Split (1)

train · 72.2k rows

text stringlengths 11 320k	source stringlengths 26 161
Student Spotlights Majoring in AAAS has allowed me to critically engage with the question: "What is Black technology?" Through class discussions, community engagement projects, and academic research, I explored Black interactions with and contributions to the… Majoring in DAAAS has allowed me to explore and expand my understanding of Blackness in its abstraction and diasporic multiplicity. By blurring the lines between theory and practice in my assemblage of artistic and academic practices, I have… Majoring in AAAS provided support, community, and profound mentorship. As an interdisciplinary artist and scholar, my pursuits in arts and academia were nurtured while still allowing me to take the lead in shaping my unique path in the… AAAS had an invaluable impact on my life and academic trajectory. AAAS taught me that Black Studies has its own disciplinary concerns across various disciplines with a political commitment to match. I gained an interest in working with archives… I declared AAAS because of the home that it provides me. Not simply a home where I can explore my own culture, but also where I can find intellectual vitality and academic rigor. Above all else, AAAS is a family that pushes me academically,…	common_crawl_stanford.edu_150
Decolonizing the English Literary Curriculum George Floyd's death on May 25th 2020 marked a watershed in reactions to anti-Black racism in the United States and elsewhere. Intense demonstrations around the world followed. Within literary studies, the demonstrations accelerated the scrutiny of the literary curriculum, the need to diversify the curriculum, and the need to incorporate more Black writers. Decolonizing the English Literary Curriculum is a major collection that aims to address these issues from a global perspective. An international team of leading scholars illustrate the necessity and advantages of reform from specific decolonial perspectives, with evidence-based arguments from classroom contexts, as well as establishing new critical agendas. The significance of Decolonizing the English Literary Curriculum lies in the complete overhaul it proposes for the study of English literature. It reconnects English studies, the humanities, and the modern, international university to issues of racial and social justice. This book is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_151
A Worthy Piece of Work: The Untold Story of Madeline Morgan and the Fight for Black History in Schools A Worthy Piece of Work tells the story of Madeline Morgan (later Madeline Stratton Morris), a teacher and an activist in WWII–era Chicago, who fought her own battle on the home front, authoring curricula that bolstered Black claims for recognition and equal citizenship. During the Second World War, as Black Americans both fought to save democracy abroad and demanded full citizenship at home, Morgan’s work gained national attention and widespread praise, and became a model for teachers, schools, districts, and cities across the country. Scholar Michael Hines unveils this history for the first time, providing a rich understanding of the ways in which Black educators have created counternarratives to challenge the anti-Black racism found in school textbooks and curricula. At a moment when Black history is under attack in school districts and state legislatures across the country, A Worthy Piece of Work reminds us that struggles over history, representation, and race are far from a new phenomenon.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_152
Aim 5: Corrosion Mitigate corrosion of both electrode materials and current collectors to enable durable aqueous batteries. A critical barrier to realizing long-life batteries is corrosion of both electrode materials and current collectors. Despite its importance in limiting commercialization of many different battery chemistries – particularly aqueous batteries – a large knowledge gap about corrosion still exists. Corrosion is defined here as any unwanted decomposition or conversion of material as a result of chemical or electrochemical reaction with its surroundings that leads to loss of efficient electricity transfer. Corrosion is caused by complex mechanisms. It can be caused by electric currents, the solubility and dissolution of materials in water, reaction of the current collectors, the small but continuous reaction of water with the highly reductive anode and oxidative processes at the cathode leading to water splitting into hydrogen and oxygen. The Aim 5 team seeks to limit, as much as possible, the corrosion of the electrodes and current collectors for enabling long-life aqueous batteries. Lead - Lead, Aim 5 - Corrosion; Professor, Chemical Engineering and Energy Science & Engineering, Stanford Current Co-Principal Investigators - Staff Scientist, SLAC - Director and Principal Investigator, Aqueous Battery Consortium; Professor, Materials Science & Engineering, Energy Science & Engineering, and Photon Science, Stanford University - Materials Research Engineer, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory - Lead, Aim 4 - Interface; Assistant Professor, Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, UCLA - Lead, Aim 2 - Anodes; Professor, Nanoengineering, University of California–San Diego - Chief Scientist, Aqueous Battery Consortium; Professor and Senior Canada Research Chair, Energy Storage Materials, University of Waterloo - Associate Scientist, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory	common_crawl_stanford.edu_153
Aim 1: Electrolyte Expand the voltage stability window of aqueous electrolytes significantly beyond the thermodynamic limit while maintaining fast kinetics. A major challenge to powerful aqueous electrolyte-based batteries is that water splits up into hydrogen and oxygen at voltages above 1.23 volts (vs the standard hydrogen electrode), but kinetic control can result in a large and desirable overpotential. The Aim 1 team seeks to raise the voltage at which the electrolyte remains chemically stable significantly beyond the thermodynamic limit, while maintaining fast discharging and charging. Expanding this electrochemical stability window above 1.23 volts at low cost is central to the success of Aqueous Battery Consortium. Extending the organic electrolyte stability window by forming a solid electrolyte interphase revolutionized lithium-ion batteries. Extending the stability window of aqueous electrolytes will enable aqueous electrolyte-based batteries to compete with current batteries at low cost and high safety. Expanding the voltage stability window could have multiple significant impacts, including: - Depositing and stripping ions on the electrodes with high coulombic efficiency, resulting in high energy and high power; - Enabling excellent stability for long cycle and calendar life, which is necessary for energy storage to support electric grids. The Aim 1 team has laid out its strategies to expand the voltage stability window of aqueous electrolytes significantly and enable realistic battery operation. The success of this aim will form the launch point for the entire research project. Lead - Lead, Aim 1 - Electrolyte; Professor, Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, University of Maryland Current Co-Principal Investigators - Lead, Crosscut Theme 2 - Theory and simulation; Scientist, Battery Science Branch, DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory - Assistant Professor, Materials, University of California–Santa Barbara - Lead, Aim 3 - Cathodes; Distinguished Professor, Materials Science & Engineering, and Bioengineering, UCLA - Professor, Chemistry, Oregon State University - Professor, Chemical & Biomedical Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Tallahassee, Florida - Chief Scientist, Aqueous Battery Consortium; Professor and Senior Canada Research Chair, Energy Storage Materials, University of Waterloo - Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering, Stanford - Distinguished Professor, Materials, and Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of California–Santa Barbara	common_crawl_stanford.edu_154
Overview The AI + Learning Differences Working Symposium: New Horizons, New Solutions explored how technological innovations can influence the life trajectories of people with disabilities and their families. Educators, civil servants, first responders, and families can all benefit from added support that AI may have the potential to offer. The interactive and generative symposium on Friday, December 6, brought together a select group of researchers, innovators, policymakers, and philanthropic leaders. Throughout the day, we engaged in thought-provoking discussions and collaborative roundtables aimed at identifying and developing actionable solutions. We worked together to set new directions in policy, innovation, and funding that will empower all learners. Following the day’s sessions, there was a reception and dinner on campus, providing opportunities for further networking and informal discussions. The symposium was followed by the AI+ Learning Differences Hackathon on Saturday, December 7, bringing together technologists, educators, students, and families to prototype AI-driven solutions supporting learning differences. Photos: Patrick Beaudouin	common_crawl_stanford.edu_155
Overview The Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning co-hosted Stanford’s Annual AI+Education Summit. In its third instance, the summit aimed to ignite a global conversation on how to shape a thriving learning ecosystem with human-centered AI technologies. Leading researchers, K-12 educators, and policymakers came together to unlock the potential of AI to personalize learning, empower teachers, and bridge educational divides. We explored cutting-edge applications in language models, virtual reality, and more, while discussing how to ensure AI serves education ethically, responsibly and equitably. Photography by Christine Baker. Read the recap The future is already here: AI and education in 2025 Event recordings Speakers Isabelle Hau Executive Director, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Patrick Hynes Senior Manager of Research Communities, Stanford HAI Daniel Schwartz Dean, Stanford Graduate School of Education and Halper Family Faculty Director, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Victor Lee Faculty Lead for AI+Education, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Emma Brunskill Associate Professor, Computer Science and Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Mike Frank Professor of Human Biology, and by courtesy, of Lingustics Patrick Gittisriboongul Assistant Superintendent, Technology & Innovation, Lynwood Unified School District Sanmi Koyejo Assistant Professor, Computer Science Erin Mote CEO and Founder, InnovateEDU Rob Reich Professor of Political Science, and by courtesy, of Philosophy, Graduate School of Education and Senior Fellow, Stanford HAI Na'ilah Suad Nasir President, Spencer Foundation Catherine Truitt Former North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction Kris Hagel CIO & EdTech Leader, Peninsula School District, WA Tara Carrozza Director of Digital Learning and Innovation, NYC Public Schools Keith Krueger CEO, CoSN Glenn Kleiman Senior Advisor, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Melissa Valentine Associate Professor of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University and Senior Fellow, Stanford HAI Alex Riccomini Senior Director of Business Development, LinkedIn MacKenzie Price Co-Founder, 2 Hour Learning and Co-Founder, Alpha School Matthew Rascoff Vice Provost for Digital Education, Stanford University Jamie Poskin Founder and CEO, TeachFX Dora Demszky Assistant Professor in Education Data Science, Stanford University and Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Catalin Voss Co-Founder & CTO, Ello Nick Haber Assistant Professor, Stanford Graduate School of Education Susanna Loeb Professor, Graduate School of Education and Faculty Director, SCALE Initiative, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Guilherme Lichand Assistant Professor of Education, Stanford University and Co-Director, Stanford Lemann Center Neeru Khosla Founder and Executive Director, CK12 Foundation Mike Trucano Visiting Fellow, Center for Universal Education, The Brookings Institution Verna Lalbeharie Executive Director, EdTech Hub Dennis Wall Professor of Pediatrics, of Biomedical Data Science and, by courtesy, of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Lakshmi Balasubramanian Lecturer and Researcher in Special Education at the Graduate School of Education, Stanford University Jason Yeatman Associate Professor of Pediatrics, of Education, and of Psychology, Stanford University and Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Bruce McCandliss Pigott Family Graduate School of Education Professor, Stanford University Stephanie Sumarna EdTech & Innovation Teacher on Special Assignment Molly Montgomery Teacher Special Programs (Educational Consultant), Bay Area Writing Project Suba Marti District STEAM Instructional Coach and Robotics and Computer Science Teacher, Kennedy Middle School Karin Forssell Director, Learning Design and Technology Master's Program and Senior Lecturer, Stanford Graduate School of Education John Mitchell Professor of Computer Science, and, by courtesy, Electrical Engineering and Education, Stanford University Jeremy Bailenson Founding Director, Stanford University Virtual Human Interaction Lab and professor of Communication and, by courtesy, Education Pamela Cantor Founder and CEO, The Human Potential L.A.B. Jim Shelton President and Chief Investment & Impact Officer, Blue Meridian Partners Shantanu Sinha VP and GM, Google for Education Drew Bent Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer/President, Schoolhouse.world Chris Piech Assistant Professor of Computer Science and, by courtesy, of Education, Stanford University Allison Scott Chief Executive Officer, Kapor Foundation	common_crawl_stanford.edu_156
Event details Wednesday, May 28th 2025 04:30 PM—05:30 PM The Education Entrepreneurship Hub hosts a bi-monthly event series with a chance for students to learn and connect over boba. This month, join us for an evening with Adam Williams, founder of the AI-based software development company Magic Loops. ", "startDate":"2025-05-28T16:30", "endDate":"2025-05-28T17:30", "location": "CERAS 101", "label":"Add to Calendar", "options":[ "Google", "iCal", "Microsoft365" ], "timeZone":"America/Los_Angeles", "trigger":"click", "iCalFileName":"Event-boba-tea-and-bold-ideas-education-entrepreneurship-unfiltered" }Are you passionate about transforming education through entrepreneurship? Join the Education Entrepreneurship Hub for an event series designed to spark bold ideas, foster collaboration, and connect like-minded innovators. Each session is packed with inspiration and connection opportunities: • 15–20 minutes: Dive into curated content on education entrepreneurship. • 20–30 minutes: Engage in a fireside chat, panel, or discussion with thought leaders and trailblazers. • 15–20 minutes: Network with fellow attendees over refreshments, including—you guessed it—boba tea! Whether you’re an aspiring entrepreneur, a seasoned innovator, or simply curious about reimagining education, this is the perfect space to exchange ideas, learn, and grow. We can’t wait to see you there! Join us at the next event with Adam Williams, founder of the AI-based software development company Magic Loops, on Wednesday, May 28th. Previous Boba Tea and Bright Ideas speakers: - Wednesday, February 5th — Claudio Sassaki - Wednesday, February 26th — Rajen Sheth - Wednesday, March 19th — Beth Schmidt - Wednesday, April 2nd — Esther Wojcicki - Wednesday, April 23rd — Ben Kornell - Monday, May 5th — Jessica Lindl	common_crawl_stanford.edu_157
