UCLA Ed&IS Magazine, Fall 2017

FALL 2017

UCLA Ed&IS

THE TEACHERS LA NEEDS

How UCLA is Helping to Shape the Future PAGE 4

MAGAZINE OF THE UCLA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION STUDIES

The Racialized Experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander Students An Examination of Campus Racial Climate at the University of California, Los Angeles PA G E 1 8

Whose Global Village?

I nformation Studies Professor Ramesh Srinivasan explores how technology shapes our world PA G E 1 4



Our thinking about new technology can embrace the diversity and complexity of peoples, environments and cultures where such tools have already migrated.

In so doing, we can think past simplistic and incomplete notions, such as ‘access’ or ‘connected,’ and consider how these tools may be shaped in the context of everyday life across the world.



FALL 2017

Ed&IS MAGAZINE OF THE UCLA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION STUDIES

2 From the Dean 4 The Teachers LA Needs

How UCLA is Helping to Shape the Future

The Teachers LA Needs PA G E 4

14 Whose Global Village?

Information Studies Professor Ramesh Srinivasan

explores how technology shapes our world 18 The Racialized Experiences of Asian American

and Pacific Islander Students

An Examination of Campus Racial Climate at the

University of California, Los Angeles 22 Q&A with Jane Margolis and Julie Flapan

Fighting for Equity in Computer Science Education 26 UCLA Ed&IS International Workshop

An In-depth Look at the Issues of Humanitarianism and

Catastrophic Mass Migration 32

Who Watches Out for the Watchers?

Q&A with Information Studies Professor Sarah T. Roberts

36

UCLA Lab School 135 Years of Commitment to Progressive Education

On the cover: UCLA Lab School student, Chris Weng, working in the iSteam Lab at school.

Ed&IS MAGAZINE OF THE UCLA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION STUDIES

FALL 2017 Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, Ph.D. UCLA Wasserman Dean & Distinguished Professor of Education, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Laura Lindberg Executive Director External Relations, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies EDITOR

Leigh Leveen CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Mike Fricano Senior Editor, UCLA Newsroom mfricano@support.ucla.edu Joanie Harmon Director of Campaign & Development Communications, UCLA Ed&IS harmon@gseis.ucla.edu Leigh Leveen Director, Annual Giving and Donor Communications, UCLA Ed&IS lleveen@support.ucla.edu Bach-Mai Dolly Nguyen, Ph.D. Candidate in Social Science and Comparative Education (SSCE), UCLA John McDonald Director, Sudikoff Family Institute jmcdonald@gseis.ucla.edu Ramesh Srinivasan Professor of Information Studies UCLA Ed&IS srinivasan@gseis.ucla.edu Robert Teranishi, Ph.D. Professor of Education, UCLA Ed&IS and Co-Director, Institute for Immigration, Globalization, and Education robert.teranishi@ucla.edu DESIGN

RobinWeiszDesign © 2017, by The Regents of the University of California

gseis.ucla.edu

MESSAGE FROM THE DEAN

H

ere at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, we believe deeply in the importance of public education and are committed to the support of its ideals and its constant improvement. Like the famed philosopher John Dewey, we believe that “education is life itself.”

Perhaps nowhere can that commitment be better seen than in our work to prepare teachers for urban schools, the teachers Los Angeles needs.

In this issue of our Ed&IS magazine we take a close look at the development of teachers at UCLA. Teaching is, as we like to say, baked into the DNA of UCLA and our commitment to high quality teaching reaches back to the very inception of the University. While our city and University look very different today, there is a direct connection between our early efforts to develop teachers for Los Angeles and our work today with Center X to develop teachers as social justice educators.

Our efforts are built on the backs of giants and we believe these early leaders would certainly recognize and approve of what we are trying to accomplish. We hope you will too.

Earlier this year, the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies was ranked among the very top graduate schools in the nation, and it is easy to see why. In both the Department of Education and the Department of Information Studies, we are engaged in a wide range of important research with implications for scholarship as well as for public policy and practice. As part of our commitment to public scholarship, we are pleased to share some of that effort with you here.

While social media may not have been part of the curriculum in the early years of UCLA, it’s become a red-hot topic today. UCLA Department of Information Studies Professor Sarah T. Roberts weighs in with a Q&A entitled “Who Watches Out for the Watchers?” Roberts coined the phrase “Commercial Content Moderation” and her work examines the plight of the thousands of unheralded workers who screen the Internet to prevent the sharing of obscene, hateful and even criminal content.

This issue shines a little more light on her fascinating work.

In this issue you will also find stories on our work to convene an international array of scholars and experts to consider the catastrophic impact of mass migrations of the 21st Century caused by climate change, war and other ills and the Humanitarian response required to disrupt so much suffering and wasted potential.

We review the most up-to-date scholarship on Humanitarianism, findings and recommendations that we presented this spring at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academies.

We also highlight the work of Information Studies Professor Ramesh Srinivasan, whose new book “Whose Global Village? Rethinking How Technology Shapes our World” examines the impact of the digital revolution. A little closer to home, we check in with UCLA Senior Researcher Jane Margolis and her colleague Julie Flapan about their work to increase equitable access to computer science education, and take a look at the celebration of the 135th anniversary of the UCLA Lab School. We also highlight the work of Professor Robert Teranishi and his colleagues at the Institute for Immigration, Globalization and Education to better understand the strengths and challenges of the more than 48 different ethnic groups categorized as Asian American or Pacific Islander.

As you can see, there is a lot happening here at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. I hope this new issue of our magazine sheds a little light on our efforts.

Enjoy— Marcelo

Marcelo Suárez-Orozco

Wasserman Dean & Distinguished Professor of Education UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Photo: Jennifer Young

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 3

The Teachers LA

BY JOHN MCDONALD

I

t may not have been made of ivory, but it was a tower just the same.

From the Los Angeles Normal School to the UCLA Teacher Education Program at Center X, a Commitment to Teaching

Moore Hall, the on-campus home of the UCLA Graduate

School of Education, was being refurbished and faculty and staff had been temporarily relocated to a tall office building at the corner of Westwood and Wilshire Boulevards.

It was there, up on the 10th floor, in a conference room with windows on all sides that provided a sweeping view of the city, that a number of faculty members of the UCLA Graduate School of Education found themselves one fine spring day in 1992. And sitting there, squabbling over some now long forgotten issue or project, they began to notice the first wisps of black smoke that would become the fires fueled by the rage of the Rodney King Riots.

“A group of us were sitting there and we could see the fires and smoke erupt,” says UCLA Senior Researcher Jeannie Oakes. “It was tragic and frightening.”

After a while the decision was made for everyone to leave.

“With all the traffic it took me a long while to get home,” says Oakes. “And sitting there, stuck in my car in the gridlock, it struck me that something was very wrong. Here we were, this group of extraordinary scholars, working and known across the world, and almost none of us was doing anything meaningful about Los Angeles. And we needed to be doing something.”

It was in those moments, looking out over the fires spreading across the city, that the seeds of a new vision for the preparation and training of teachers in Los Angeles were planted.

And out of that vision grew Center X and a UCLA teacher edu­ cation program focused on teaching quality and social justice, an effort to produce the teachers Los Angeles needs.

4 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

Needs TEACHING AND UCLA The development of teachers is hard baked into the DNA of UCLA. The very existence of the University can be directly traced back to the establishment of the State Normal School in Los Angeles in August of 1882. Located in what was referred to as Bellevue Terrace, on a tract of land between Flower and Charity Streets, the purpose of the school was the education of teachers. The first director was Charles H. Allen, the principal of the first State Normal School in San Jose, California. Olivia E. Gibson was the principal. There were 61 students, 13 men and 48 women. The first class of 22 new teachers, from Elma Ball to Fannie Wright, graduated in 1884. From the very beginning, a key feature was a training school on the ground floor of the Normal School encompassing students from six grades of the city school system.

The early years of the normal school would set a high bar for the preparation of teachers for Los Angeles and a tone for teacher education at UCLA that would echo through the years.

“A History of the Normal School, Los Angeles State Normal School—A Quarter Centennial History 1882–1907” describes the faculty as “uniting a broad experience with common purpose and endeavor … always putting forth every effort to give the students breadth of outlook as well as specialized training.”

They were “characterized by an enthusiasm that has permeated every department of the school’s work, its instruction, its social life and its larger service in behalf of public education.” A prominent characteristic, “that of liberality and independence.”

The students, the History notes, including “a considerable and increasing number of teachers of more or less experience seeking additional preparation

for their work,” promoted an “earnestness of spirit and high ideals of character and scholarship.”

According to the History, many be­ came teachers in Los Angeles. “With few exceptions, the graduates enter the profession for which they have prepared themselves and a large portion remains in it either permanently or for a number of years. That their work is highly regarded is evidenced by the demand upon the school for teachers.” From 1884 to 1908, the Normal School would graduate 1,911 teachers for a growing Los Angeles.

