. “I was told a lot, ‘You’re smart for a girl,’ ” she said. “I knew other girls in my classes who weren’t able to move past that.”

But Szoo had no doubt she’d go to college, with plans to get a Ph.D. and become a mentor to other women as they break through glass ceilings in fields such as chemical engineering and biochemistry, which she now studies as a fourth-year student at Northeastern University.

Szoo is part of a long-running rise in the number of women getting higher educations, even as the number of men has been declining — a trend beginning to hit even male-dominated fields such as engineering and business. The number of college-educated women in the workforce has now overtaken the number of college-educated men, according to the Pew Research Center.

But while this would seem to have significant potential implications for society and the economy — since college graduates make more money over their lifetimes than people who haven’t finished college — other obstacles have stubbornly prevented women from closing leadership and earnings gaps.

Women still earn 82 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by men, Pew reports — a figure nearly unchanged since 2002. And, after steadily increasing for more than a decade, the proportion of top managers of companies who are women declined last year, to less than 12 percent, the credit ratings and research company S&P Global says.

“I think we’re getting there, but it’s slow,” said Szoo, in a conference room of a gleaming new engineering and robotics building on Northeastern’s campus.

That slow progress comes despite the fact that women now significantly outnumber men in college. The proportion of college students who are women is closing in on a record 60 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Women who go to college are also 7 percentage points more likely than men to graduate, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reports.

Related: An unnoticed result of the decline of men in college: It’s harder for women to get in

While engineering is one college discipline in which men continue to outnumber women, Northeastern has since 2022 even been admitting slightly more female than male first-year engineering students.

Still, said Elizabeth Mynatt, dean of Northeastern’s Khoury College of Computer Sciences, “In no way have we declared victory.”

For one thing, many of the rest of the degrees that women earn are disproportionately in lower-paying fields such as social work (89 percent women) and teaching (83 percent women); women still comprise fewer than a quarter of engineering majors nationwide, and fewer than half of business majors — fields that can lead to higher-paying jobs.

“Even as we see some shifts and changes, disproportionate numbers of men are pursuing pathways through higher education that tend to lead to higher earnings,” said Ruth Watkins, president of postsecondary education at the Strada Education Foundation.

As in Szoo’s case, the disparity begins in high school, where classes in subjects such as math, engineering and computer science “are still pretty gendered,” said Mynatt. “And if you don’t know you want to be a computer scientist as a sophomore in high school, you’re going to have a hard time getting into that program.”

As early as middle school, more than twice as many boys as girls say they plan to work in science or engineering-related jobs, one study by researchers at Harvard found.

Another Northeastern engineering major, Carly Tamer, said she wasn’t outright discouraged pursuing that subject in high school, “but there wasn’t strong encouragement.”

Other factors, beginning in college, perpetuate the disparities. Even with enrollment now female-dominated, women make up only a little more than a third of full professors and a third of college presidents, according to the American Association of University Women and American Council on Education, respectively.

Related: The latest group to get special attention from college admissions offices: men

Women who start in engineering in college are more likely than men to change their majors. Nearly half of the women who originally planned to major in science or engineering switch to something else, compared to fewer than a third of men.

“It was awful,” Mynatt said of her own experience as an engineering student in the 1980s, before she changed her major to computer science. “It was very male dominated. It had such a weed-out culture. I didn’t like the culture. It was about intellectual superiority and competing with the person next to you.”

That weed-out approach can be particularly tough on high achievers used to positive reinforcement, Tamer noted. “It can scare people away.” She said having more women around her, as she does in Northeastern’s engineering program, has proven more supportive.

Even there, Szoo said, she thinks projects submitted by men are sometimes taken more seriously than those turned in by women.

Once they move from college to the workforce, women still overwhelmingly bear family caregiving responsibilities that can interrupt their careers, said Joseph Fuller, professor of management practice at Harvard. Sixty-one percent of caregiving falls to women, according to the National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons.