Event details Wednesday, May 3rd 2023 04:30 PM—07:00 PM PST Joyous and Just Education for All How can we support students to flourish and succeed? How do we encourage a love of learning and cultivate students’ passions? Juliana Urtubey, a National Teacher of the Year, challenges schools, families, and communities to create “joyous and just” learning environments that ensure everyone can shine. In her presentation, Urtubey will discuss how joyous learning brings a sense of belonging and a just environment makes certain we acknowledge and dismantle barriers. She shared examples of how intentional, holistic, and inclusive practices build welcoming spaces for all. The event was an evening of inspiration and conversation with education leaders who think deeply about these important questions. JULIANA URTUBEY is a National Board Certified Teacher in PreK-5th grade bilingual and special education settings. She uses her platform as the 2021 National Teacher of the Year to advocate for a “joyous and just” education for all students, one that is inclusive and celebratory of all students’ identities, families, and communities. She shares her message with pre-service teachers, educators, and policymakers, including at the White House, and through the media, including People magazine, NBC’s “TODAY” show, Univision, Telemundo, and Colombia’s El Pais, El Espectador, and RCN Noticias. In 2022, President Biden appointed Urtubey to the President’s Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Hispanics. She is a teacher fellow and member of the board of directors for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Urtubey is a National Board Certified Teacher and holds a BA in bilingual elementary education and an MA in special education from the University of Arizona. Reception, 4:30 p.m. \| Memorial Auditorium Patio Lecture, 5:30 p.m. \| Memorial Auditorium Keynote followed by a conversation moderated by JONATHAN ROSA is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Education and the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University. His research combines sociocultural and linguistic anthropology to study the co-naturalization of language and race as a key feature of modern governance. With panelists LAUREN CAMARILLO, MA ’11 – Stanford Teacher Education Program, Spanish and Ambassadors Teacher, Mountain View High School, California 2023 Teacher of the Year. Camarillo empowers students to advocate for themselves and others and to tackle challenging issues related to creating a strong campus culture and student wellness. and TARA KINI, ’97, MA ’98 – Stanford Teacher Education Program, Chief of Staff and Director of State Policy, Learning Policy Institute. Kini brings high-quality research to policymakers and the public to inform evidence-based policies that support empowering and equitable learning for every child. Kini has worked in public education as a civil rights attorney, classroom teacher, and teacher educator. For disability-related accommodations, please contact the Diversity & Access Office by April 25 by calling 650.725.0326 or emailing disability.access@stanford.edu. Parking has been reserved in the Galvez Lot located at the intersection of Galvez Street and Campus Drive.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_158
Event details Thursday, February 29th 2024 12:00 PM—01:30 PM Have you ever wanted to build a chatbot that was tailored to your interests and needs? Join us for a fun workshop that will equip you with the expertise to design, customize, and refine your own chatbot! The workshop will guide participants through the entire process of customizing a chatbot. Starting with a solid design framework, you’ll learn how to outline a chatbot that meets a specific user need, incorporating critical elements such as conversation flow, user intents, and responses. We’ll share customization techniques that allow your chatbot to embody a unique personality to engage its users. You’ll gain hands-on experience with testing methodologies to assess functionality and user experience, leveraging feedback to make your chatbot better with each iteration. Our workshop will explore these questions: - How could we build chatbots that are both flexible and predictable in teaching and learning contexts? - Which techniques can make interactions feel unique and personal? - What strategies can help your chatbot consistently deliver high-quality responses?	common_crawl_stanford.edu_159
Event details Tuesday, November 12th 2024 03:30 PM—06:00 PM This event is part of the Distinguished Lecture series of the initiative on Learning Differences and the Future of Special Education at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Our goal is to promote interdisciplinary conversations among scholars about learning research with students with disabilities. This will be an interactive event in which the speakers will share insights from their research and engage in conversation with each other to explore potential cross-pollinations. About the Lecture Mechanisms for Accelerating Literacy Learning Adrea Truckenmiller, Associate Professor, College of Education, Michigan State University The use, misuse, and usefulness of assessments in schools are a significant concern for educators, families, administrators, and policymakers. Dr. Truckenmiller will introduce an innovative assessment designed to directly inform more equitable and socially just writing instruction, especially for students with dyslexia, developmental language disability, and written language disabilities. Identifying content of the writing assessment and associated instructional decisions involved careful attention to defining the goals of writing instruction, evidence-based practices, updated theory on how writing develops, and teasing apart practices that promote students climbing the social ladder versus practices that maintain power differences. Dr. Truckenmiller will discuss the results of three studies of this assessment and the opportunities for future research on consequences of instructional decisions, usability, implementation, and sustainability. This continued research needs perspectives that reach across professional silos. Orienting to Student Sense Making and Access in Mathematics Education Katherine Lewis, Associate Professor, College of Education, University of Washington Students with disabilities often do not experience meaningful and accessible mathematics instruction. In this talk, Dr. Lewis focuses specifically on students with mathematics disabilities (i.e., dyscalculia). These students have a neurological difference in how their brains process numerical information. Unlike most research which focuses on identifying deficits in these students’ speed or accuracy, Dr. Lewis explores how mathematical tools and representations are not equally accessible. The work takes an explicitly anti-deficit theoretical stance and documents the understandings these students rely upon and the inaccessibility they encounter. The talk will share findings from multiple case studies of students with dyscalculia to animate these findings and discuss the ongoing challenges in translating this work to practice while navigating incommensurate epistemological and pedagogical frames within the mathematics education and special education communities. Finally, Dr. Lewis offers some recommendations for bridging this divide which involve centering the expertise and sense making of students with disabilities and focusing on meaningful engagement with mathematics through accessible tools and practices. About the Lecture Series The Learning Differences Initiative is hosting national scholars who work on questions of inclusive education to advance transformative visions for the field. The lecture series challenges our ideas and intentions for future learning, research, policy initiatives, and community partnerships. Lectures focus on (a) teaching, learning, and life beyond school; (b) policies, institutional alignment, and the workforce; (c) neuroscience, data, and technology; and (d) law, ethics, and cultural contexts for learning in diverse settings, cultures, and public spaces. We hope the lecture series will offer meaningful, productive engagements of interdisciplinary scholars to advance creative and ambitious visions and research agendas. — The talk will be from 3:30-5pm, followed by a wine & cheese reception from 5-6pm. Please register to help us reduce waste and work towards sustainable event planning.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_160
Event details Tuesday, November 28th 2023 12:00 PM—01:00 PM This event has passed. Reflection is a key component of experiential learning, and developing reflective skills is an important learning outcome in itself. But what role might new technologies play in enhancing this process? Is it possible for AI to augment the way we grow and learn? In this workshop with the Stanford d.school’s Leticia Britos Cavagnaro, we explored how to use a chatbot, Riff, to prompt reflective questions and analyzed the potential benefits and limitations of AI for reflection. We also discussed practical ways to integrate reflective AI tools into learning activities as an additional layer alongside human-led practices. Takeaways: - Using AI tools in the reflective process can provide prompts to encourage deeper reflection on experiences through customized questioning. - Reflection helps make thinking visible, and reflection and iteration are instrumental for continuous improvement. - Strategies like gathering insights into values and expectations, designing interactive elements tailored to learners, and framing concepts around points of relevance can increase engagement. Event recording	common_crawl_stanford.edu_161
Event details Wednesday, May 31st 2023 08:30 AM—05:30 PM PST The Equity in Learning Design Workshop brought together researchers, community-based organizations, school leaders, and foundations to brainstorm a new vision for partnerships between researchers and the communities they serve, in order to drive solutions that are not only effective, but also equitable, diverse, and responsive to the needs of all learners. Crafted in collaboration with the Stanford d.school, the workshop created an intentional space for participants to listen, learn, connect and generate ideas for collaborations. A third of the participants were leaders of community organizations, a third represented foundations, and another third were Stanford faculty, staff, and students. “Leadership is there in the people. You don’t have to worry about where your leaders are, how are we going to get some leaders . . . If you go out and work with your people, then the leadership will emerge.” — Bob Moses, education visionary and civil rights activist Agenda Registration. Check-in. Say hello. Grab a bite. Workshop facilitator sam seidel, K12 Lab Director of Strategy + Research at the Stanford d.school and co-author of Creative Hustle leads a “get-to-know-you” activity. Karega Bailey and Sol Development offer an invocation to community practice. Daniel Schwartz I. James Quillen Dean, Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Educational Technology and, The Halper Family Faculty Director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning at the Stanford Graduate School of Education Bryan Brown, Professor of Education Farzana Saleem, Assistant Professor of Education Bryan and Farzana offer a new paradigm for community partnerships: - Old Model: Idea>Funding>Research>Share - New Model: Let’s co-create Facilitated small groups surface and elevate challenges, and unearth where research and practice can address both need and opportunity. Moderator: Guadalupe Valdés, Bonnie Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education, Emerita; Founder & Director, English Together Panelists: The Afterschool Space: 3:30 – 6:30 p.m. Chris Chatmon, CEO and Co-Founder of Kingmakers of Oakland Diversifying the Teacher Pipeline: Randy Seriguchi, Jr., Executive Director, Urban Ed Academy Immigrant Experiences: Adriana Solís-López, Chief Development Officer, Latinos for Education Multilingual Realities: Christina Wong, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School District Moderator: Guadalupe Valdés, Bonnie Katz Tenenbaum Professor of Education, Emerita; Founder & Director, English Together Panelists: Policy: Philip Fisher, Excellence in Learning Professor Immigration: Tomás Jiménez, Professor, Department of Sociology Language: Ramón Antonio Martínez, Associate Professor of Education Mental Health: Farzana Saleem, Assistant Professor of Education Break into facilitated small group discussions and explore: - What can I or my organization bring to address this opportunity area? - What are the potential challenges to cross-sector and cross-role collaborations? How might they apply to this opportunity area? - What are the potential benefits to collaboration between researchers and practitioners? How might they apply to this opportunity area? Get some fresh air and head to the Denning House Dining Room: Denning House 580 Lomita Drive Stanford, CA A six-minute walk, or a three-minute golf cart ride from the Old Union Clubhouse Moderator: Clayborne Carson, Martin Luther King, Jr. Centennial Professor, Emeritus Maisha Moses Executive Director, The Young People’s Project Omowale Moses CEO & Founder, MathTalk Isabelle Hau Executive Director, Stanford Accelerator for Learning For disability-related accommodations, please contact the Diversity & Access Office by May 22 by calling 650.725.0326 or emailing disability.access@stanford.edu. Parking has been reserved for participants in the Tressider Parking Lot, a link to register will be sent to confirmed participants by May 17. Questions? Email Holly Materman at holly.materman@stanford.edu.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_162