The History notes that, “in its first six or seven years, the school, because of its reputation as a training school for teachers, became thoroughly established largely through the professional success of its graduates.”

Members of the Kindergarten Primary Club at the Southern Branch of the University of California, 1921.

By 1922, a four-year Bachelor’s of Education degree was offered at the Southern Branch.

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 5

As Los Angeles grew, so did the Normal School and by 1914 the school had outgrown its original home and moved to a new location on Vermont Avenue.

In 1917, Ernest Carroll Moore, an educator and philosopher who had been a superintendent of schools in Los Angeles and also a professor at Berkeley as well as at both Yale and Harvard, became the director of the Normal School. In the school’s yearbook, students refer to him as “a man of vision, and wisdom is his inheritance.”

Moore studied with John Dewey at the University of Chicago. Dewey, a philosopher and educator who would become one of the most influential voices in education of the 20th Century, believed that “education was life itself.”

His was a philosophy of pragmatism that would fuel the progressive movement in education. He placed a priority on learning by doing. In what is perhaps his most recognized work, “Democracy and Education,” he would write, “Education is not an affair of telling and being told, but an active and constructive process.”

He believed that the learners’ past experience should be taken into account and that curriculum should be relevant to students’ lives. Most importantly, he believed that democracy was a central tenet of education, and that education was essential to Democracy. Like Dewey, Moore believed deeply in the importance of education and the critical role of teaching, writing “we who teach are fabricating the future.” Moore believed that teachers needed to understand the lives of their individual students and to teach them not by rote or by what he called ‘mechanical education,’ but by engaging them in their own active learning. In “What is Education” Moore would write, “Let us go back to the child and ask him how he builds his world.” Moore believed that schools should offer a carefully constructed environment in which the learner will “use his own mind in socially profitable ways.”

Moore saw teachers as the “chief factor” in this social environment.

It was Moore, together with UC Regent Edward A. Dickson, his former student at UC Berkeley, who pushed for the Normal School to become part of the University of California. And in May of

6 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

1919, their wish was granted with the Vermont Campus established as the Southern Branch of the University of California. Despite opposition from then University of California president William Wallace Campbell, teaching would remain at the forefront of the new University with 1,250 students in the Teachers College, joined by some 250 students in letters and science.

In 1929, the University moved to what the UC Regents referred to as “the Beverly Site” just west of Beverly Hills and the Teachers College set up shop on what would grow into the UCLA campus in what is now known as Westwood.

Ernest Carroll Moore would be the first University Provost. John Dewey spoke at the dedication of the new campus telling those assembled “the ultimate aim of education is nothing other than the creation of human beings in the fullness of their capacities.”

In the subsequent years, the University and its teaching college would take on Dewey’s challenge, preparing teachers who would further education in Los Angeles and beyond.

One of the influential leaders in those early years was a graduate of the Los Angeles Normal School, Corrine A. Seeds. Growing up in a working class family in Pasadena, Seeds attended the Los Angeles Normal School, graduating in the fall of 1909. Her first teaching

Top: Southern Branch of the University of California, 1919.

Middle: The School of Education is founded September 1939.

Bottom: Framed by trees on the future site of the University Elementary School, the campus appears here as photographed looking southeast. From L to R, the buildings include Royce Hall, the Library (Powell Library), and the Education Building (Moore Hall). The first permanent buildings of the elementary school—today known as the UCLA Lab School—appeared on this site in 1950.

job was at Mira Monte School south of Watts. After two years she moved to Avenue 21 School in Los Angeles.

They were schools, as she would note, that were “typical of Central and South Los Angeles. They served the children of immigrants, African-Americans and Mexicans.”

Like the original training school at the Los Angeles Normal School, the Teaching College would have its own elementary school for training ­purposes.

In 1925, Seeds became its principal and when the new campus opened in Westwood, Seeds opened the new University Elementary School on Warner Avenue. The school would eventually move to the UCLA campus, and Seeds would remain principal until 1957.

Like Moore, Seeds was a disciple of Dewey. And as principal, she pushed hard to bring the ideas of Dewey to life in schools and classrooms. In her book, “Democracy and Schooling in California: The Legacy of Helen Heffernan and Corinne Seeds,” author Kathleen Weiler says that Seeds and Heffernan were “key figures in the most concerted attempt to put the ideals of Deweyan progressive education into practice in public schools.” Along with Heffernan, Seeds held summer institutes for teachers and spoke often at conferences and meetings. “Seeds encouraged teachers to envision themselves and their work as both challenging and socially meaningful,” writes Weiler. Seeds’ work would influence thousands of teachers and generate support for progressive education, but also eventually spark political resistance from conservatives in California and beyond. One might also argue she helped to set the stage for a future emphasis on teaching for social justice.

In 1939, the Teaching College be­ came the Graduate School of Education and Marvin L. Darnie became the first Dean. Darnie had been an instructor at the old Los Angeles Normal School and the Dean of the Teaching College of the Southern Branch. Of his experience he would write, “The Teachers College exists for the purpose of training teachers for the public schools of the State.

We of its faculty believe that our work is second in purpose to none.”

While the scope of its research and work would broaden as the Graduate

School of Education, that sentiment would live on. Future education leaders at UCLA such as Dean John Goodlad would shape the future of teaching.

Like his predecessors, Goodlad too was a follower of the progressive philosophies of John Dewey. At UCLA, he served first as principal of the University Elementary School where he encouraged team teaching and multi-age grouping in classrooms. As Dean for 16 years, he was credited for shaping the graduate school into one of the top teacher training schools in the country.

Goodlad would also go on to author “A Place Called School,” where among other things he examined the preparation of teachers and challenged the practice of removing the best teachers from the classroom and making them administrators. In later research he would criticize education schools for their weak faculties and what he believed were misplaced priorities. In his 1990 report, “Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools,” Goodlad wrote critically, “rewards for faculty members interested in teacher education are for studying teachers, not for preparing them.”

By 1990, the UCLA Graduate School of Education was firmly established as one of the nation’s top schools of education and recognized for the excellence of its teaching program.

Corinne Seeds, principal of the University Elementary School, 1925–57. Seeds was a visionary educator who was influenced by John Dewey and became a key figure in developing and promoting progressive education during the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s.

She believed that “to keep education dynamic, children must have experiences that they care about.” At a time when children at most other schools were sitting at desks and learning by rote memorization, this was a revolutionary idea.



The Teachers College exists for the purpose of training teachers for the public schools of the State. We of its faculty believe that our work is second in purpose to none. UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 7



We were a highly acclaimed school of education, one with much demand for its graduates among elite public schools.

There was so much demand to go to UCLA. It was huge.

8 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

“We were a highly acclaimed school of education, one with much demand for its graduates among elite public schools,” says Jeannie Oakes. “There was so much demand to go to UCLA. It was huge.”

But then the 1992 Los Angeles riots happened, bringing change to the teaching program.

Shortly after the riots Oakes was asked to take charge of Teacher Educa­ tion at UCLA and to bring the Subject Matter projects into the fold. The faculty began a serious conversation about what it would take to develop teachers to serve urban schools in Los Angeles.

“It was very hard. Here we had this great program training very good teachers; changing it was a big risk. There were a lot of very hard conversations,” says Oakes. “But it seemed like a good opportunity to act on our impulses.”

The decision was made that the only students UCLA would take into the teacher education program were those willing to work in urban schools.

“There was some resistance. It was risky; we were worried students wouldn’t apply. But even more did than prior to the change,” says Oakes.

“I remember very clearly being at the Lab School when we got started and the programs came together,” says Jo Ann Isken, a former teacher and principal

who would become the interim director of the Teacher Education Program. “We shared a common vision that we would come together around a belief in social justice with a mission of really working to create transformational teachers.”

Seeking to avoid a battle over a new name for the program, a temporary moniker “Center X” was used as the work moved forward. First thought of as safely anonymous, it also reflected a crossing point for theory and practice.

The name stuck.

The new teacher program effort would focus on developing teachers for urban schools in Los Angeles. In doing so they began to aim at developing teachers who not only had strong pedagogical skills, but understood themselves and understood and cared about the children in the communities they served. They were looking to recruit and develop teachers who were not separate from, but part of, the community.

They wanted to create teachers who were committed as public intellectuals and activists for social justice.

“The UCLA Teacher Education Program shares John Dewey’s conviction that education is about something more than economic competitiveness,” says UCLA Education Professor and Center X Faculty Director John Rogers.

“Its goal, as Dewey noted in his lecture at the dedication of UCLA, should be the creation of human beings in the fullness of their capacity.” Following Dewey, we aim to create teachers who envision the purpose of education as “human liberation.” aunched in 1994, the UCLA Teacher Education Program today is a key element of Center X. The program recruits and prepares aspiring teachers to become social justice educators in urban settings. There is an emphasis on recruiting teachers that look like the students in the urban schools of Los Angeles, and who understand and can empathize with the cultural and economic background of urban students.