“The career path associated with decision-making jobs and highly paid jobs, their design logic and even their language is still firmly rooted in a 1960s paradigm,” he said. “If you go to a big global company, the path to the C-suite anticipates one or two international assignments, four or five relocations, very demanding work hours. There’s nothing that prevents a man or a woman from making those commitments, but if you’re the principal caregiver, those burdens still disproportionately fall on women.”

Related: The pandemic is speeding up the mass disappearance of men from college

Caregiving responsibilities also come at points in workers’ careers when they are developing networks and relationships, Fuller said.

A study by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company and the women’s advocacy organization Lean In finds that even as they are more likely than men to finish college, women in corporate roles are less likely to be promoted from entry-level jobs to management positions. Eighty-seven women advanced in their companies, it found, for every 100 men.

Researchers call this obstacle more of a “broken rung” than a glass ceiling.

It’s not that women don’t want to be promoted; nine in 10 say they aspire to move up, and three in four want to become senior managers, the McKinsey & Company study found.

Yet 75 percent of senior management jobs are held by men, S&P Global reports.

“The fundamental bias and the systemic issues in corporate America that are fueling women’s underrepresentation — they haven’t changed,” said Caroline Fairchild, Lean In’s vice president of education.

Among the many reasons for this, Fairchild said, is that men are more likely to find professional mentors and role models.

There has been progress of another kind, however, Mynatt said: Those many college-educated women entering the workforce, especially in male-dominated industries, are changing perspectives.

She told the story of a female computer scientist who used algorithms to identify the kinds of wrist injuries that show up on X-rays after accidents versus the kind that might be the result of domestic violence.

Related: MIT, Yale and other elite colleges are finally reaching out to rural students

“The technology was there. The issue was who was motivated to ask the question. What matters is that the women bring the problem to the team,” said Mynatt. “When you bring in diverse voices, it shifts things culturally across the board.”

Another change: The more women there are in senior leadership positions, the less gender-stereotyped language their companies use, researchers at Duke, Stanford and Columbia universities and the University of Chicago found.

At Northeastern, women engineering and computer science students have won awards for projects such as an app on which people can anonymously report harassment, catcalling and sexual assault.

As for Szoo, she hopes to use her chemical engineering degree to help treat cancer.

After her plans for an accounting degree were thwarted, Szoo’s grandmother became a middle school teacher, then started her own business — for which she did her own accounting.

“We’re definitely the type of people who if you say we can’t do it,” Szoo said, “we will prove you wrong.”

This story about women outnumbering men in college was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

The post Even as women outpace men in graduating from college, their earnings remain stuck appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Teacher layoffs are likely this fall as $190 billion in federal pandemic aid expires. By one estimate, schools spent a fifth of their temporary funds on hiring new people, most of them teachers. Those jobs may soon be cut with many less experienced teachers losing their jobs first. The education world describes this policy with a business acronym used in inventory accounting: LIFO or “Last In, First Out.” 

Intuitively, LIFO seems smart. It not only rewards teachers for their years of service, but there’s also good evidence that teachers improve with experience. Not every seasoned teacher is great, but on average, veterans are better than rookies. Keeping them in classrooms is generally best for students.

The problem is that senior teachers aren’t evenly distributed across schools. Wealthier and whiter schools tend to have more experienced teachers. By contrast, high-poverty schools, often populated by Black and Hispanic students, are staffed by more junior teachers. That’s because stressful working conditions at low-income schools prompt many teachers to leave after a short stint. Each year, they’re replaced with a fresh crop of young teachers and the turnover repeats. 

When school districts lay teachers off by seniority, high-poverty schools end up bearing the brunt of the job cuts. The policy exacerbates the teacher churn at these schools. And that churn alone harms student achievement, especially when a large share of teachers are going through the rocky period of adjusting to a new workplace. 

“LIFO is not very good for kids,” said Dan Goldhaber, a labor economist at the American Institutes for Research, speaking to journalists about expected teacher layoffs at the 2024 annual meeting of the Education Writers Association in Las Vegas.