Event details Wednesday, April 10th 2024 12:00 PM—01:30 PM About the film The scorching, arid northeastern state of Ceará, Brazil has long been known for growing cashews and coconuts. Now, it’s defied expectations by cultivating one of the world’s best public elementary school systems, despite high rates of poverty. How Sobral transformed its public school system and attained near-universal literacy offers lessons for communities everywhere. With 85 elementary schools and almost 34,000 students, Sobral now dominates national assessments in reading and math—outscoring even affluent students in Saõ Paulo, Brazil’s financial center. In 2000, only 48% of Sobral’s second-graders were reading at grade level. By 2004, that figure had almost doubled to 92%, with an average of 95% in the years since (until 2020 pandemic school closures). Since 2014, the average Sobral fifth grader has scored not just “proficient” but “advanced” on Brazil’s national proficiency test (National Basic Education Assessment System, or SAEB). Sobral’s story is one of system-wide transformation. It’s a tale of a community that, over many years, changed every aspect of its primary education system. It features a grand vision and bold political leadership. It speaks to the power of aligned instructional systems, deep investments in educators, and a culture of love, support, and high expectations. It’s a multi-faceted story that demonstrates the possibility of achieving near-universal literacy, even in resource-constrained environments. About the event Building Tomorrows: The Story of Sobral is a 35-minute documentary film that captures the human stories behind Sobral’s success. A Q&A will follow the screening. Panelists include: - Gloria Lee, co-producer and lecturer, Stanford Graduate School of Business - Guilherme Lichand, assistant professor, Stanford Graduate School of Education, Lemann Center for Educational Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Brazil - Emma Dorn, senior knowledge expert, McKinsey & Company - Isabelle Hau, executive director, Stanford Accelerator for Learning Lunch will be provided. Hosted in collaboration with the Lemann Center for Educational Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Brazil.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_163
Event details Thursday, March 13th 2025 03:30 PM—06:00 PM The second installment of the speaker series of the initiative on Learning Differences and the Future of Special Education brought national scholars to campus to advance a transformative vision for inclusive education. This event focused on fostering continued education for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Carly Gilson, associate professor at The Ohio State University, shared research on the benefits of post-secondary college programs for young adults with IDD, followed by a presentation by Gayatri Kini of the Accidental Ally, which provides workforce training and support to young adults. About the Speakers Dr. Carly Blustein Gilson is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University. She received her Ph.D. in special education from Vanderbilt University, with a focus on Severe Disabilities. Her research interests center on equipping adolescents and young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) for integrated employment and inclusive higher education; supporting individuals and families through the school-to-work transition; and equipping strong educational team collaborations among secondary special education teachers and paraprofessionals. Her scholarship has supported the development of an inclusive postsecondary education program for students with IDD and a professional development workshop series for transition educators focused on job coaching. Gayatri Kini with Rohan Bhupatiraju, Maia McQuarrie, and Priya Parameswaran Gayatri Kini is the Founder and CEO of The Accidental Ally, a social good enterprise dedicated to creating meaningful career pathways for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Driven by the question, “Why are there so few people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the workforce?”, Gayatri hired a group of individuals with Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and Autism into a paid summer internship program to understand what it would take to hire and train this group. This experience sparked the journey to build The Accidental Ally. Gayatri will be joined by Rohan Bhupatiraju, Maia McQuarrie, and Priya Parameswaran, all of whom are integral to advancing The Accidental Ally’s mission. Rohan, known for his optimism, tech-savviness, and exceptional public speaking skills, leads others through his work and breaking barriers for individuals with disabilities. Maia brings her creativity, adaptability, and passion for design and community engagement, contributing innovative ideas to the organization. Priya, a fast learner and engaging public speaker, is preparing to graduate from high school this year and aspires to attend college, embodying the mission of fostering growth and opportunity. Together, they are transforming the way tech companies employ and empower individuals with disabilities, driven by a vision of inclusion, education, and opportunity. About the Series The Learning Differences Initiative is hosting national scholars who work on questions of inclusive education to advance transformative visions for the field. The lecture series challenges our ideas and intentions for future learning, research, policy initiatives, and community partnerships. Lectures focus on (a) teaching, learning, and life beyond school; (b) policies, institutional alignment, and the workforce; (c) neuroscience, data, and technology; and (d) law, ethics, and cultural contexts for learning in diverse settings, cultures, and public spaces. We hope the lecture series will offer meaningful, productive engagements of interdisciplinary scholars to advance creative and ambitious visions and research agendas.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_164
Event details Friday, May 17th 2024 02:00 PM—03:00 PM Join us for the next session of our discussion series, presented by the GSE’s Entrepreneur in Residence (EIR) program. Our expert panel will dive into the topic of building a pipeline from education to entrepreneurs, moderated by Paul Kim, Associate Dean and Chief Technology Officer at the GSE. Discover strategies for fostering innovation, honing entrepreneurial skills, and navigating the transition from the classroom to startup success. Whether you’re eager to explore entrepreneurship or interested in fostering innovation, this conversation will offer valuable insights and practical advice to kickstart your career journey. The panel will be followed by an audience Q&A. Panelists Sergio Monsalve is the co-founder of the GSE’s Entrepreneur in Residence Program and a notable figure in venture capital as a Founding Partner at Roble Ventures. With a focus on human enablement technologies, including edtech, his investments have supported numerous successful startups, including Kahoot! and Udemy. Read Sergio’s full biography. Claudio Sassaki is a visionary leader in Brazilian education technology, renowned for his role as co-founder and former CEO of Geekie. His passion for transforming education has impacted millions of students and earned him global recognition, including awards from Wired UK, the Schwab Foundation, and EY. Read Claudio’s full biography. Beerud Sheth is the co-founder and CEO of Gupshup, the world’s leading platform for cloud messaging and conversational experiences. With a background in computer science and financial services, he is a prominent entrepreneurial figure at the forefront of technology and innovation, having previously founded Elance (now Upwork). Read Beerud’s full biography. MODERATOR: Paul Kim is the Associate Dean and Chief Technology Officer at the GSE, who has dedicated himself to international development through education and information technology strategies. Read Paul’s full biography.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_165
Event details Thursday, November 3rd 2022 09:00 AM—05:00 PM PT The Stanford Center on Early Childhood is an initiative of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Housed at the Graduate School of Education and led by Professor Philip Fisher, the center draws on the GSE’s cutting-edge expertise in learning, as well as Stanford’s globally-recognized strength in innovation and collaboration across disciplines. The center celebrated its official launch on Nov. 3 with “New Pathways for Equity and Impact in Early Childhood,” a convening of leaders in the field. This gathering provided an unparalleled opportunity for collaboration and connection among researchers, community leaders, pediatricians, funders, policy makers, and the early care and education workforce. Program to 9:55 am - Welcome — 10 min Dan Schwartz, PhD I. James Quillen Dean of the Graduate School of Education and the Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Educational Technology, Stanford University - Visioning Forward – Reflections, Realities, and Potential — 10 min Joan Lombardi, PhD Visiting Scholar, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University - Opening Keynote – Facing Future: The Early Childhood Ecosystem and the Blueprint/Roadmap for the SCEC — 30 min Philip Fisher, PhD Director, Stanford Center on Early Childhood; Professor, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University to 10:45 am - Chair, Stephanie Curenton, PhD Director, Center on the Ecology of Early Development; Program Director, Child & Youth Policy Certificate; Associate Professor, Wheelock College of Education & Human Development, Boston University - Lea Austin, PhD Executive Director, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California at Berkeley - Miriam Calderón, MSW Chief Policy Officer, Zero to Three - Natalie Renew, MPA Executive Director, Home Grown - Kelvin Chan, PhD, MTS, MPH Managing Director, Robin Hood Foundation to 11:00 am to 11:50 am - Chair, sean reardon, PhD, MS Professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education, Graduate School of Education; Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University - Deborah Stipek, PhD Judy Koch Professor of Education, Emerita, Graduate School of Education - Matt Glickman, MBA, MA Lecturer, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University; Co-founder and Partner, Promise Venture Studios - Rebecca Silverman, PhD Associate Professor of Education, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University - Susanna Loeb, PhD, MPP Director, Annenberg Institute, Brown University - Francis A. Pearman, PhD Assistant Professor of Education, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University to 12:25 pm - Ryan Padrez, MD Associate Clinical Professor, Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University; Medical Director, The Primary School - Kyndal Easter, MA Dean of Culture, The Primary School - Valentina Helo-Villegas, MA Director of 2-Gen Programming, The Primary School - Guadalupe Virruela Parent, The Primary School to 1:30 pm to 2:25 pm - Chair, Lisa Chamberlain, MD, MPH Professor of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University - Ryan Padrez, MD Associate Clinical Professor, Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University; Medical Director, The Primary School - Tumaini Coker, MD, MBA Chief, Division of General Pediatrics, Seattle Children’s Hospital; Professor of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington - Ira Hillman Foundation & Nonprofit Executive; Strategy Lead, Bonding at Einhorn Collaborative - Kitty Lopez Executive Director, First Five, San Mateo County to 3:00 pm - Bruce McCandliss, PhD Pigott Family Professor of Education, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University - Jim Eagen, MA Head of School, Synapse School - Katie Morgan, MA Head of Lower School, Synapse School - Adam Hatfield Kindergarten Lead Teacher, Synapse School - Elizabeth Toomarian, PhD Director, Brainwave Learning Center, Stanford University/Synapse School to 3:15 pm to 4:05 pm - Chair, Jelena Obradović, PhD Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University - Jason Yeatman, PhD Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education; Assistant Professor, Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, School of Medicine; Stanford University - Abbie Raikes, PhD, MPH Director of Global Early Childhood Development, Center for Global Health and Development; Associate Professor, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center - Barbara Chow, MA Education Program Director, Heising-Simons Foundation - Carla Bryant, PhD Executive Director, Center for District Innovation and Leadership in Early Education - Jennifer Delos Reyes, MA Executive Director of Program Quality and Enhancements, Early Education Department, San Francisco Unified School District to 5:00 pm - Linda Darling-Hammond, PhD Professor emerita Stanford University, President and Founder, Learning Policy Institute - Brenda Jones Harden, PhD, MSW Professor of Family and Child Welfare, Columbia School of Social Work, Columbia University - Nat Kendall-Taylor, PhD Chief Executive Officer, FrameWorks Institute - Philip Fisher, Director, Stanford Center on Early Childhood; Professor, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University to 6:00 pm	common_crawl_stanford.edu_166
Event details Tuesday, March 1st 2022 04:00 PM—04:30 PM The final conversation of this series on cutting edge research features Elizabeth Kozleski, Professor (Research) with the Stanford Graduate School of Education. In this talk, Elizabeth will share her research on literacy development with 80 children with neurodiverse needs. The elementary students in this three year study were in schools in California, Kansas, and Missouri. While reading outcomes for the students in the treatment group were significantly better than those in the control group, a companion study revealed the tensions and stresses experienced as teachers learned to share space, teach together, and work with a wide range of students in a social and academic setting. Discussion will focus on the work that lies ahead in school design and teacher education that accounts for the full range of learning differences in schools. This session will be virtual, from 4:00 p.m.- 4:30 p.m. (Pacific), and include time for Q&A. A no-cost registration is required for each talk. Elizabeth Kozleski is a Professor (Research) with the Stanford Graduate School of Education. She engages in systems change and research on equity and justice issues in inclusive education in schools, school systems as well as state and national education organizations and agencies. Her research interests include the analysis of systems change in education, how teachers learn in practice in complex, diverse school settings, including how educational practices improve student learning. A number of her articles focus on the design and development of teacher education programs that involve extensive clinical practice in general education settings. She has led the development of such programs in three universities, and continues to do research and development work in teacher education. She also offered technical assistance as well as conducted research on the impact of technical assistance on individuals, as well as local, state, and national systems in the U.S. and abroad. Previous Sessions February 15: Rebecca Silverman, Starting with Sesame: Investigating Teaching and Learning in Early Childhood February 22: Nilam Ram, Personalized Trajectories of Learning and Exploration: “Shaping” Life with Screenomics and Other Observational Paradigms	common_crawl_stanford.edu_167