“Our teacher candidates are cul­ turally diverse, high achieving individuals who have decided to dedicate their lives to young people who’ve not had access to the range of opportunities they need to be successful,” says Annamarie Francois, the Director of Center X. “They

L

are socially conscious critical thinkers who understand the cultural and political dimensions of teaching.”

The program seeks to develop caring teachers with a commitment and capacity to facilitate social justice, combat racism and promote equitable learning opportunities for student populations traditionally underserved by high quality educational programs, especially low-income, racially, culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Since its inception Center X’s Teacher Education Programs have prepared more than 1,500 teachers for placements in Los Angeles’ hardest to staff urban schools.

Teaching candidates are engaged in a collaborative, research-based, culturally responsive two-year process leading to state teacher certification and a Master’s Degree. The program serves about 250 teaching candidates each year, divided among first- and s­ econdyear students.

In their first or “novice” year, teacher candidates engage in coursework and

student teaching designed to help them develop a strong, research-based understanding of the principles and methods of instruction and to connect theory with practice in the classroom. There is a special emphasis on understanding the complexities of urban schooling. The work includes courses such as principles and methods of teaching reading and mathematics methods, but also challenges students with what are known as the “405” courses that examine teaching in urban schools. In these courses students learn about urban communities and examine their own identities and beliefs and how they shape teaching and learning. They also explore family and school connections in ways that help them develop strategies for working with families and develop a philosophy of education. Candidates also complete their student teaching in an urban school during their first year.

“This is not about teaching pedagogy and adding a layer of social justice on top,” says Francois. “It’s about framing everything you do as an educator



The program seeks to develop caring teachers with a commitment and capacity to facilitate social justice, combat racism and promote equitable learning opportunities for student populations traditionally underserved by high quality educational programs.

1992, Los Angeles riots. It was during this period that Center X was created, along with the commitment to developing teachers to serve urban schools in Los Angeles. Photo: AP

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 9

Maria Ortega, an elementary school teacher, shared a lesson plan on engaging students in environmental issues and social justice awareness at a UCLA Ed&IS conference focusing on how to protect civil rights of students and their families.

“When we teach explicitly and with purpose, and with a component of empowerment and leadership, our students can grow tremendously,” said Ortega. “We are learning to take care of our classroom, our school and our community.”

Photo by Jeff Share

10 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

through the lens of social justice. It’s about digging deeply into what you believe and value about urban schools and communities. What you believe about the potential of our most vulnerable children, the assets and possibilities they bring to learning. It’s about understanding who you are, who your students are, and using robust content knowledge and pedagogical skills to create powerful learning experiences.”

Collaboration is a cornerstone of the work. Candidates are organized in cohorts of content specific teams and take all their classes together. Students have the opportunity to build relationships that support learning, participate in inquiry and discussion, and receive academic and personal support. Along the way faculty advisors and teacher guides provide support, coaching and feedback.

“Becoming a social justice educator is very challenging, it’s stressful.

I’ve been doing this work for ten years and I can’t remember a teaching candidate who has not cried, at least once,” says Jeff Share, a faculty advisor in the Teacher Education Program. “We mentor, teach and advise them, and also support their personal and professional development. We place teachers in

the highest need schools and help them not just to survive, but to find ways to become great teachers who will stay in the community and thrive. We push them to understand and stay focused on the students as assets.”

In the second “resident” year candidates serve as paid full-time classroom teachers in a high-poverty urban school.

They are supported by a faculty advisor and guiding teachers and receive ongoing feedback and support. They also take additional courses and complete a master’s inquiry project.

“Our standards for content and pedagogical expertise are as strenuous as at any teaching program, but UCLA’s program is harder,” says Isken. “We make them work harder because just knowing how and what to teach isn’t enough to be prepared to be an urban teacher and to be committed to staying in teaching in urban areas. Our students take the same courses people get in other places, but they are also learning and thinking about very real problems facing real kids in urban communities.”

Over the two-year process, the Teacher Education Program prepares program graduates to become caring advocates for all students in and outside of the classroom. Teacher candidates

learn to view and use the racial, cultural and linguistic diversity of urban communities as assets while striving to provide high quality educational experiences to the students who live in them.

Candidates also learn to use appropriate bilingual and English language instructional strategies to further the English language development of their students, and how to obtain the necessary social supports that students need to bolster their academic achievement.

“Too often, new teachers are dropped in having no idea of the history of the schools and communities in which they work, and no real knowledge of the students and families with who they hope to build caring relationships,” says Lorena Guillén, an assistant professor at the UCLA Graduate School of Education who has recently begun working with the Teacher Education Program.

“We want to flip that model. Our work aims to help teachers develop a deep level of understanding of their communities and their role and position in them. We want them to develop authe­ntic partnerships with the communities they serve.”

“Our goal is to prepare and support teachers who are ‘transformative professionals,’” says Francois. “We believe our teacher candidates must be ready to assume activist roles in our schools and communities, so they can productively challenge and transform urban schools to become places which offer hope and powerful learning opportunities for all students.”

Jesús Gutiérrez Jr. is one of those teachers. After graduating from the Teacher Education Program in 2006, he went on to teach at Baldwin Park High School. In 2013, he was named Teacher of the Year by the Baldwin Park Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Over the last several years, as a resource teacher, he has shared his knowledge with other teachers and also worked with Stanford University to help teachers to understand and implement teaching strategies to help students achieve the Common Core Standards. This year he is teaching in the Rowland Heights Unified School District.

“The UCLA Teacher Education Pro­ gram changed my life,” says Gutiérrez.



We make them work harder because just knowing how and what to teach isn’t enough to be prepared to be an urban teacher and to be committed to staying in teaching in urban areas.

High school students at UCLA Community School. The school was started in 2009 in the Pico-Union neighborhood of Los Angeles as a pilot school run

by UCLA in conjunction with LAUSD. At that time, less than 35% of students were college-bound. This year 97% of graduating seniors are college-bound.

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 11

Its impact is with me every single day, inside and out of the classroom. It was for me a personal and professional transformation. It helped me to understand myself and reaffirmed my true identity as a person and teacher, and in doing so has empowered me to help other students do the same.

“The experience exposed me to the historical systematic oppression of underserved people of color and taught me that students, parents, and surrounding communities have immense cultural, social and intellectual value. It changed how I saw and thought about marginalized students and how I think about urban schools and the kids that attend them. I learned to seek to understand before seeking to be understood.

“The program also gave me profound lessons in research-based pedagogy. Exploring the work of Freire, Vygotzky, Piaget and Skinner, I learned the educational psychology and theory of how people learn. Just as importantly, I learned the deficit model and what not to do in the classroom.

“My classroom is a student-­centered environment where we espouse democratic principles. I use the students’ knowledge in most everything I teach. It changes the qualitative aspects of learning—the look in their eyes, the change in their body language, wit, charm, personality, or a simple smile—and leads to a classroom culture that cultivates a love of lifelong learning.”

12 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

Just as the Los Angeles Normal School served teachers seeking “additional preparation for their work,” teacher education at UCLA is bolstered by the professional development programs at Center X, which include the California Subject Matter projects in reading and literature, science, mathematics and history and geography. Programs in writing, computer science and parent involvement also offer additional resources for educators. Teachers also have access to support for developing strategies for helping students achieve California’s Common Core Standards and programs to help them achieve certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Together, these efforts serve thousands of teachers each year, helping them to develop deeper levels of knowledge and skill, improve their practice, and keep them engaged in the profession of teaching. And in doing so, they continually build awareness among teachers of the challenges facing students in urban schools and help them to develop strategies to further educational equity.

“We unapologetically focus on social justice and equity by supporting aspiring to accomplished teachers as they grow the knowledge, skills and dispositions they need to thrive and succeed in urban schools,” says Francois.

“We’ve been doing this work for over 25 years, so we know a thing or two about recruiting, preparing and retaining

Annamarie Francois, Executive Director, Center X, working with students at Baldwin Hills Elementary School in Los Angeles.



The experience exposed me to the historical systematic oppression of underserved people of color and taught me that students, parents, and surrounding communities have immense cultural, social and intellectual value.

teachers for low-income communities of color.”

Los Angeles has changed greatly in the years since the opening of the State Normal School and the early days of UCLA. The population has exploded and demographic and economic shifts have reshaped the region. In some ways, the city and surrounding area are unrecognizable from those days. But one thing has not changed: Los Angeles still needs teachers, and UCLA is committed to producing the teachers the City needs. And while they might not recognize what Los Angeles has become, it is likely that Dewey, Moore, Seeds, Goodlad and others would understand and approve of what the UCLA Teacher Education Program at Center X is trying to achieve.