The last time there were mass teacher layoffs was after the 2008 recession. Economists estimate that 120,000 elementary, middle and high school teachers lost their jobs between 2008 and 2012. The vast majority of school districts used seniority as the sole criteria for determining which teachers were laid off, according to a 2022 policy brief published in the journal Education Finance and Policy. In some cases, state law mandated that teacher layoffs had to be done by seniority. LIFO rules were also written into teachers union contracts. In other cases, school leaders simply decided to carry out layoffs this way. 

Economists haven’t been able to conclusively prove that student achievement suffered more under LIFO layoffs than other ways of reducing the teacher workforce. But the evidence points in that direction for children in poverty and for Black and Hispanic students, according to two research briefs by separate groups of scholars that reviewed dozens of studies. For example, in the first two years after the 2008 recession, Black and Hispanic elementary students in Los Angeles Unified School District had 72 percent and 25 percent greater odds, respectively, of having their teacher laid off compared to their white peers, according to one study. 

Districts with higher rates of poverty and larger shares of Black and Hispanic students were more likely to have seniority-based layoff policies, according to another study. “LIFO layoff policies end up removing less experienced teachers, sometimes in mass, from a small handful of schools,” wrote Matthew Kraft and Joshua Bleiberg in their 2022 policy brief for the journal, Education Finance and Policy.

Budget cuts can create some messy situations. Terry Grier, a retired superintendent, who ran the San Diego school district following the 2008 recession, remembers that his district cut costs by eliminating jobs in the central office and reassigning these bureaucrats, many of whom had teacher certifications, to fill classroom vacancies. To avoid additional layoffs, his school board forced him to transfer teachers in overstaffed schools to fill classroom vacancies elsewhere, Grier said. The union contract specified that forced transfers had to begin with teachers who had the least seniority. That exacerbated teacher turnover at his poorest schools, and the loss of some very good teachers, he said. 

“Despite being relatively new to the profession, many of these teachers were highly skilled,” said Grier. 

Losing promising new talent is painful. Raúl Gastón, the principal of a predominantly Hispanic and low-income middle school in Villa Park, Ill., still regrets not having the discretion to lay off a teacher whose poor performance was under review, and being forced instead to let go of an “excellent” rookie teacher in 2015.

“It was a gut punch,” Gastón said. “She had just received a great rating on her evaluation. I was looking forward to what she could do to bring up our scores and help our students.”

The loss of excellent early career teachers was made stark in Minnesota, where Qorsho Hassan lost her job in the spring of 2020 because of her district’s adherence to LIFO rules. After her layoff, Hassan was named the state’s Teacher of the Year. 

Hassan was also a Black teacher, which highlights another unintended consequence of layoff policies that protect veteran teachers: they disproportionately eliminate Black and Hispanic faculty. That undermines efforts to diversify the teacher workforce, which is 80 percent white, while the U.S. public school student population is less than half white. In recent years, districts have had some success in recruiting more Black and Hispanic teachers, but many of them are still early in their careers. 

The unfairness of LIFO layoffs became evident after the 2008 recession. Since then, 20 states have enacted laws to restrict the use of seniority as the main criteria for who gets laid off. But many states still permit it, including Texas. State laws in California and New York still require that layoffs be carried out by seniority, according to TNTP, a nonprofit focused on improving K-12 education, and Educators for Excellence. 

While there is a consensus among researchers that LIFO layoffs have unintended consequences that harm both students and teachers, there’s debate about what should replace this policy. One approach would be to lay off less effective teachers, regardless of seniority. But teacher effectiveness ratings, based on student test scores, are controversial and unpopular with teachers. Observational ratings can be subjective and, in practice, these evaluations tend to rate most teachers highly, making it hard to use them to distinguish teacher quality.

Others have suggested keeping a seniority system in place but adding additional protections for certain kinds of teachers, such as those who teach in hard-to-staff, high-poverty schools. Oregon keeps LIFO in place, but in 2021 carved out an exception for teachers with “cultural and linguistic expertise.” In 2022, Minneapolis schools decided that “underrepresented” teachers would be skipped during seniority-based layoffs. Still another idea is to make layoffs proportional to school size so that poor schools don’t suffer more than others.