Event details Monday, January 29th to Wednesday, January 31st 2024 The Learning Differences Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning invited collaborative research teams engaged on the ground in their countries, working on advancing inclusive education. The convening brought together scholars from the global north and south who have: - maintained strong research partnerships in disability, special and inclusive education, - emerging visions and strategies to advocate for and implement inclusive education, - needs in collecting and using data and evidence effectively to establish examples of inclusive practice, policy, and research, and - strong potential to connect through global partnerships. Together, we hope to produce new knowledge about the impact of inclusive education in the global arena. Inclusive education (IE) scholarship has two serious gaps that we are aiming to address. The first is attention to equity—how equity is defined in this literature and the equity consequences of IE implementation. The second is attention to the cultural-historical geographies of IE. IE research must account for the role of place (where IE is implemented), the histories of struggles for inclusion in distinct locations, and the cultural contexts in which IE is implemented. We intend to coalesce knowledge production infrastructures. We want to support the growth of IE research in the global south through a research network that sustains research programs on equity issues in IE. The January 2024 conference was the first step in building this network. Together, we can support knowledge sharing and building among and between the global north and south to strategize powerful approaches to advance inclusive education locally, regionally, and globally. Our convening embraces inclusive education scholars, practitioners, and policy leaders who articulate emerging tensions and dilemmas and persistently work toward centering and maintaining equity in inclusive education. This event is invitation only.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_168
Event details Tuesday, February 15th 2022 04:00 PM—04:30 PM In the first of three conversations on cutting edge research, Rebecca Silverman, Associate Professor in the Stanford Graduate School of Education will discuss her work with Sesame Workshop on investigating implementation and effects of a multi-media enhanced social emotional and language and literacy focused early childhood curriculum. She will also discuss the importance of and opportunities and challenges in early childhood education. This session will be virtual, from 4:00 p.m.- 4:30 p.m. (Pacific), and include time for Q&A. A no-cost registration is required for each talk. Rebecca Silverman is an Associate Professor in the Stanford Graduate School of Education. She focuses on research and practice related to literacy development and instruction of early childhood and elementary age children from diverse backgrounds. Specifically, she has conducted research on using read alouds, multimedia, cross-age peer learning, and small group dialogic instruction to support the vocabulary development and reading comprehension of diverse learners. Across her research and teaching, her goal is to shed light on innovative ways for facilitating the literacy development of diverse learners in order to ensure that all children have the opportunity to become engaged readers and writers in school and beyond. Upcoming Sessions February 22: Nilam Ram, Personalized Trajectories of Learning and Exploration: “Shaping” Life with Screenomics and Other Observational Paradigms March 1: Elizabeth Kozleski, Implementing Comprehensive, Emergent Literacy Instruction for Neurodiverse Students with General Education Classrooms	common_crawl_stanford.edu_169
Event details Tuesday, April 2nd 2024 05:00 PM—07:00 PM The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with augmented reality (AR) technology stands to revolutionize the educational landscape. This combination offers a dynamic and interactive learning environment that can overlay the world around us with animated 3D content and data visualizations, personalizing learning experiences, and making education more accessible, engaging, and effective. With growing processing capabilities, computer vision algorithms can map and analyze any environment, bringing complex concepts to life in high fidelity. As AI continues to evolve and AR technology advances, their convergence is set to create a transformative educational experience that could reshape how knowledge is acquired and applied in the real world. Speakers - Alex Driskill-Smith, Director, Strategic Partnerships at Magic Leap - Alicia Berry, Executive Producer at Niantic - Jon Li, Head of the US Market at XREAL - Nari Choi, Director of Strategy & Partnerships (AI, VR, AR) at Meta The panel will be followed by a Q&A and hardware demo.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_170
Event details Monday, May 6th 2024 09:00 AM—05:00 PM The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford and The Stanford Institute for Advancing Just Societies are hosting a conference to mark the 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Join us as we bring together leading scholars, legal experts, educators, and policymakers to distill the lessons of recent research on segregation and craft a new agenda for addressing racial and economic segregation in American schools. Conference Highlights - Opening Keynote Presentation with Stanford Professor Sean Reardon and USC Professor Ann Owens: The State of Segregation, 70 Years after Brown v. Board of Education - Research and strategy panel sessions featuring leading education, policy, and legal scholars: - Panel 1: Does school integration work? Evidence on the effects of historical and contemporary school integration efforts - Panel 2: What can the courts do? Legal strategies to promote school segregation and educational equity - Panel 3: What can school districts and states do? Policy strategies for integrating schools - Closing Keynote and Discussion Cosponsors: Stanford Center for Racial Justice, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford Graduate School of Education, and Stanford Law School.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_171
The Stanford Accelerator for Learning encourages and enables scholars and students to seize new opportunities in data, technology, and the brain to improve learning outcomes, and therefore life outcomes. We focus on learning challenges most in need of new discoveries, evidence, and solutions, and where we believe Stanford can make the most difference. To amplify the impact of Stanford research on learners, we support research and design projects through grant funding at multiple stages of a project. Grant funding works in parallel with Accelerator Studio supports to enable the development and impact of research that substantively improves learning. Since 2020, we have distributed nearly $2 million to fund more than 40 promising projects. The Accelerator distributes two types of funds: - Acceleration grants. These grants support research and design that demonstrate an early theory of impact. Grant funding is available for Stanford faculty, staff, and students. The initial stage of grant funding, centered around a theme, is referred to as “seed grants.” Our past and upcoming rounds of seed grants are detailed below. - Learning Design Challenge awards. Students are eligible for funding in two stages ($1,500 Design Awards and $9,000 Research Awards) as part of the Learning Design Challenge course. The Accelerator also partners with groups across Stanford to distribute funds, such as: - Stanford-San Francisco Unified School District Partnership - Stanford-Sequoia K-12 Research Collaborative For information on how to support our grant-making, please visit the Giving page.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_172
Authoring Interactive Simulations with Generative AI for Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy Educational simulations such as PhET can increase learner engagement and promote generative learning. Yet, it is nearly impossible for educators to create their own interactive simulations to support their learners. These scholars will develop the Simulations Adaptive Learning Tool (SALT), a tool that leverages generative AI capabilities to allow educators to create or adapt interactive content to meet learners’ needs. Using SALT, educators can personalize the simulations in ways that nurture students’ cultural and linguistic diversity, which can enhance the effectiveness of their learning experience. Research team: Hari Subramonyam, Nick Haber, Shima Salehi, Maneesh Agrawala, Roy Pea Generating Descriptions of Data Visualizations to Improve Accessibility and Learning Outcomes in STEM Education Data visualizations are indispensable for communicating patterns in quantitative data and are crucial in STEM learning contexts. Unfortunately, these visualizations are only rarely accompanied by high-quality descriptions that would make them more accessible to blind and low-vision learners. These scholars will use research in AI, cognition, and education to make complex data visualizations more accessible through development of datasets containing high-quality descriptions of many kinds of data visualizations; training of AI systems that generate descriptions for novel data visualizations; and measurement of the impact of human and model-generated descriptions on learner comprehension. Research team: Christopher Potts, Judith Fan, Elisa Kreiss Teach M-Powered: A Tool for Teachers to Support Students’ Learning Mindset Through Written Feedback Providing timely, personalized, and mindset-supportive feedback to students is an integral part of high-quality instruction, yet it is a nontrivial and extremely time-intensive task. These scholars will develop Teach M-Powered, a generative AI-powered tool that assists teachers with writing effective feedback to students. Research team: Dora Demszky, Mei Tan, Rose Wang Humanizing AI for Better Collaborative Learning This project aims to explore various approaches to AI-assisted collaborative learning and develop and evaluate sample uses over the coming year. The team will develop an action research community where students collaborate on toolkits that will be offered to Stanford project partners for their teaching and learning environments next academic year, while examining GenAI ethical principles and AI challenges for education. Research team: John Mitchell, Jennifer Langer-Osuna, Glenn Fajardo College Writing with the BlackRhetorics Corpus for Generative Models Since ChatGPT was released in November 2022 and many other models followed, researchers have studied their inability to generate African American English (AAE) in conversation with Black student communities. Such a deficit arises from the corpora that commercial generative models deploy. These scholars will build on the TwitterAAE and CORAAL corpora with their own data set called BlackRhetorics and use NLP transfer learning and dialect techniques to improve the tools for Black student research. This Black research team demonstrates how to deploy generative models for inclusive Black language pedagogies. Research team: Adam Banks, Harriet Jernigan, Tolulope Ogunremi, Onyothi Nekoto Unlocking Precision Medicine: Innovative Training & AI Chatbot for Self-Paced Learning in Underserved Communities This project addresses the challenge of limited access to quality education and software in the rapidly growing field of biomedical data, which generates vast amounts of data requiring advanced computational skills to process. The team proposes expanding the Stanford Data Ocean platform with AI chatbots like ChatGPT to support interdisciplinary concepts in learning Precision Medicine. Their integrated curricula will be customized to address major challenges in accessing quality education for underserved communities. Research team: Michael Snyder, Anshul Kundaje, Amir Bahmani Detecting AI-Generated Text in the Classroom Large language models like ChatGPT are tempting tools for students to use to complete various forms of assessments, from rhetorical writing to programming. Inspired by this problem, this team recently released DetectGPT, which uses an LLM to automatically detect its own outputs. While DetectGPT and related systems recently developed by OpenAI and Turnitin are promising steps toward automated detection of machine-generated text, standardized measurements of detector quality are missing, making comparison of detectors impossible and leaving educators in the dark about whether a detector is trustworthy. The research team proposes a new benchmark for machine-generated text detectors, addressing blind spots in existing evaluations. They will use this evaluation suite to develop the next generation of detection algorithms. Research team: Chelsea Finn, Christopher Manning, Eric Mitchell Evaluating ChatGPT’s Capability in Supporting and Augmenting Real-World Problem Solving This project aims to examine the potential of generative AI models in facilitating authentic problem solving in science and engineering domains, and to determine the extent to which college students can learn to leverage AI to enhance their problem-solving practices and outcomes. The research team will also explore how science and engineering experts use ChatGPT to augment their problem solving, which will lead to a framework of AI-human collaborative problem-solving practices. The research will have important implications for STEM education and how to prepare students for a future of human-AI collaboration. Research team: Carl Wieman, Shima Salehi, Nick Haber, Karen Wang MAI-TA: A Medical AI Teaching Assistant Using Conversational GPT-3 and Virtual Reality for Remote Medical Education This project aims to use conversational AI and virtual reality to create interactive 3D avatars of medical virtual teaching assistants that can simulate real-world medical training in virtual environments. This team proposes MAI-TA, a medical conversational virtual agent that can supplement in-person teaching for personalized exploratory learning. Leveraging prior work on educational VR with anatomy photogrammetry scans, they will integrate OpenAI’s GPT-3 to afford students a conversational way to explore digital anatomical specimens with customized guidance in a virtual lab setting. This project builds on previous research demonstrating that VR and digital anatomy labs can broaden access to medical training with underrepresented and underresourced learners. Research team: Sakti Srivastava, Ken Salisbury, Joel Sadler, Christoph Leuze, Samrawit Gebregziabher Novel Pedagogy and Assessment Using Generative Models This project uses generative models to engage students in the invaluable process of critical thinking and writing. The research team proposes deploying ChatGPT in their Stanford course ESF 17/17A What Can You Do for Your Country?, which asks students to read historically important texts about public service, from John F. Kennedy’s speech to Thucydides’ “Pericles’ Funeral Oration,” Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” Frederick Douglass’ “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July,” and many others. Thus far, they have seen that generative models can help students better learn and articulate their ideas about public service. The team expects that building new pedagogical approaches and assessment including generative models will add pedagogical value. Research team: Russell Berman, Ruth Starkman	common_crawl_stanford.edu_173