“We deeply believe in the transformative power of public schools and the critical importance of good teaching,” says Francois. “While aspects of our program have changed since the 1992 uprising in Los Angeles, our progressive beliefs about teacher education remain at the core—the need to understand students holistically, the importance of community, collaboration and social responsibility, and an unwavering belief in education as essential to democracy.

We are in this to change the world.”

THE UCLA TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM AT CENTER X ÎÎ Established 1994. ÎÎ Prepares aspiring teachers to become social justice educators in urban schools. ÎÎ Two-year graduate program leading to teaching credential and Master’s degree. ÎÎ Opportunities for specialization in mathematics, science and music teaching. ÎÎ Commitment to social justice, instructional excellence, the integration of research and practice, and caring in low-income urban schools. ÎÎ About 250 teaching candidates each year, divided among firstand second-year teachers. ÎÎ 100 teachers received their teaching credential in 2016 and are teaching in the field. ÎÎ More than 1,500 teaching program graduates since 1994. ÎÎ Ongoing professional development for teachers in math, science, reading, writing, history, computer science and more. ÎÎ Preparation for National Board of Teaching Standards Certification.

CONNECTING TEACHERS AND COMMUNITIES LORENA I. GUILLÉN, PH.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UCLA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION STUDIES

Lorena Guillén is fairly new to UCLA, joining the faculty in Fall of 2016 as an assistant professor. But she is excited about her work and glad to be part of the Teacher Education Program team.

She works closely with Darlene Lee, a Faculty Advisor in the program, to help teaching candidates prepare for careers as social justice educators. Last year, they co-taught the Ethnic Studies Field Seminar. Teaching candidates in the seminar were the first to graduate with the distinction in Ethnic Studies.

“The Teacher Education Program at UCLA is one of the few places in the country to make clear their commitment to social justice principles,” says Guillén.

“And that’s important, because when

push comes to shove, too often social justice gets pushed aside, it’s viewed as too political.”

Guillén challenges the idea that social justice teaching is not rigorous and is sometimes seen as “touchy feely.”

“Being a social justice teacher requires more, you have to understand the community and your place in it. If you cannot connect the learning to students’ lives, the kids will just tune you out.”

Guillén’s work and interests are focused on creating partnerships between teachers and the students, families and communities they serve. Her efforts help teaching candidates to understand the importance of those connections and the knowledge and skills to forge them.

“Our program does the basic teaching stuff all programs do, but we do more, and we do it differently,” she says.

“We are developing teachers that are part of their communities. We focus much more on developing authentic partnerships with the community—parents, family, guardians, and community members—and that means we need to honor the knowledge and wisdom they hold. That’s what I hope to learn about through our collective research and practice.”

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 13

Whose

GLOBAL VILLAGE?

I

n his new book, “Whose Global Village?” (2017) Ramesh Srinivasan, professor of Information Studies at UCLA, explores Internet and social media technologies within indigenous and

developing world communities and activist ­ groups across the world. The book is concerned with what digital technologies, such as the Internet, mobile phones, or social media platforms, may mean when re-imagined from the perspective of diverse cultures and communities across the world.

14 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

THE FOLLOWING IS EXCERPTED FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BOOK.

WHOSE INTERNET? In thinking about our digital future, it is important to remember the social and cultural values that make us human. This is all the more important as we move ever forward with initiatives to introduce new technologies to what Google co-founder Larry Page and Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Laboratory and One Laptop Per Child project, describe as the “last billion.” This term homogenizes those who have yet to receive robust access to the Internet or mobile networks. It mistakenly implies that these peoples, regardless of who or where they are, cannot wait to receive the blessings of Western-produced technology.

It is all the more imperative to think of alternatives to the present as we arrive at a moment where biology and technology are intermingled. The rollout of Google glasses and Facebook’s purchase of the Oculus Rift, an immersive virtual reality headpiece that covers one’s eyes, are a reminder of feminist scholar Donna Haraway’s argument that an age of cyborgs has long existed. Users cannot blindly accept the intermingling of our bodies with technologies, particularly when they have no control over the protocols by which such an “innovation” is produced and deployed.

It is troubling today that we blindly embrace technologies that are constituted by databases, classification systems, and algorithms that remain largely invisible. While these technologies are often credited with adding knowledge to the world, they may in reality only manage information. Organizing that which exists is a very different act than creating, communicating, or reflecting on that which one knows.

Many conversations around the “digital revolution” reflect a recency bias.

They focus on new tools of innovation while leaving aside questions of history and context. For example, many assume that social networks were born with Facebook, while failing to recognize that

this analytical approach toward understanding society has existed within the social sciences for decades. In another example, we often think of Facebook as a global and universal technology without recognizing that it was first a ­community-based technology designed to support specific university campus communities.

This book’s concerns are not limited only to how new technologies are used and designed but also the constraints that govern what the Internet is or is not.

Facebook has recently partnered with Internet.org in a seemingly benign cause devoted to bringing Internet access to the developing world through the use of unmanned drone technology. Yet what Internet is being made available to these new users? Members from 67 activist groups in May of 2015 signed an open letter to Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg stating that this Internet “is improperly defining

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 15



What if we re-imagined the concept of ‘global village’ to consider a world where technologies support a range of practices, visions, priorities, and belief systems of indigenous and non-Western cultures across the world? net neutrality in public statements and building a walled garden in which the world’s poorest people will be only able to access a limited set of (Facebook approved) websites and services.” And now the government of India has joined the protest.

Facebook’s free Internet provides a laudably free service but it does so without supporting Internet freedom.

Facebook, rather than the culturally and globally diverse populations it claims to unite, is given complete power over the infrastructures, networks, platforms and websites it chooses to broadcast. This need not be the direction new technology takes as it spreads across the world.

WHOSE GLOBAL VILLAGE? The term “village” is troubling as it collapses the experiences of billions into the agendas of the few who have power and voice. There is great value in bringing the world closer around many conversations and actions such as climate change, the fight for social justice, and a host of other issues. But the ways in which this term is applied to technology assumes homogeneity instead of respecting plurality. Our world is not a global village today with respect to the Internet, nor should it be. An incorrect prediction that the world has become a global village has now come to be treated as normative, what we should be striving toward.

16 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

What if we re-imagined the concept of “global village” to consider a world where technologies support a range of practices, visions, priorities, and be­ lief systems of indigenous and nonWestern cultures across the world? What if we respectfully “splintered” a topdown model of technology use to consider voices from grassroots communities? What if we thought of technology design accordingly, as continuously and dynamically crafted through collaborative processes?

We could then start to visualize a world where technologies serve diverse communities rather than vice versa.

Where a set of local Internets could emergently shape global conversations.

TECHNO-INEVITABILITY Despite their relative youth, it has become easy to assume that new technologies are here to stay, and will seemingly forever be central to every aspect of life. The myth of techno-inevitability produced by many pundits of the digital age is dangerous because it naturalizes a belief that technologies should and shall dictate our material and sentient experiences of being. Most insidiously this myth transforms a set of political and philosophical agendas into words such as “neutral,” “scientific,” and “humane.”

It blocks us from questioning the agendas that shape technology production and deployment.

It is important to clarify that as I reflect on the spread of digital technology around the world I do not mean that the same devices, infrastructures, or connection speeds have reached one and all. Not everyone in the world has an iPhone or Android, a Facebook account, or receives data at the same speed. Instead, what we have is a highly asymmetric diffusion of digital tools and systems. Nonetheless, increased access to the Internet and mobile telephony across the world raises the question of how local communities or global communication may be shaped.

The global village myth sees technology as simply “technical,” presuming that what is coded into a tool will inevitably come to pass. From this perspective, the mere extension of digital technology across the world transforms the world into a village. In contrast, this book attempts to de-westernize a top-down understanding of contemporary technology by sharing stories from across the world of how digital tools have been reinvented to support grassroots aspirations, values, and ways of knowing as practiced by diverse cultures.

Our thinking about new technology can embrace the diversity and complexity of peoples, environments and cultures where such tools have already

migrated. In so doing, we can think past simplistic and incomplete notions, such as “access” or “connected,” and consider how these tools may be shaped in the context of everyday life across the world.

There exist rich examples whereby local communities have transformed new technologies to support their own agendas. Such stories remind us of the importance of creativity, forcing us to ­remember that innovation is not limited to technology bubbles of the Western world. From examples of how mobile phone lights are used to hunt crocodiles in New Guinea, to how credits are exchanged to make banking possible without the presence of financial institutions, the world is full of reminders that the uses of technology are never fully determined by its designer. Yet we should not merely marvel at the creative ways in which many communities have appropriated these tools, but see this as motivation to collaborate with diverse user groups to together design technology systems and projects that respect their worldviews and aspirations.



Our thinking about new technology can embrace the diversity and complexity of peoples, environments and cultures where such tools have already migrated.