This story about teacher layoffs was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: As teacher layoffs loom, research evidence mounts that seniority protections hurt kids in poverty appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Heather Martin was a 17-year-old senior at Columbine High School when a school shooting took the lives of 12 classmates and one teacher. 

More than two decades later, in 2021, she was an English teacher at Aurora Central High School in Colorado when six of the school’s students were shot at a park across the street from the campus. 

Martin was one of several experts and survivors of school shootings who spoke about recovering from gun violence during a recent webinar hosted by the Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Supportive Schools. 

Martin and a group of Columbine survivors founded The Rebels Project in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting, this time at a movie theater in Aurora in 2012. The organization serves as a network of survivors helping other survivors recover after an incident of mass trauma. 

“We wanted to provide what we did not have access to in 1999, which was people who ‘got it,’ people who understood, people who wouldn’t judge what we were feeling and would know why we were angry,” said Martin, who initially dropped out of college because of the trauma she experienced but re-enrolled a decade later.

Over the past 30 years, school shootings have “changed the culture of education,” Marleen Wong, CEO of the Center for Safe and Resilient Schools and Workplaces, said at the recent event. “It is possible to recover but it’s a very difficult journey.” 

Wong said that after many school shooting there have been “deaths of despair,” or students or staff dying by suicide. To help prevent this, schools need to deploy mental health professionals immediately after violence, she said. 

Jennifer Freeman, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut and crisis coordinator at the National Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support, said recovery happens in phases. In the week following an incident, the focus is on understanding what happened and dealing with the immediate psychological issues students and staff may be experiencing. 

In the next, roughly month-long period, communities often unite around their schools. But as months go by, external support often goes away and people begin to struggle with the reality of just how long recovery can take. That’s also the time when school officials start to consider systems for rebuilding.

But recovery isn’t linear; timelines differ and recovery efforts won’t look exactly the same in every school, Freeman said. 

She and other speakers, including representatives from the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District in Texas, the Maine School Safety Center and the Delaware nonprofit Children & Families First, provided recommendations for recovery. Here are a few of those suggestions: 

• Don’t attempt new projects or shifts in school district strategy in the days and months after a crisis. “Your district’s typical capacity to adjust and change is going to be really limited,” Freeman said. 
• Consider increasing staffing and resources, at least temporarily, to meet the therapeutic and educational needs of students and staff. Many districts have found it helpful to appoint a recovery coordinator to help manage the recovery process and create a written recovery plan. 
• Select external help carefully. In the aftermath of an incident, schools are often approached by vendors and other outside groups pitching programs related to safety, trauma recovery and mental health. “[M]ake sure that any new practice that you consider adopting is evidence-based and is truly aligned,” said Freeman. 
• Collect several sources of data, including school climate surveys, that can help districts find patterns in how the recovery is going – for example, by identifying which students and faculty are most vulnerable.
• Focus on building and maintaining strong relationships between staff and students. “It becomes really important as a school community to focus on reestablishing those connections to make sure that all students and staff are welcomed and feel connected,” Freeman said.
• Build a relationship of trust with local law enforcement teams before an incident occurs, so those teams are familiar with the particular sensitivities of responding to crises in schools and don’t re-traumatize students.
• Model and practice with students emotional regulation skills such as deep breathing and techniques to calm anxiety and stress.
• Turn to resources like the guide created by the Principal Recovery Network, a group of principals who have experienced school shootings on or near their campuses.

Martin said that what helped her was eventually seeking out professional trauma therapy. “As a teacher, you’re really just going to be like ‘No, I’m fine. I can do this. I gotta push through for the kids,’” Martin said. 

But, she added, “You can’t help other people, unless you help yourself.”

This story about the aftermath of school shootings was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. 

The post A checklist no one wants: 8 steps to take after a school shooting appeared first on The Hechinger Report.