Tracking socio-ecological recovery after forest fire: The case of Big Basin Natural disasters like the CZU Lightning Complex fire that devastated Big Basin Redwoods State Park and surrounding communities in 2020 have pushed questions about the human-nature relationship to the fore, prompting us to examine the connections between environmental learning and connection to place in a rapidly changing world. In partnership with California State Parks, this project will use Big Basin VFTs pre- and post-fire to (a) aid people in addressing their feelings about the fire and Big Basin and, in the process (b) gain insight into human emotional connections to place and nature, as well as how that influences (fire and climate) narratives and behavioral choices, and also to (c) educate virtual visitors about the role of fire in forest ecosystems as well as better prepare them with the climate-literacy knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to discuss and address such topics productively. Principal Investigator: Nicole Ardoin, Associate Professor of Education and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment Project team: Anna Lee (graduate student, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford), Alison Bowers (Consulting Researcher, Social Ecology Lab, Stanford), Veronica Lin (Stanford), Brandon Reynante (Stanford). Enhancing First Person Perspective for Learning in Virtual Field Trips We will develop and test a virtual field trip interface that supports engagement by a) employing learners’ body motions as the navigational input to drive the visual and auditory experience of exploring the environment, and b) including first person perspective video of key activities taking place in the space. Principal Investigator: Larry Leifer, Professor, Mechanical Engineering Project team: Dr Rebecca Currano (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Mechanical Engineering), Dr David Sirkin (Research Associate, Mechanical Engineering) Sustainability and (deep) geologic time…An amazing journey to help us understand our place and time on Earth Grasping the concept of geologic time or “Deep Time” can fundamentally transform the way a person sees and lives in the world. Northwestern Nevada lies in our geologic back yard and provides one of the best places to teach and contemplate deep time at the introductory level. Here, earth’s history is so clearly writ across the landscape that non-geologists can see the evidence for the extreme changes that occurred from the peak of the last ice age, only some 20 thousand years ago to the present day. There is perhaps no better way to understand the context and nature of human life on earth than to learn about our unique and very recent place in the history of earth. Principal Investigator: Elizabeth Miller, Professor of Geological Sciences Project team: Jason Craig (graduate student, Geological Sciences, Stanford), Brenda Razo (filmmaker/videographer), Andy Wengst (filmmaker/videographer) Sites of Slavery Enslaved pasts of the Cape of Good Hope (ca. 1658-1838) in what is now South Africa are much less well known than other histories of enslavement, and remain still relatively obscure in South Africa. Our plan is to render relevant historical sites publicly legible via multimedia aimed at South African school learners, in accordance with schools curricula, as well as site visitors. This initiative will involve both a website and smart phone app, in which images are combined with interpretive material. Principal Investigator: Grant Parker, Associate Professor, Classics Project team: Shanaaz Gallant (curator of Iziko Slave Lodge), Dillon Gisch (graduate student, Department of Classics and Stanford Archaeology Center), Gerald Groenewald (Professor of History, University of Johannesburg), Jonathan Jansen (Professor of Education, Stellenbosch University), Stefania Manfio (graduate student, Department of Anthropology and Stanford Archaeology Center), Paul Weinberg (independent photographer, curator and archivist) Conversational Learning with Learner-Created Virtual Environmental Field Trips Our project aims to develop a new model for how students, educators, or community members can become creators of virtual reality 360 field trip content, to provide their audiences the sense of shared adventure common to physical field trips, and to also have learning conversations anchored in specific aspects of the media within their virtual field trips (VFTs). To achieve these goals, we will integrate uses of consumer media tools which work across desktop and mobile computers to enable ‘guided noticing’ functions for pointing to and annotating media resources to provide VFT makers and learners the dialogical capabilities for knowledge building with one another as they experience VFTs. The themes for discourse will be centered on issues of climate change, which will be facilitated by offering learners a curated library of VFTs on topics which they will remix to create learning conversations with each other. Our research thus seeks to: (1) integrate media tools to empower learner-created virtual field trips, and subsequently, to (2) facilitate meaningful learning conversations on issues of climate change between learners with peers (and family members) with remixed VFT resources. Principal Investigator: Roy Pea, Professor, Graduate School of Education and (by courtesy) Computer Science Project team: Aditya Vishwanath, (graduate student, Learning Sciences and Technology Design, Graduate School of Education), Jeremy Bailenson (Professor, Department of Communication), Nicole Ardoin (Associate Professor of Education and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment) Reading the Book of Earth’s History Sedimentary rocks are the archive of Earth’s history—they tell us about how mountains have risen and fallen, the evolution of life, and changing climates. However, stratigraphic concepts do not come intuitively to many students, especially in orienting themselves to a rock outcrop. This project will design a new approach to teaching introductory sedimentary geology–centered around a Virtual Field Trip (VFT) to arctic Canada–and test its efficacy in teaching students the basic principles of sedimentology and stratigraphy. Principal Investigator: Erik Sperling, Assistant Professor of Geological Sciences. Project team: Lucy Webb (graduate student, School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Science/Department of Geological Sciences), Ryan Petterson (School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Science/Dean’s Office), Maurice Colpron (Yukon Geological Survey) Project VVRMA (Virtual CCRMA): Adventures in Computer Music Land! VVRMA is a VR re-imagining of CCRMA, Stanford’s computer music research center. Aimed for a general audience, VVRMA is a place where visitors can experientially learn about the science and art of computer music — including music perception, acoustics and signal processing, instrument design, networked audio, and VR itself as a medium for expression and creativity. Principal Investigator: Ge Wang, Associate Professor of Music and, by courtesy, of Computer Science Project Team: Kunwoo Kim (graduate student, Music / CCRMA, Stanford), Stanford VR Design Lab @ CCRMA	common_crawl_stanford.edu_174
Joyful Learning The Stanford Accelerator for Learning has accepted 21 proposals for research or design projects that will explore the mechanisms and impact of joyful learning. : Joyful Learning The Stanford Accelerator for Learning has accepted 21 proposals for research or design projects that will explore the mechanisms and impact of joyful learning. The Stanford Accelerator for Learning has accepted 21 proposals for research or design projects that will explore the mechanisms and impact of joyful learning. The Stanford Accelerator for Learning and the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) invited research proposals advancing learning through creation with generative AI. The Stanford Accelerator for Learning seeks to fund research that fosters new understandings of how to use technology for rapid capability development to support PWHOPL. The Stanford Accelerator for Learning is funding exploratory projects, developing partnerships, and preliminary scholarship that are poised to make substantial impacts on how ethnic studies is taught and integrated into K-12 schooling across California. Interdisciplinary research projects on learning differences and/or the future of special education, funded up to $80,000 for a one year project. Funded projects to support virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funded concept-proving research and designs that advance learning in the area of virtual field trips. In collaboration with the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, grants up to $100,000 for innovative designs and/or research on critical issues and applications of generative AI in learning contexts.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_175
Great ideas in education that emerge from research often fail to impact the learners who need them most. Developing, testing, and realizing research-backed solutions requires a wide range of specialized skills, many of which are out of reach for academic teams. Through the Accelerator Studio, the Stanford Accelerator for Learning provides a critical boost at key moments in the development process to set research on a trajectory towards real-world implementation. In contrast to a venture studio, which develops product ideas, the Accelerator Studio aims to mobilize research anchored in the science and design of learning. The Accelerator Studio’s in-house team of specialists work with affiliates within Stanford and select grant funding recipients at the initial stages of designing and developing learning solutions. Support takes the form of bursts, helping researchers launch their idea or overcome a hurdle, and ongoing thought partnership and resources to build momentum for solutions that are effective, equitable, and sustainable. The Accelerator Studio specializes in four areas: - Technology. Enabling researchers to harness technology in the service of learning. Services include ideation, prototyping, instructional design, cloud architecture, and media production. - Research. Facilitating research conceptualization and measure design, execution of quantitative and/or qualitative research in the lab or field, data use agreements and storage, and guidance for working with Stanford’s Institutional Review Board. - Science and design of learning. Advising on the development of evidence-based strategies for improving learning experiences. - Partnership. Finding and helping to broker prospective participants and collaborators outside of Stanford. Across the four specializations, the Accelerator Studio’s work emphasizes capacity building as a force to drive change. We strive to diffuse specialized knowledge and scaffold others’ abilities to launch promising research-borne solutions. Contact acceleratorstudio@stanford.edu	common_crawl_stanford.edu_176
Through the Learning Design Challenge, the Stanford Accelerator for Learning supplies Stanford students interested in education innovation with the knowledge, resources, and support necessary to develop inclusive and accessible learning solutions. The Learning Design Challenge gives students access to a series of workshops focusing on learning science, human-centered design, AI in education, team building, entrepreneurship, and technical implementation. These workshops are available through enrollment in a for-credit course series. Through these workshops, students develop impact-oriented projects, collaborate with fellow student edtech entrepreneurs, and build, prototype, and test digital learning tools and environments. Students can join with a team or build a team through the workshop process. Participating teams work with expert mentors in learning design and entrepreneurship from the Stanford Graduate School of Education, the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, and the edtech industry. Projects started as part of the Learning Design Challenge have gone on to win the Learning Engineering Tools Competition, receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in external funding, and go to scale as learning solutions across all 50 states. Join the Learning Design Challenge Course Credit Students can enroll in: - EDUC/ENGR 391: Engineering Education & Online Learning (Fall Quarter) - EDUC 254: Digital Learning Design Workshop: Project Development (Winter Quarter) - EDUC 254: Digital Learning Design Workshop: Design Sprints (Spring Quarter) Pitch Opportunities At the culmination of each quarter, teams pitch their project to faculty and industry experts for funding. Participating teams will have the chance to receive funding through the following opportunities: - Winter quarter pitch event ($1,500 Design Awards) - Spring quarter pitch event ($9,000 Research-to-Practice Awards) - StartX Student-in-Residence Program ($9,000 student scholarship) Enrollment in the Digital Learning Design Workshop course series (EDUC 254) is highly recommended for students with limited experience in the science and design of learning, but workshop enrollment is not required for participation in the pitch events.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_177
The Challenge Young brains undergo rapid development during the early years of life and are dramatically shaped by experiences. The biological, psychological, and social context of development are inextricably linked and combine to set the stage for success. In this critical moment, children and their families are struggling. There is chronic underinvestment across the early childhood sector, and systemic disparities are resulting in growing academic achievement gaps among many demographic groups. But in this moment, we also find unprecedented opportunity and innovation. As communities and organizations increasingly use data, technology, and science to enhance the well-being of young children, there’s a demand for novel solutions that benefit educators, families, community leaders, and policymakers. The early childhood ecosystem is recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of early development, and the transformative potential of equity-centered, cross-sector partnerships to co-design innovative solutions. Our Solution With internationally recognized leadership in early childhood research, policy, and practice, the Stanford Center on Early Childhood embodies an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach within the broader movement of early childhood development and education. Led by Professor Philip Fisher, the center is positioned to accelerate promising strategies and foster alliances across communities, academic institutions, funders, advocates, and policymakers. It is the primary hub at Stanford for convenings, research, and education related to accelerating solutions for young children.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_178