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 17

SUMMARY

THE RACIALIZED EXPERIENCES OF

ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER S T U D E N T S AN EXAMINATION OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT UCLA

A

sian Americans and Pacific Islanders represent a large and growing population that is woven through every facet of American life. Their impact is quite prominent in California, where Asian American and

Pacific Islander students make up more than 13 percent of the population and Los Angeles represents the largest Asian American population and the greatest numeric increase of AAPIs of any county in the U.S. over the last decade.

This report is a publication from iCount: A Data Quality Movement for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. In alignment with the efforts of iCount to bring awareness to the disparities that are concealed by vast generalizations about AAPI students, this study utilizes data from the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) and qualitative interviews to examine the experiences of AAPI students on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus. As one of a few studies focusing specifically on campus racial climate and AAPI students, this report brings to light the impact of race on the experiences of AAPI students and the importance of utilizing disaggregated data for improving their experiences with regard to campus climate.

18 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

THE TENDENCY HAS BEEN TO CATEGORIZE ASIAN AMERICANS AS ONE monolithic group. The reality is that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders represent more than 48 different ethnic groups with significant differences in language, cultures, histories and immigration patterns. In viewing them as one, we too often lack understanding of the many. In the process, the challenges confronting Asian American and Pacific Islanders are often masked by a stereo­ typical perception of Asian success. The reality is that there is significant diversity in their educational attainment, poverty status, income and soci­o-economic status. Language barriers, lack of health insurance, affordable housing, educational quality and access to financial aid continue to plague particular AAPI subgroups that experience difficulty accessing much needed attention and resources, including barriers within the postsecondary sector.

“Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders fall along the full range of educational and social outcomes,” says Robert T. Teranishi, Professor of Education, UCLA Ed&IS and Co-Director, Institute for Immigration, Globalization, and Education.

“The racial categorization of Asian American and Pacific Islanders as one group conceals significant disparities in educational experiences and makes it more difficult to focus attention on challenges and the resources needed to resolve them. There is a significant need for in-depth research and detailed disaggregated data on the educational experience of the Asian American Pacific Islander population.”

T

o begin to address these issues, the National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE) launched iCount: A Data Quality Movement for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Higher Education. Building on that effort, CARE recently published a new study of the experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students and the campus racial climate at UCLA. In the context of education, AAPIs are believed to be high performing, well-adjusted students who seldom encounter discrimination or require



These quantitative findings beg the question, if AAPI students make up one-third of the total undergraduate population, why do they feel like they do not belong on campus compared to White students at UCLA? 

institutional resources to be successful.

These sentiments are also manifested in research, as studies often group AAPI and White students together, comparing their satisfaction and success against Black and Latino students.

The research at UCLA stands in contrast to that assumption. Among the findings of the report, while all students express a relatively high level of satisfaction with their experiences at UCLA, the views of Asian American and Pacific Islander students more closely parallel those of other racial and ethnic minorities, rather than those of White students to whom they are most often compared. Asian American and Pacific Islander students are also more likely to report hearing students, staff or faculty express negative/stereotypical views about racial and ethnic groups than their White counterparts, and at rates that exceed Latino students and are similar to those of Black students. These findings indicate race impacts the experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students.

The report also disaggregates the data to document differing views among Asian ethic groups. For example, Southeast Asian students report higher levels of dissatisfaction with their academic and social experiences, and lower levels of a sense of belonging than do

their East Asian counterparts. Southeast Asian and Filipino students are also more likely to report hearing negative/stereotypical views about racial and ethnic groups.

“The findings make clear that different ethnic groups are having different and potentially negative experiences on campus,” says Bach-Mai Dolly Nguyen, a research associate for the National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE) and Ph.D. Candidate in Social Science and Comparative Education at UCLA. “In doing so, the findings also underscore the value of use of disaggregated data in understanding the experiences of various Asian ethnic groups and highlighting areas that may be a priority for improving the racial climate on the UCLA campus.”

In addition to interpersonal inter­ actions, students’ sense of belonging on campus emerged as an important theme when considering AAPI student experiences with campus climate. Although AAPIs are the largest racial group on campus, their sense of belonging contrasts starkly from White students—the group to whom they are most often labeled similar with regard to their academic experiences. When asked to rate their level of agreement with the feeling UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 19

Dissatisfaction with Academic and Social Experience

Level of Agreement on Measures of Sense of Belonging

that they belong at UCLA, AAPI undergraduates report lower levels of agreement compared to their White peers.

This result directly contradicts the rationale to group these two student populations together in research related to their satisfaction with the campus environment. Furthermore, AAPI students’ sense of belonging on campus has no statistical difference from other students of color. Put another way, AAPI students have statistically similar levels of sense of belonging with their racial and ethnic minority counterparts. These findings share the sentiments of other studies that have found that students on college campuses who are members of racial minority groups do, in fact, have lower levels of a sense of belonging and extend the findings of past scholarship to capture the racialized experiences of AAPI students.

“These quantitative findings beg the question, if AAPI students make up onethird of the total undergraduate population, why do they feel like they do not belong on campus compared to White students at UCLA,” says Nguyen. Given that students’ sense of belonging at their academic institution is an important factor associated with positive campus experiences as well as having the potential to impact academic outcomes, this points to an opportunity to improve the campus environment to better support and include students of color.

STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL SPACES CRITICAL TO AAPI STUDENTS FINDING AND CREATING SPACE

The full report can be found online at http://care.gseis.ucla.edu/care-report xs/ The authors of this report are: Robert T. Teranishi, Professor of Education, UCLA Ed&IS and Co-Director, Institute for Immigration, Globalization, and Education Bach-Mai Dolly Nguyen, a research associate for the National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE) and Ph.D. candidate in Social Science and Comparative Education (SSCE) Mike Hoa Nguyen, a doctoral student in the Division of Higher Education and Organizational Change at UCLA’s School of Education Jason Chan, a Ph.D. candidate in Higher Education & Organizational Change at UCLA

20 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

The need for finding a supportive or safe space at such a large institution was made apparent by both the quantitative findings that highlight feelings of isolation and by the experiences of student interviewees.

Given these findings indicating feelings of isolation and lack of representation on campus by Asian American and Pacific Islander students, the study reinforces the critical need for and value of student organizations and institutional space to support and improve the experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students and their campus environments.

AAPI REGIONAL SUBGROUPS These five subgroups are common designations within the higher education research, practice, and policy spheres. While there is a geographic basis to this categorization, in that the constituent ethnic groups can trace their ethnic backgrounds to the same geographic region of Asia and the Pacific Islands, there are also historical and sociopolitical factors at play. Due to differing patterns of immigration and migration to the U.S., as well as experiences of racialization, each regional group has a shared experience that is distinct from other groups.

The refugee experience characteristic of many Southeast Asian communities, for example, has uniquely shaped how those populations have experienced ethnicity and race.

Similarly, the history of Spanish and U.S. colonialism has led Filipino Americans to have distinct racial experiences compared to their AAPI peers.



The findings make clear that different ethnic groups are having different and potentially negative experiences on campus. Bach-Mai Dolly Nguyen

REGIONAL GROUP LABELS ÎÎ East Asian: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese ÎÎ Southeast Asian: Cambodian, Hmong, Lao, Vietnamese ÎÎ South Asian: Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan ÎÎ Filipino ÎÎ NHPI: Native Hawaiian, Chamorro, Marshallese, Samoan, Tongan Note: As there is no official or standard categorization scheme for AAPI regional subgroup labels, the ethnic groups listed are those that are more commonly associated with that regional group label within U.S. racial discourse.

UCLA Professor of Education Robert T. Teranishi (far right), principal investigator of the iCount project, and co-director of UCLA’s Institute for Immigration, Globalization & Education (IGE), co-hosted a two-day symposium held at the U.S. Department of Education and the White House, to discuss a national effort to address disparities in educational experiences and outcomes for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) student populations.

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 21

Julie Flapan (left) and Jane Margolis (right)

JANE MARGOLIS AND

JULIE FLAPAN EDUCATING FOR EQUITY AND ACCESS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE

J

ane Margolis, senior researcher at UCLA’s Center X, brings her firsthand experience of inequities in a technical field to her work on bringing computer science education to all students. A summer job as a telephone operator shortly after college led her to become one of the first female telephone installers for Pacific Telephone and Telegraph in the 1970s. She went on to Harvard’s Graduate School of Education where she studied gender socialization and gender, race, and inequities in education.

Margolis emphasizes that her work around computer science has always been about inequality and how fields become segregated. As a researcher

22 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

at Carnegie Mellon University in the mid-1990s, she was asked to conduct a research study on the lack of female students in what was one of the top computer science departments in the nation.

Her findings resulted in her first book, “Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing” (with Allan Fisher. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002). Margolis’ work led to more research funded by the National Science Foundation, on why so few African-Americans, Latinos and females were learning computer science in Los Angeles public high schools. The findings revealed the disparities in learning opportunities that fell along race and socio-economic lines, resulting in her second book, “Stuck in the Shallow

End: Education, Race, and Computing” (with R. Estrella, J. Goode, J. Jellison, and K. Nao. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008).

In response to the findings, Margolis and colleagues founded the Exploring Computer Science (ECS) curriculum and teacher professional development program, which is housed within UCLA Center X’s Computer Science Project.

ECS is now a national initiative in seven of the largest school districts in the nation; LAUSD, the second largest district in the U.S., has 31 schools in the program. In addition to NSF funded projects, Code.org included ECS as the core high school course within their district partnerships across the country.

Margolis, along with fellow researchers and computer science advocates, helped found the Alliance for California Computing Education for Students and Schools (ACCESS). Julie Flapan (’01, Ed.D., Educational Leadership) serves as the director of the UCLA Computer Science Project and is also the executive director of ACCESS. The mission of ECS is to democratize K–12 computer science knowledge and to increase and enhance computer science learning opportunities for underrepresented students, specifically African-American, Latina/o, and females in underserved schools. The ECS program includes professional development for teachers encompassing inquiry, equity and computer science content.

The culturally responsive curriculum and teacher education includes an examination of the stereotypes of students who can learn computer science and recommendations of policy change that can institutionalize computer science learning, particularly in schools with high numbers of students of color.

“Computer science education has been involved in the production and reproduction of inequality, and we are dedicated to changing that,” Margolis says.

In early 2017, Margolis and Flapan published a commentary in Education Week titled, “Stop Scapegoating, Start Educating,” that highlighted the need for teachers, schools, and families to prepare all students with computer science education, not only for participation in the 21st Century job market, but also to empower students to take part in social and political systems in the U.S. “When students in underserved schools are denied access, experience, and role models in computing, they are left further behind,” Flapan and Margolis wrote. “Only 13 percent of AP computer science test-takers identified as AfricanAmerican or Latino, while these students made up more than 24 percent of test-​ takers across all AP exams in 2015.

Ensuring access for all students to this foundational knowledge is important preparation for college, careers, and civic participation. Becoming digitally literate, critical, and constructive thinkers about how to use technology responsibly should be required learning

for everyone.”

With this year’s release of an up­ dated edition of “Stuck in the Shallow End,” Ed&IS Magazine spoke with Flapan and Margolis—who in 2016 was selected

by President Barack Obama as a White House Champion of Change. They discussed why their work focuses on equity in computer science and how computing knowledge beyond consumerism can prepare today’s students for college, careers, and civic participation.

Q: How do you ensure that all students have access to high quality computer science?

JULIE FLAPAN: We bring educational theory about equity into the world of computer science education and are working on parallel tracks to increase demand at the local level for CS in our schools, while also working at the state level to ensure equitable access to teaching and learning opportunities. This includes expanding the pool of teachers who can teach high quality computer science by providing professional development in equity and curriculum. One of the pillars of ECS is that teachers have intensive preparation to teach the curriculum, which includes research-based culturally responsive pedagogy.



Margolis, a White House Champion of Change, and Flapan, director of the Computer Science Project at UCLA’s Center X, examine the interface between computing education and access for underrepresented students 

Q: How has your partnership with LAUSD informed your statewide advocacy?

MARGOLIS: Our experience with imple-

menting ECS in local districts provides research-based evidence as we scale up computer science statewide. Our efforts to ensure access to high-quality computer science are informed by this research as we insist that equity and inquiry must be integrated with meaningful computer science content.

FLAPAN: ACCESS promotes public en-

gagement to build the political will to support opportunities for teaching and learning computer science for all kids.

We’re always asking the tough questions about the potential unintended consequences of well-intentioned proposals, and what research and experiences we can provide to help education leaders and policymakers make more informed decisions to benefit all UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 23



Kids themselves have to feel, “I belong in this field. I’m going to do this and I belong.

California’s students, especially those who are underrepresented.

Q: With the growing demand for CS education, where will the teachers come from?

FLAPAN: Most people are surprised to learn that there is no single subject CS certification for teachers. ACCESS is working to expand the pool of qualified teachers by updating a computer science supplementary authorization that will allow interested teachers from a variety of subjects to teach computer science.

MARGOLIS: Our initiatives are all depen-

dent on teachers being active proponents in broadening participation and challenging the underrepresentation that has persisted in this field. There is also a need to bring computer science education into teacher preparation programs in graduate schools of education nationwide. We, along with other people, are working on this.

FLAPAN: Computer science is not just

about learning how to use the computer, or even just programming. Computer science is really about deeper learning

24 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

—computational thinking, problem solving, design, algorithmic thinking, and creativity that goes into technological innovation. It crosses a broad range of career opportunities and it is important to expose kids to possibilities that they may not even know exist.

Q: Can you talk more about the new CSforAll movement?

FLAPAN: Computer science is now on

the national education scene and has become part of a broader CSforAll movement which was supported by the Obama administration. Many cities, states and large school districts across the country are leading bold initiatives to expand computer science education, led by governors, mayors, and other elected officials. There are a handful of national coalitions like Code.org, Expanding Computing Education Pathways, and the CSforAll consortium that are helping states address issues like computer science standards, funding, and teacher credentialing issues. All of the states are learning from each other.

ACCESS has worked hard the past few years to provide evidence-based research that informs policymakers and other key decisionmakers about the

most equitable and effective strategies to scale up computer science. We are working in partnership with a diverse group of organizations and school district leadership on launching a CSforCA campaign to broaden our coalition, build capacity of local leadership and increase communications about the importance of computer science education and ensuring equity and access across California.

Q: What are the benefits of focusing on a more equitable approach to computer science education?

MARGOLIS: Computer science has been

a highly segregated field. There have been so many strong biases associated with computer science, such as it is best suited for white and Asian male students who are assumed to be the “best and the brightest.” But, we have found the “preparatory privilege” of home re­ sources, early access such as going to computer camp or having a tutor, really gives a jump start for a narrow strata of students. People assume that these are the students who have “innate” talent.

intent to expand participation among girls and students of color.

There are a lot of institutional forces at play that challenge the introduction of a new discipline to the education system, especially with deeply held biases and beliefs around who can be successful in computer science. Our work is centered on making sure that the focus is on equity so that all kids have access to meaningful and sustainable computer science education.

MARGOLIS: We have to challenge as-

sumptions about who has what it takes to become a computer scientist, and policies that promote computer science for some students and not others. This means educating teachers, school administrators, and kids themselves. All youth need to feel that, “I belong in this field. I’m going to do this and I belong.

And, I can accomplish great things with computing that will positively impact the lives of myself, my family, my community, my world.”

Q: What’s next for ECS? MARGOLIS: We’re at a very critical junc-

ture between our roles as both researchers and program providers. There’s always a tension when an educational reform program scales really fast. We want to make sure there’s an iterative cycle of learning as we scale, keeping equity at the center.

We just received NSF funding for the next five years to conduct another wave of research to highlight the experiences and trajectories of students and teachers going through the program.

We will also facilitate a national teachers learning community so that we are able to leverage all the learning that is going on among ECS teachers and program developers.



Becoming digitally literate, critical, and constructive thinkers about how to use technology responsibly should be required learning for everyone. Making America great can be accomplished only by investing in all our students today to help prepare them for the world of tomorrow.

FLAPAN: Computer science is now rec-

ognized as its own discipline in K–12 and is also getting integrated into other subjects such as math, science and art.

Before ECS, there had never been a computer science course that was designed to be culturally responsive and to appeal to all kids with the expressed UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 25

UCLA Ed&IS An In-depth Look at the Issues of Humanitarianism and Catastrophic Mass Migration

A

n international cadre of scholars and experts gathered in January at the UCLA

Luskin Center to examine the impact of catastrophic migrations upon migrants, refugees, and areas of resettlement in a workshop led

by Marcelo Suรกrez-Orozco, Wasserman Dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and co-hosted with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and the Ross Institute of New York.

26 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017



There is an urgent need for the protection, health education and well-being of children and youth in particular.

International Workshop

BY JOANIE HARMON

In a letter from Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State at the Vatican, The Holy Father Pope Francis sent his greetings and implored UCLA Workshop participants examining catastrophic migrations that, “special attention be paid to its effects on children, families, and those who are most vulnerable in the face of exploitation,” and conveyed his “gratitude to all who work to meet the needs of the poor and to overcome the culture of indifference.”

Suárez-Orozco said, “Catastrophic migrations are placing millions of human beings at grave risk. There are now over 65 million forcefully displaced persons the world over: the equivalent of every man, woman and child in Lagos (16M), São Paulo (12M), Seoul (10M), London (9M), Lima (8.5M), New York (8.5M), and Guadalajara (1.4M) in terror clutching a few possessions and escaping into the unknown.”