Overview The RAPID Survey Project, based in the Stanford Center on Early Childhood, gathers information on the experiences, well-being, resiliency, and needs of the important adults in young children’s lives. Since launching in April 2020, RAPID has been asking parents and child care providers in all 50 states about key points like their family’s economic circumstances, physical health, emotional well-being, use of child care, and access to preventative healthcare. As circumstances have continued to evolve for families, child care providers, and communities, RAPID has adapted the survey to collect data on those changing circumstances in near real-time. The result is a robust data set detailing families’ and caregivers’ experiences. RAPID data is available in monthly trend reports and fact sheets. These resources give parents and providers a voice in informing immediate and long-term program and policy decisions that address the successes and challenges reflected in survey responses. Faculty leads Philip Fisher Faculty Director, Stanford Center on Early Childhood Key contacts Cristi Carman Director, RAPID Survey Project Data and resources RAPID fact sheets Peruse RAPID’s library of data and insights that uplift parents’ and child care providers’ voices and experiences. Latest data & trends The core content areas of the RAPID survey are child and parent well-being, experiences of material hardship, access to and use of child care, and use of preventive health care. Explore the trend data, updated monthly, for each of these core areas from April 2020 to the present. Research articles Visit the repository of academic journal articles that cite RAPID survey data.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_179
Our Solution An equity-oriented approach to learning views all learners as having agency, acknowledges their full humanity, and creates opportunities for learners to access and belong within robust education opportunities in and beyond their formal schooling. It challenges us to reimagine equity as the foundation of our research, professional practices, and community engagement, envisioning and building resources from a worldview of abundance and interconnectedness. The Equity in Learning initiative is grounded in the belief that the success of every educator and learner benefits the entire society. Centering restorative justice theory and transformative justice possibilities, the initiative leverages five pedagogical stances (5PS): history matters, race matters, justice matters, language matters, and futures matter, as tools to imagine, design, and sustain communities of practice. The initiative’s work consists of: - Recovering and analyzing social movement histories including the nuances and artifacts of impactful social movement changemaking in the past, to understand and strategize for educational equity today. - Designing and disseminating practical toolkits and frameworks that educators, students, and administrators can use to create context-appropriate plans for their work. - Investing in educational research practice partnerships, ensuring that emergent data and findings directly support learning environment and policy transformation. - Curating conversations between students, faculty, and communities beyond the university to practice accountability, a culture of continuous learning, and collective responsibility.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_180
The promise of machine learning in education is tempered by the standard concerns: biased data, privacy violations, inequitable outcomes, and so on. There remains a significant gap between how the technology is imagined and how, in fact, it is deployed and used. “We are pioneering a participatory AI approach with the goal of developing ethical, human-centered, and equitable AI solutions for education,” says Stanford Graduate School of Education Assistant Professor Hariharan Subramonyam, a faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “By engaging teachers and students from the outset, our goal is to ensure that our data practices are inclusive and representative of diverse learner experiences and needs.” Subramonyam explored how gathering different stakeholders at the same table can help address these needs with Mei Tan, a doctoral candidate in the Stanford Graduate School of Education; Hansol Lee, a Stanford PhD candidate in Education Data Science; and Northeastern University Associate Professor Dakuo Wang. Working in the world of education, the researchers convened 10 meetings in which engineers, designers, legal specialists, teachers, and students discussed the training data specifications for four different machine learning tools. (These included measuring student engagement through images, career recommendations based on resumes, assessing drop-out risk, and automated essay grading.) In a new preprint paper, the researchers distill the results of this process into a framework that ensures the right mix of people are together and able to have productive conversations. Read the paper, Is a Seat at the Table Enough? Engaging Teachers and Students in Dataset Specification for ML in Education Subramonyam and Tan spoke with Stanford HAI to outline how their findings inform a more conscientious and effective method for designing machine learning algorithms in education and beyond. I want to start with a contextual question: Can you talk about the difference between model-centric and data-centric AI practices? Subramonyam: For a long time, we assumed that data quality basically doesn’t matter for these models, as long as you have a lot of it. Machine learning engineers and AI researchers would take data as a given and focus mostly on fine-tuning and improving the model. That approach hit a ceiling in recent years, and people started to realize that improvements in model performance required thinking about data quality. It’s also expensive to collect lots of data. So now we’re thinking about how to gather less data that’s higher quality. In your recent education work, you look at a multi-stakeholder collaborative process that considered what data should be collected. What prompted this, and how did you think about who should be involved? Subramonyam: Issues around data transparency — how it has been collected and labeled and so on — have been around for a while, but this all happens after the fact: The data is already collected, the model is already built. To me, that has always seemed like the warning label on cigarette packets. It’s an acknowledgment of something bad. In my lab, in the Graduate School of Education, I am interested in how we can be more proactive about addressing these downstream problems. Tan: In the world of AI and education, there's a good amount of research stating the obvious, which is that a lot of AI tools don't serve the needs of practitioners. And there's a lot of worry about the harms that poorly built AI tools can have in education, with many of these harms residing in the quality of the data. Given this, we wanted to take a front-end, data-centered approach where we involved domain experts, the people who can right that wrong of how we represent the world of education through data. When we thought about whom to involve, we obviously started with teachers and students. From the industry perspective, we were thinking about machine learning engineers, but also UX designers and legal specialists, given the privacy concerns around the treatment of minors. In thinking further about this data and this framework of participatory design, the model that we'd like to advocate to the world is not one where the researchers or the developers of ML products define the domain experts. Rather, we should ask the community: Who do you think are the valuable stakeholders in this case? The teachers, for instance, often raised administrators and school counselors as people who could make important contributions. These group dynamics aren’t simple. What are the challenges of getting a team like this to work together? Tan: I want to emphasize that what we’ve done here is a proof of concept, because no one has put a group like this together before. What we watched unfold was a bit of an experiment. It ended up that the machine learning engineers had to translate what a decision about data collection might mean for the model and, ultimately, for the end-user. It required a very experienced machine learning engineer to be willing and able to engage in that dialogue with a teacher or a student. We saw some do it well and others do it less well. The same was true with teachers. There were some teachers who were very willing to engage with the decisions and technical details in front of them, and there were others for whom that burden of entry was too high. We learned that for this process to work, we need scaffolding for both sides. We need to help teachers understand some of the basic parameters of a machine learning model and how the data that’s collected fits into the overall picture. And we need to help ML engineers do that work of translation and understand more about the domain they’re working in — education, in this case. There is often emphasis on this first step: helping non-technical experts understand the technical. There is much less focus and work helping technical experts understand the domain. We need to do a better job of that. What are some of the problems that result from bad data, and what promise did you see in this approach? Tan: There are all kinds of harms that can result from bad or biased data. To take just two examples, there’s research about adaptive learning systems that shows racial and gender biases in the way these systems evaluate a student’s understanding. There is also evidence that technology used to assess engagement based on an image of a student’s face is full of bias depending on the characteristics of the student’s appearance. In our work, we saw how domain experts shape key variables that go into data collection and, that way, alleviate some of these concerns or errors. Representation is one example. When we currently think about representation in developing machine learning data sets, we think about demographic variables, whether there is equity across gender, race, and socioeconomic lines. But the domain experts had much broader ideas of representation when it comes to education. So, for example, is this a private or public school? Is this a small classroom or large lecture? What are the individual learning needs? Is there neurodiversity? What subject are we talking about? Is this a group activity? All of these play a massive role in the classroom and can dramatically affect a student's experience — and therefore the act of data collection and the models that you build. Beyond education, what did this show about how to think through who's involved in a process like this and what kind of scaffolding can help it succeed? Subramonyam: There are a few things we need to think about. The first is the incentive structure. In industry, product teams are created with efficiency in mind, which means they’re divided up to work in ways where machine learning engineers are incentivized differently from people in finance, and where workflows favor separation. Our first recommendation is that we need to bring all of these people together at the beginning of the decision process. It takes enormous effort to collect data and train models, so it’s best to get thing right at the outset. The second is around infrastructure. We need to think about the kinds of tools that we need in order to support collaboration. One of my students built a visualization related to these ML models to support collaboration between data scientists and domain experts, where the visualization offloads some of the burden from the engineer who typically has to translate things for other people. Tan: Another thing we need to think about is the fact that language and standards are not shared across these domains. Teachers want to see evaluation metrics about how much a student is learning. This is very common language among teachers, but it’s very hard for ML engineers to define in an equation. Meanwhile, engineers care about things like precision in the model, which means nothing to teachers. We need to establish groundwork so these different stakeholders can talk about the same thing without a bunch of roundabout discussions. And, finally, I’d mention the need for continuous iteration. In this case, we brought everyone together for one moment in time, whereas the process of developing an ML model can go on for months. As things change, these stakeholders need to be brought back together to recalibrate the direction that things are moving. Our research shows the benefits of upstream collaboration, but more work is needed to understand how to sustain continuous engagement. This research was funded by the Stanford McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society. Dakuo Wang was a visiting researcher at HAI, supported by IBM Research. This story was originally published by Stanford HAI.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_181
Children’s ability to draw recognizable objects and to recognize each other’s drawings improves concurrently throughout childhood, according to a new study from Stanford University. In work published Feb. 8 in Nature Communications, the researchers used machine learning algorithms to analyze changes in a large sample of drawings of children from the ages of 2 to 10. The study, conducted by researchers Bria Long, Judith Fan, Holly Huey, Zixian Chai, and Michael Frank, found that children’s ability to draw and recognize objects develops in parallel. It also found that not all the improvement in drawing recognizability throughout childhood could be attributed to improvement in drawing skill or inclusion of stereotypical attributes, such as tall ears on a rabbit. “The kinds of features that lead drawings from older children to be recognizable don’t seem to be driven by just a single feature that all the older kids learn to include in their drawings,” said Judith Fan, an assistant professor of psychology in the School of Humanities and Sciences and faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “It’s something much more complex that these machine learning systems are picking up on.” Using machine learning enabled the researchers to interpret the large sample size of drawings in this study and highlighted subtleties that helped them understand how children perceive the world, and how they communicate those perceptions through drawing. Data and doodles To conduct the study, researchers worked with staff members from the Children’s Discovery Museum of San Jose to install a kiosk within the museum. The kiosk displayed recorded video prompts of the study’s first author, Stanford psychology postdoctoral fellow Bria Long, asking children to draw certain animals or objects. After receiving the prompt, children using the kiosk would then have 30 seconds to draw the object using their fingertip on a digital tablet. Children using the kiosk were also asked to identify the objects drawn by other children in a guessing game, and to trace objects shown on the screen to assess their motor skills. After collecting around 37,000 individual drawings from the kiosk, the researchers used machine learning algorithms to analyze each drawing’s recognizability. Then, the researchers collected data on the distinct object parts of each image in around 2,000 of the drawings, annotated by adult participants who were asked to describe what part of the object the children had drawn with each pen stroke (e.g., “head” or “tail”). “Scientists have been interested in children’s drawings for quite a long time,” said Long, referencing past studies on how children draw recognizable objects. “But this is the first time that we have been able to combine digital drawings with innovations in machine learning to analyze drawings at scale over development.” The researchers hope that future work in this area will include similar studies across different cultural groups, in both children and adults. Drawing conclusions This large-scale work adds robust support to previous findings that as children grow up, their ability to both recognize and draw animals and objects increases. The fact that the analysis assessed such a sizable set of drawings allowed the researchers to infer more nuanced conclusions than past studies, where far fewer drawings were analyzed by humans. Although the recognizability of the drawings increased with age, the researchers found that the increase wasn’t completely explained by improvements in motor control. Even trademark features that children learn to recognize and include in their drawings over time, such as eight legs on a spider, did not fully explain the increase. This suggests that children’s improvement over time reflects not just what they directly observe or are able to produce, but also a change in how they think about objects. “Children’s drawings contain a lot of rich information about what they know. … Just because your child isn’t drawing something really well doesn’t mean that they’re not expressing interesting knowledge about that category.” —Bria Long, Postdoctoral fellow in psychology “Children’s drawings reflect not just their ability to draw, but something about what they know about these objects,” said Long. “And you see these changes both in their ability to produce these drawings and also to recognize other children’s drawings.” According to the researchers, even drawings that are unrecognizable can convey clues about the child’s intent. For instance, a drawing of a tiger may not be recognizable as a tiger, but is still clearly an animal. Children were also able to convey information about the real-world size of the drawing’s subject, even if the drawing itself was otherwise mysterious. “Children’s drawings contain a lot of rich information about what they know. And we think this is a really cool way to learn about what children are thinking,” said Long. “Just because your child isn’t drawing something really well doesn’t mean that they’re not expressing interesting knowledge about that category.” Senior author Michael Frank is the Benjamin Scott Crocker Professor in Human Biology, professor of psychology, and professor, by courtesy, of linguistics in the School of Humanities and Sciences. Frank is also a member of Stanford Bio-X, the Maternal & Child Health Research Institute (MCHRI), and the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute; a faculty affiliate of the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI); and director of the Symbolic Systems Program. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and a Jacobs Foundation Fellowship. This story was first published by Stanford News.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_182
A pilot program led by Stanford University and the College of San Mateo aims to punch a hole in the paper ceiling, the invisible barrier that hinders many Americans without bachelor’s degrees from advancing in their careers or landing well-compensated jobs. The Stanford Administrative Fellowship program, or StAF, placed an inaugural cohort of eight community college students into paid administrative internships at the university over fall quarter. Mentored by experienced staff members in seven different Stanford offices, the fellows learned a variety of professional skills, including how to update websites, plan events and use financial software. The goal was to introduce the students to career paths in administrative support at a leading research university. A widespread but misplaced belief is that a four-year degree is required for such employment, said Mitchell Stevens, a professor of education at Stanford who helped conceive the program. Stevens is a faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “There’s a lot of talent in our region that we probably haven’t recognized because of the presumption that people need a four-year credential in order to be qualified,” he said. The design and implementation of StAF was a collaboration between Stevens’ research group, Pathways Network; the College of San Mateo, where the fellows were enrolled as students; the Stanford Administrative Champions (password required); Stanford’s Office of Community Engagement; and Stanford Digital Education. On Dec. 11, a celebration marking the completion of the StAF fellows’ internships was held at the College of San Mateo. “We are thrilled to have had students participate in this dynamic fellowship,” said Andrea Vizenor, executive director of strategic initiatives and economic development at the college, noting that the students underwent a competitive selection process for the internships. Vizenor, who played a lead role in developing the program, addressed the six fellows in attendance: “Your dedication, critical thinking, time, professionalism and hard work are so very much appreciated and recognized. The confidence, powerful network and valuable work experience you have gained will provide exciting things to add to your resume as you finish college and pursue your dream job.” A common refrain among the fellows was that the skills they learned in their internships are broadly transferable to many career paths. “During the internship, I did various tasks involving event planning, handling finances, building websites, organizing spreadsheets, creating surveys and answering emails,” said Cole Eckert, a Bay Area resident who is studying geology at the College of San Mateo. “I obtained so many versatile skills. It was 100% worth it.” And, like all the fellows, he was paid $30 an hour. Eckert was also one of several fellows who were able to parlay their internships into part-time jobs at Stanford. He completed his internship in the dean’s office at the School of Humanities and Sciences. His mentor was Lynette Williams, a project analyst in the office who also co-leads the Stanford Administrative Champions, a group that supports administrative staff across the university. (One of the founders of the group, Jacquelyn Wang, was part of the team that developed the StAF program.) “My goal was to give Cole a broad experience of the administrative role at Stanford by exposing him to as many learning opportunities as possible,” Williams said. “He was enthusiastic and eager to learn new skills. He’s highly thought of in the H&S dean’s office.” Kennedy Materne, a native of Guam who’s studying English at the College of San Mateo, completed an internship in the Office of the Chief Risk Officer at Stanford. Materne, who is interested in a career as a professional writer, said she applied to the StAF program because she saw it as an avenue for developing new skills. “I wanted to challenge myself and see what else I could do,” she said. She said the internship helped her hone her communication skills: She spoke at meetings with senior staff — an experience she said was intimidating at first — and helped to revise reports and create slideshow presentations. Among other things, she also led a project to update the office’s website, composed and sent out group emails and streamlined the management of a database. “I learned so many skills working in the office environment, especially because the tasks would change from day to day,” said Materne, who was offered the opportunity to continue working in the Office of the Chief Risk Officer as a part-time employee. Her mentor was Mary Catherine Watten, executive program manager in the office. Other fellows in the program were: - Briana Johnsen (mentored by Cindy Berhtram, director of project strategy and operations at Stanford Digital Education); - Vanessa Reyes (mentored by Jesse Rivas, faculty affairs administrator in the School of Education); - Brittany Shive (mentored by Kim Marks, an executive assistant in Financial Management Services); - Devin Matosian (mentored by Sonia Baca, an administrative team co-lead and executive assistant in University IT); - Nataliia Boyko (mentored by Bobbi Woody-Mistriel, an executive assistant at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory); and - Joshua Sina (mentored by Watten). The StAF program is in line with a movement across the United States to make well-paying jobs available to working adults without a bachelor’s degree. For example, Tear the Paper Ceiling, a campaign by an organization called Opportunity@Work, declares that “‘qualified’ means qualities, not just degrees.” What drives many of these efforts, including StAF, is a concern about the widening wage gap between adults with four-year degrees and those without them, as well as a demand for talent that can’t be met solely by the annual influx of traditional college graduates into the job market. The program is both a way for Stanford to engage with the community and help the university alleviate the challenges it faces in recruiting and retaining staff, according to Stevens. “We’re in a very competitive labor market in the Bay Area,” he said. “Even though we’re an affluent institution, we don’t have the resources that the big tech firms have. We’ll never offer stock options! But as a university, we have assets that could make us a distinctive employer — an opportunity employer. We could welcome ambitious people to have their careers at Stanford regardless of their age or educational credentials. We could offer learning opportunities and mobility pathways to all of our employees. It would almost surely help us with recruitment and retention. And we’d be a better neighbor too.” Stevens said he and his team would like to expand the program to other community colleges and workforce-development agencies in the area. Supported with seed funds from the Office of Community Engagement and Stanford Impact Labs, he has assembled an advisory group that includes leadership from a variety of partners, including NOVAworks, JobTrain, the San Mateo County Economic Development Association and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. An internal advisory group that includes leads from multiple Stanford units is helping to develop a larger vision for expanding opportunity employment across the university. With a part-time job in the H&S dean’s office waiting for him, Eckert said he is keen to continue developing his administrative skills with the help of Williams and her colleagues. He mentioned that one key lesson he learned during the internship was how to stick up for himself when he was confused about a task or needed support. “There is more about every opportunity than we might expect,” he said. “So why not go for it?” This story was originally published by Stanford Digital Education.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_183
Prior to attending Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), Aditya Vishwanath, PhD ‘23, was an engineer. While working on virtual reality (VR) learning tools at Google, he grew increasingly concerned that companies and districts were dropping edtech into classrooms like “a cool new hammer” without teachers ever being involved. The tools, which didn’t necessarily solve real problems of teaching and learning and were difficult to implement, would then sit in the corner of the classroom, collecting dust. During his second year at Stanford, where he studied learning science and technology design, he co-founded Inspirit, a startup that combines VR and AR technology with research-based instructional practices in STEM education. “I wanted to address this topic through the lens of the learning sciences, and be the bridge between cutting edge academic research and a solution,” he said. During his time at Stanford, where he was also a Knight-Hennessy Scholar, he found resources across campus to support his entrepreneurial journey. Vishwanath took courses on learning design at the GSE in order to craft a research-backed product; cultivated mentors in Stanford Accelerator for Learning Faculty Affiliates Roy Pea and Jeremy Bailenson; and received a seed grant to design effective Virtual Field Trips (VFTs) alongside Pea, a project that became his dissertation research and directly informed the design of Inspirit. However, Vishwanath found that he had to seek out these support systems on his own, and opportunities to connect and build community with fellow education founders were few and far between. While Stanford offers many entrepreneurship opportunities, few were connected to education and to what works in learning. That is changing, thanks to a new program of the Accelerator, a university-wide initiative that works to accelerate solutions to pressing challenges facing learners. What had previously been a loose collection of opportunities for budding education innovators across campus has now become a burgeoning community with a plethora of resources to facilitate their journey. Exploring entrepreneurship and learning science Starting this Fall, the newly launched Education Entrepreneurship Hub will engage students from across Stanford with education, connection, and immersion opportunities to integrate insights from learning science into their entrepreneurial endeavors. The hub supports Stanford students and recent alumni who want to build new organizations, be intrapreneurs within an existing organization, or innovate in other ways, across the for-profit and nonprofit spectrum. The Education Entrepreneurship Hub will include a mentorship program connecting students to industry experts, a database of learning and funding opportunities, events, and a collection of profiles of diverse alumni entrepreneurs. The Learning Design Challenge, the Accelerator’s existing flagship education entrepreneurship program for students under the direction of Keith Bowen, PhD ‘20, will become a part of the new hub. Angela Chen, MA ‘23, the senior project manager at the Accelerator who helps launch new programs, developed the hub with input from students, alumni, faculty, and staff across campus. She also drew upon her own experience as a student interested in education entrepreneurship after having built her own venture prior to graduate school. “Many Stanford students are curious about education innovation and want to learn the basics and explore. Others already have an entrepreneurial idea to