“Migrations and internal displacements are complex and multi-determined,” says Suárez-Orozco. “They are caused by socio-economic and demographic factors and by war and terror.

They also involve cultural models, social practices, political processes, historical relationships, environment degradation and natural hazards. Over the last few decades, climate change is emerging as a major force.”

The Workshop commissioned new scholarly papers, developed high-quality new data, and examined current policy interventions and best practices as a way to shape new practices and guide change.

“The Working Group discussed with alarm the fact that internal displacement associated with conflict and violence has been growing since the beginning of the millennium and the

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 27

Svein Østtveit of UNESCO, delivering a presentation on “Global Citizenship Education” on behalf of UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova

2015 data represent the highest ever,” Suárez-Orozco says.

“Stopping these conflicts is a humanitarian priority.”

Panelists presented their innovative fieldwork and its resulting research, with opportunities for questions from their colleagues and collaborative discussion. Presenters included Jeffrey Sachs, who holds the title of University Professor at Columbia and serves as Special Advisor to U.N. SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon on Sustainable Development Goals, who discussed his research on “Economics, the Environment, and Mass Migration.” He said that the tipping point in regard to mass migration is unknown and cautioned that, “By the time we wake up … and get to some serious view of our future, we may find we have gone too far to spare a lot of people and places in the world.” He cited the area regarding losses and damages in the Paris Agreement on climate change and called for the wealthier nations of the world to atone for how they have negatively impacted poorer countries and to make financial reparations.

“From an ethical point of view, rich countries are responsible for what poor countries are feeling right now and … this is a most minimal level of compensation,” said Sachs.

Dr. Richard Mollica, who directs the Harvard Program in Refugee Trauma, described a project in Lebanon, where refugee children in camps built a schoolhouse using free and readily available materials. The project resulted in a safe and usable learning environment for children, and also served as an example of refugee agency, community action and self-healing.

“We have too many people in this field who have a big heart but have no idea what they are doing scientifically,” said Mollica. “All refugees need access to physical and mental health care. Humanitarian assistance is about restoring health and well-being. We can use imagination to transform our care of very traumatized people worldwide.”

Theresa Betancourt, who directs the Research Program on Children and Global Adversity at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, presented “Addressing Mental Health Disparities in Refugee Children: Family and Community-based Preventions,” based on her work with Somali Bantu and Lhotshampas Bhutanese refugee populations in New England.

She described her concept of community-based participatory research and how the ability to have actual members of 28 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

each community serve as researchers strengthened their data and, in many ways, made the project possible.

“Community-based participatory (research) approaches have a lot of potential … to help us think about addressing community concerns and improving our intervention models,” said Betancourt.

“These are promising ways to think about promoting mental health and overcoming disparities in refugee children, especially because we can attend to community concerns but also advance the science through a much richer perspective [and] the ability to overcome barriers to engaging the refugees in services and ultimately arrive at more feasible and sustainable models.”

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, who is the Courtney Sale Ross University Professor of Globalization and Education at NYU Steinhardt, spoke on “Global Solutions to Mitigating the Impact of Unauthorized and Refugee Migration on Youth.” He said that unauthorized status of refugees exacerbates the already-present stresses of displacement and compromises mental health for displaced persons of all ages and called for more studies in this area, particularly in regard to children and youth.

“Governments vary a great deal in the extent to which they welcome, integrate, and exclude refugee populations,” stated Yoshikawa. “These are really big challenges in the international context [if] we don’t get a handle on how policy changes are impacting the daily lives of these families and kids.”

In his post-Workshop report to the Vatican, Suárez-Orozco underlined three critical areas to be addressed by policy makers, experts, and education.

“First, we must endeavor to stop the conflicts generating the greatest and gravest mass displacements,” he wrote.

“In 2015, just three countries—Syria, Iraq and Yemen—accounted for over half of all [internally displaced persons]. Likewise, over half of all refugees under UNHCR mandate originate in three states—Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

Second, we call for widespread sustainable economic development so that people can safely and prosperously stay in their own homelands. Third, all the pertinent international organs must endeavor to reverse unchecked climate



The forced displacement of millions of human beings represents an existential crisis of our times, causing suffering in others that we should consider as ourselves. The catastrophic migrations of the 21st Century are most unforgiving to millions of children. Marcelo Suárez-Orozco

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 29

change—a major driver of catastrophic displacements.

We must achieve climate resilience.”

Suárez-Orozco underscored the urgent need for the protection, health education and well-being of children and youth in particular. Gonzalo Sánchez-Terán, who serves as Deputy Humanitarian Training Director at Fordham University, noted that a shortfall of more than $8 billion annually should be addressed by global philanthropy and that donor countries should dedicate at least 15–20 percent of total public expenditure to education, serving refugee and forcibly displaced children with the same educational policies that serve their citizen children.

In addition, the Workshop called for the integration of refugee adults into the labor market of their resettlement nations and the termination of slave-like child labor that prevents education and the thriving of children.

“The forced displacement of millions of human beings represents an existential crisis of our times, causing suffering in others that we should consider as ourselves,” said Suárez-Orozco in his post-workshop statement.

“Millions of forcefully displaced, of refugees, of asylum seekers, of unauthorized and irregular migrants—our brothers and sisters—are placed in barbaric conditions that rob them of their human dignity and their inherent capacity to flourish. The catastrophic migrations of the 21st Century are most unforgiving to millions of children.”

A Final Statement of the Workshop on Humanism and Mass Migration (http://bit.ly/2ow1dQr) that highlights the conference’s major findings has been released in English, Spanish, and French by the Pontifical Academies in Vatican City.

WORK S H OP PRE S E N TATIONS : Global Migration, Failed Citizenship, & Civic Education James Banks (University of Washington, Seattle)

Addressing Mental Health Disparities in Refugee Children: Family and Community-based Preventions Theresa Betancourt (Harvard)

Children on the Move in the 21st Century Jacqueline Bhabha (Harvard)

Global Citizenship Education Irina Bokova, (Director General UNESCO) presented by Svein Østtveit

Imagining the Future Through Refugee Education: Tensions Between Policy and Practice Sarah Dryden-Peterson (Harvard)

Refugees in Education: What Can Science Education Contribute?

Pierre Lena (Académie des Sciences, Paris & Université Paris Diderot & PAS)

The New H5 Model for the Care of Refugee Survivors of Mass Violence and Torture Richard F. Mollica (Harvard)

Closing the Empathy Gap: The Role of Education in Responding to the Crisis of Connection Pedro Noguera (UCLA)

Unchecked Climate Change, Mass Migration, and Sustainability Veerabhadran Ramanathan (PAS & UCSD) & Fonna Forman (UCSD)

Economics, the Environment and Mass Migration Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University)

The Magisterium of Pope Francis on Migration Mons. H. E. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo (PAS & PASS) (from left to right) Monsignor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences; Courtney Sale Ross, Founder, Ross Institute; Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, Wasserman Dean UCLA Ed&IS; and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block.

30 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

Humanitarianism and Mass Migration Marcelo Suárez-Orozco (UCLA)

Promoting Policies That Will Improve the Education, Economic, Social and Well-being of Immigrants and Refugees Around the World Andreas Schleicher (Directorate of Education and Skills, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]), presented by Mario Piacentini (OECD)

The Global Forced Migration Crisis and the Education of Children Gonzalo Sánchez-Terán (Fordham)

Refugees and Unaccompanied Minors in Greece Theoni Stathopoulou (National Centre for Social Research, Athens, Greece)

Recombinant Migrations and the Fragility of Protection Regimes Roberto Suro (USC)

The Adaptation of Children of Immigrants: Barriers and Paths to Integration and Well-being

Patricia Gándara, Research Professor and Co-Director of the Civil Rights Project, UCLA.

Mary Waters (Harvard)

Global Solutions to Mitigating the Impact of Unauthorized and Refugee Migration on Youth Hirokazu Yoshikawa (NYU)

WORKSHOP DISCUSSANTS Craig Calhoun (Berggruen Institute) Hiroshi Motomura (UCLA) Hilary Pennington (Ford Foundation) Carola Suárez-Orozco (UCLA) Roger Waldinger (UCLA)

PANEL CHAIRS Leisy J. Abrego (UCLA) Marjorie Faulstich Orellana (UCLA) Patricia Gándara (UCLA) Marcelo Suárez-Orozco (UCLA)

Please visit the conference website to view abstracts of the panelists’ presentations. http://hmm.igeucla.org/

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 31

WHO

WATCHES OUT FOR THE WATCHERS? Q&A WITH INFORMATION STUDIES PROFESSOR SARAH T. ROBERTS

How workers are harmed by screening user-generated Internet content

BY MIKE FRICANO

32 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

F

acebook. YouTube. Twitter. Every day billions of strangers have access to a global megaphone that allows them to say whatever they want seemingly with impunity. But there are thousands of people around the world whose sole jobs are to tame the Internet by preventing videos of the most obscene, dangerous and sometimes even criminal behavior from ever posting. In fact, Facebook announced May 3, 2017 it would be adding 3,000 screeners to its existing group of 4,500.

Sarah T. Roberts, assistant professor of Information Studies at UCLA, coined the phrase “commercial content moderation” to describe the work of these unheralded workers who risk their mental health to make sure the rest of us aren’t subjected to all of humanity’s worst impulses. She is in her first year at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.

Roberts became interested in studying the effects of this work on people after reading an article in the New York Times in 2010, while she was on a fellowship at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that focused on the intersection of information, technology, society, media studies and sociology.

How many are doing this type of work professionally?

I’m not confident that anyone really has the numbers. Let’s take a platform like YouTube, which I believe as of 2014, was receiving 100 hours of uploaded video per minute per day. And that stat is a couple of years old. Then take Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and all of the second- and third-tier platforms— never mind those that are outside of the North American-English language context—and we realize that this is a massive amount of content.

Certainly, firms do not have people looking at every single thing. But even to catch a small portion of material that may be objectionable, problematic or illegal, you have to have a lot of people working for you.

What is commercial content moderation?

What are the typical working conditions?

Commercial content moderation is the series of professional activities that people undertake for pay to adjudicate and evaluate user-generated content that has been uploaded to the social media platforms of the world—from Snapchat to Facebook to Instagram and everything in between.

I’ve been to Germany a number of times to give talks, and on several occasions this term has been translated to the “garbage collectors of the Internet.” It has about as much prestige as janitorial work. At the same time, many of these workers have said to me, “You wouldn’t want an Internet without me. You wouldn’t be able to handle it, trust me.”

I started out focusing on workers who were in the Silicon Valley headquarters of a major social media firm, yet they were contractors … and they didn’t have health care. When you think about the fact that a lot of this work puts people into a psychological firing line and that they might need mental health services, not having health care becomes a thing.

You also have call centers, and not just in India or the Philippines. There are call centers in Iowa and Florida doing CCM work. There are people who are saying yea or nay to images, without ever knowing which platform they will be used on.



There are thousands of people around the world whose sole jobs are to tame the Internet by preventing videos of the most obscene, dangerous and sometimes even criminal behavior from ever posting.

How do these workers decide what to allow or remove?

These platforms have user-facing community guidelines—terms of use. CCM workers take a given piece of content and evaluate it against those rules.

There are also internal policies that the user base is not privy to. CCM workers are looking for things that might run the gamut from being gross or disturbing all the way to illegal activity—murder, child abuse, sexual abuse or material that is coming from a war zone.

Data and graphics from the 2016 Freshman Survey

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 33

How would anyone track the well-being of those workers in the long-term? How has this work affected them?

The first example comes from my research with some of the younger, ­ ­college-educated, debt-addled workers in Silicon Valley. One worker was quick to point out, “I do this work because other people can’t. I can handle it.”

Just a few moments later that same worker said, “Since I’ve taken this job, I’ve really been doing a lot of drinking.

I’m under a non-disclosure agreement, so not only do I not want to tell people about the work because it’s gross and my friends wouldn’t understand, I’m not even allowed to do that. I could lose my job if I were out there talking about the content I see at work.”

It was clearly creating social barriers for the workers who were doing this—not wanting to engage in ways they had previously, feeling burdened by the material after work hours, having nightmares, for example. One guy reported to me he was having an intimate moment with his partner at home, and he pushed her away because an image flashed in his eyes. And when she asked what was wrong, he couldn’t bring himself to share it.

There’s been a lawsuit about this that made headlines recently.



I do this work because other people can’t. I can handle it.

Last year a lawsuit was filed in Washington State on behalf of two Microsoft employees who were doing CCM work starting in 2007. These workers are now on total disability, and they’re on leave from Microsoft because of the impact of what they were seeing in the course of their work.

It’s going to be very interesting to follow that lawsuit to see how it goes, not only in terms of what is made public and what can be learned, but also in terms of how the firms will respond.

How can we make it better for workers right now?

Many firms are taking this very seriously —to their credit—and are members of organizations that promote worker wellness programs. These steps range from making sure you take adequate breaks to giving up the work because you’re feeling bad and mandating engagement with trained psychologists.

What are some of the challenges to developing better policies?

Beyond banning content that’s blatantly illegal everywhere, it becomes very complicated because so many of these platforms transcend national boundaries. Something that is totally acceptable in one part of the world may be completely unacceptable in another. So this is why CCM is so complex and often can’t be just ceded to an algorithm or a computer. It takes human intelligence and a sensibility and decisions.

What roles do algorithms and artificial intelligence play?

Take copyright infringement. Media companies can work with YouTube, for example, to have a database of their material that is under copyright. If something is uploaded that matches that material— it can just be automatically removed or flagged for review. Typically this uses what is known as a hash value as a way to ID known content, essentially.

34 UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017

That kind of technology is being used to deal with some of the most heinous kinds of material circulating online—child pornography. For better or for worse, a lot of the images or videos of that kind of abuse is material that was created years ago. There are data­ bases that are created in conjunction with law enforcement where that material can be matched, quickly identified and taken down.

The problem is that as soon as someone creates new content and uploads it, or uses something like live­ streaming technology, such assists can no longer apply. And while some computational tools can be applied to images and videos, all are limited to a certain extent. They are also limited by how much of a platform’s resources are allocated to them.

The bottom line is that, so far, nothing does it quite as well as a human being. And nothing does it as fast and I daresay cheaply. To develop and deploy this kind of computation at production scale is incredibly expensive and resource-intensive.



Since I’ve taken this job, I’ve really been doing a lot of drinking. I’m under a nondisclosure agreement, so not only do I not want to tell people about the work because it’s gross and my friends wouldn’t understand, I’m not even allowed to do that. I could lose my job if I were out there talking about the content I see at work.

What happens if things continue as they are?

I see two outcomes: these workers hit the wall and burn out, or, more disturbing, they become so desensitized that they are no longer effective in their jobs.

What do we do with those folks?

Once you’re done with this work there’s no mandatory therapy. You can’t un-see it, so in the Washington State case, we have two workers who are functionally disabled now, ruined marriages, inability to continue working, trouble parenting.

I’d like to see the industry be more honest, open and engaged around these issues because in this equation to date, I see industry reaping the reward and taking almost none of the responsibility, and that seems to be an imbalance in favor of the firms and their platforms.

Photo: Magnum Photos

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 35

135TH ANNIVERSARY

F

rom the end of the 19th Century through today, the UCLA Lab School remains committed to a dynamic view of education that encompasses new research about education.

In the 1990s, under the leadership of director Deborah Stipek and principal Margaret Heritage, the University Elementary School (UES) developed innovative and effective curric­ula in the areas of critical thinking and early literacy; a system for establishing and maintaining a safe school environment; and methods, now nationally recognized, for integrating technology into the school curriculum. During that time, the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies created a research center to work closely with the school. Now called CONNECT, the center facilitates collaboration among UCLA faculty and graduate students and UCLA Lab School teachers on issues re­ lated to improving education for diverse student populations.

The history of the school is woven through the history of progressive education in this country. In 1929, the principal was Corinne Seeds. Seeds, a visionary educator who was influenced by the teachings of John Dewey, became a key figure in developing and promoting progressive education during the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s. She believed that “to keep education dynamic, children must have experiences that they care about.” At a time when children at most other schools were sitting at desks and learning by rote memorization, this was a revolutionary idea.

In 1960, John Goodlad was appointed University Elementary School director and soon after also became dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education. A leader in the non-graded school movement, Goodlad

UES playground, 1990s.

Middle: The first permanent buildings of UES, designed by Robert Alexander and Richard Neutra, are finished, 1950.

Bottom: UES students, 1960s.

encouraged the implementation of team teaching and multi-age grouping. His writings, based on his work and research at UES, stimulated these prac­ tices throughout the country.

In 1962, Madeline Hunter became the principal of UES. During her 20year tenure, she developed a teachers’ ­decision-making approach to instruction that was widely used. She also wrote books for teachers on how to maximize student motivation, retention and transfer of learning. Her work serves as the basis for a clinical supervision model widely used by administrators across the nation.

In the 1980s, UES director Richard C. Williams and principal Hal Hyman worked with faculty to explore aspects of the school reform movement. They experimented with restructuring the school’s organization to strengthen the professional role of teachers and to encourage participatory decision-making.

In the past decade, UCLA Lab School has done important work in the areas of character education, technology integration, inquiry based learning and educating students for the 21st Century.

135 years after its founding, the UCLA Lab School remains committed to teaching and learning environments that honor each child’s natural joy of learning, encourage creativity and support a disciplined approach to intellectual inquiry.

UCLA Ed&IS FALL 2017 37

NON-PROFIT ORG US POSTAGE PAID UCLA

UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies 405 Hilgard Avenue, Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521