address a pain point they experienced as a teacher or a student, and are looking for opportunities to accelerate their idea and bring it to the next level,” she said. “Both groups can find value in the hub’s programming.” What binds the emerging entrepreneurs, Chen added, is, “we’ve all been through the education system and feel an impetus to change it for the better.” The hub aims to help students integrate insights from the learning sciences into their entrepreneurial endeavors. “Stanford is an entrepreneurially robust campus, but most opportunities for students are industry-agnostic,” said Chen, highlighting programs like the Threshold Venture Fellowship in the School of Engineering, the Botha-Chan Innovation Program at the Graduate School of Business, and student-run Cardinal Ventures. Chen drew inspiration from conversations with each of these groups, as well as the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies and the Center for Social Innovation, who remain close collaborators with the hub. While a student, Chen was one of the first non-engineering students to be selected as a Threshold Venture Fellow and one of the first non-business students to be awarded the Botha-Chan Innovation Grant. She found it challenging to find information and mentors specific to education, where users are learners and pilots take place in classrooms. Now, Stanford students who want to pursue education innovation will have a place to go specifically built for them. The hub is designed to be inclusive and accessible, contributing to the development of evidence-based innovations in education at large. Programming is open to students across Stanford’s seven schools, including undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students, and any student can join the hub by filling out an interest form. The hub also includes public resources that may be useful for recent alumni entrepreneurs. The program works with the career development and alumni relations teams at the GSE and with education and entrepreneurship initiatives across Stanford to bring the best programming to students. The next generation of education innovators “Stanford is at its core a transformational institution,” said Chen. “Our goal is to cultivate a generation of education innovators who think about learning science and equity and access.” Vishwanath’s company, Inspirit, now four years since its founding, is being used in hundreds of districts across the United States and globally. The product includes an end-to-end toolkit for integrating immersive learning into existing lessons and curriculum; an expansive library of lessons in history, math, science, and career education; and lesson options that work on VR headsets or in a Chromebook browser, expanding accessibility to classrooms where purchasing expensive headsets isn’t feasible. “Entrepreneurship is painful, hard, and I don’t recommend it,” joked Vishwanath, who will be serving as a hub mentor, offering insights to students. “But if you truly care about a problem you want to solve, it is one of the most powerful ways to filter through the noise and have an impact.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_184
Identifying struggling young readers can be a time-consuming and costly task for schools, requiring a teacher or reading specialist to sit with students one-on-one to gauge their proficiency as the child reads aloud. A new online tool developed at a Stanford lab lifts that burden without compromising any of the reliability of one-to-one assessments while advancing research into why some kids have trouble with reading in the first place. The Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR), developed at the Brain Development & Education Lab at Stanford, introduces a way for school districts to assess their entire student population for struggling readers in the time it currently takes to run a standard assessment on a single student. In addition to giving teachers useful insight into the challenges a particular student faces, the collective data generated by the assessment is helping to further the lab’s research into factors linked to learning differences in young readers. “With the ROAR, schools and clinics can assess and monitor kids’ progress at a scale that just wasn’t possible before,” said Jason Yeatman, an assistant professor at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) and the School of Medicine, who directs the Brain Development & Education Lab. “And because the tool is tied to research that’s ongoing, it gives us data that can answer a lot of questions about the mechanisms of reading development – data that can help us understand why some kids struggle and others don’t.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_185
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming education, in both worrisome and beneficial ways. On the positive side of the ledger, new research shows how AI can help improve the way instructors engage with their students, by way of a cutting-edge tool that provides feedback on their interactions in class. A new Stanford-led study, published May 8 in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, found that an automated feedback tool improved instructors’ use of a practice known as uptake, where teachers acknowledge, reiterate, and build on students’ contributions. The findings also provided evidence that, among students, the tool improved their rate of completing assignments and their overall satisfaction with the course. For instructors looking to improve their practice, the tool offers a low-cost complement to conventional classroom observation – one that doesn’t require an instructional coach or other expert to watch the teacher in action and compile a set of recommendations. “We know from past research that timely, specific feedback can improve teaching, but it’s just not scalable or feasible for someone to sit in a teacher’s classroom and give feedback every time,” said Dora Demszky, an assistant professor at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), faculty affiliate at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, and lead author of the study. “We wanted to see whether an automated tool could support teachers’ professional development in a scalable and cost-effective way, and this is the first study to show that it does.” Promoting effective teaching practices Recognizing that existing methods for providing personalized feedback require significant resources, Demszky and colleagues set out to create a low-cost alternative. They leveraged recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) – a branch of AI that helps computers read and interpret human language – to develop a tool that could analyze transcripts of a class session to identify conversational patterns and deliver consistent, automated feedback. For this study, they focused on identifying teachers’ uptake of student contributions. “Uptake is key to making students feel heard, and as a practice it’s been linked to greater student achievement,” said Demszky. “But it’s also widely considered difficult for teachers to improve.” The researchers trained the tool, called M-Powering Teachers (the M stands for machine, as in machine learning), to detect the extent to which a teacher’s response is specific to what a student has said, which would show that the teacher understood and built on the student’s idea. The tool can also provide feedback on teachers’ questioning practices, such as posing questions that elicited a significant response from students, and the ratio of teacher/student talk time. The research team put the tool to work in the Spring 2021 session of Stanford’s Code in Place, a free online course now in its third year. In the five-week program, based on Stanford’s popular introductory computer science course, hundreds of volunteer instructors teach basic programming to learners worldwide, in small sections with a 1:10 teacher-student ratio. Code in Place instructors come from all sorts of backgrounds, from undergrads who’ve recently taken the course themselves to professional computer programmers working in the industry. Enthusiastic as they are to introduce beginners to the world of coding, many instructors approach the opportunity with little or no prior teaching experience. The volunteer instructors received basic training, clear lesson goals, and session outlines to prepare for their role, and many welcomed the chance to receive automated input on their sessions, said study co-author Chris Piech, an assistant professor of computer science education at Stanford and co-founder of Code in Place. “We make such a big deal in education about the importance of timely feedback for students, but when do teachers get that kind of feedback?” he said. “Maybe the principal will come in and sit in on your class, which seems terrifying. It’s much more comfortable to engage with feedback that’s not coming from your principal, and you can get it not just after years of practice but from your first day on the job.” Instructors received their feedback from the tool through an app within a few days after each class, so they could reflect on it before the next session. Presented in a colorful, easy-to-read format, the feedback used positive, nonjudgmental language and included specific examples of dialogue from their class to illustrate supportive conversational patterns. The researchers found that, on average, instructors who reviewed their feedback subsequently increased their use of uptake and questioning, with the most significant changes taking place in the third week of the course. Student learning and satisfaction with the course also increased among those whose instructors received feedback, compared with the control group. Code in Place doesn’t administer an end-of-course exam, so the researchers used the completion rates of optional assignments and course surveys to measure student learning and satisfaction. Testing in other settings Subsequent research by Demszky with one of the study’s coauthors, Jing Liu, PhD ’18, studied the use of the tool among instructors who worked one-on-one with high school students in an online mentoring program called Polygence. The researchers, who will present their findings in July at the 2023 Learning at Scale conference, found that on average the tool improved mentors’ uptake of student contributions by 10%, reduced their talk time by 5%, and improved students’ experience with the program as well as their relative optimism about their academic future. Demszky is currently conducting a study of the tool’s use for in-person, K-12 school classrooms, and she noted the challenge of generating the high-quality transcription she was able to obtain from a virtual setting. “The audio quality from the classroom is not great, and separating voices is not easy,” she said. “Natural language processing can do so much once you have the transcripts – but you need good transcripts.” She stressed that the tool was not designed for surveillance or evaluation purposes, but to support teachers’ professional development by giving them an opportunity to reflect on their practices. She likened it to a fitness tracker, providing information for its users’ own benefit. The tool also was not designed to replace human feedback but to complement other professional development resources, she said. This story was originally published by Stanford Graduate School of Education. Along with Dora Demszky, Jing Liu, and Chris Piech, the study was co-authored by Dan Jurafsky, a professor of linguistics and of computer science at Stanford, and Heather C. Hill, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_186
A generous gift to the Stanford Center on Early Childhood will advance the center’s work in early childhood and accelerate the exchange of expertise among researchers, policymakers, and front-line practitioners. The Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation is providing funding to expand a valuable large-scale data collection tool called the RAPID Survey, which tracks the experiences of young children, their families, and caregivers and is used by practitioners, government systems, and other stakeholders to address critical challenges for young children and the adults in their lives. The foundation is also providing core support for the center and establishing two fellowship programs at Stanford aimed at preparing future leaders in early childhood learning: the Zaentz Fellows and the Zaentz Community Fellows. “Advancing discoveries that shed new light on early childhood requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach,” said Stanford President Richard Saller. “This gift will help Stanford bring knowledge to bear from across fields such as education, medicine, and psychology. We are thankful to the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation for working with us toward our shared goal of better understanding this critical period of human development.” “Early childhood experiences set the foundation for all future educational outcomes,” said Daniel Schwartz, the I. James Quillen Dean of the Graduate School of Education (GSE) and Halper Family Director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “The Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation’s generous support will further enable the Stanford Center on Early Childhood to advance research and innovation in the field, while simultaneously increasing its ability to share the state of the art with stakeholders and providers. Additionally, the new fellowships will provide resources to Stanford students pursuing careers in early childhood. It is a catalytic gift for the center and for the field of early childhood education.” The Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation is named for the late Saul Zaentz, a successful record company executive and independent film producer whose films earned multiple Best Picture Academy Awards. The foundation’s philanthropic activities focus on educational advancement and include programs to advance early childhood education and improve K-12 graduation rates. “Stanford’s entry into the early learning space in America is a welcome and important addition to the growing recognition that as a nation, we must all come together and fully support our youngest learners and their families if we are to achieve our goal of building a society in which everyone has an opportunity to prosper. Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation is thrilled to collaborate with Stanford University on this important work,” said Elliot Steinberg, president of the foundation. The Stanford Center on Early Childhood launched in November 2022 following a multi-year effort to develop a world-class hub on early childhood at the GSE. This effort was led by Schwartz, who is also the Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Educational Technology. As a part of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, the Stanford Center on Early Childhood benefits from the GSE’s cutting-edge expertise in learning as well as Stanford’s globally recognized strength in innovation and collaboration across disciplines. Stanford recruited Philip Fisher, the Excellence in Learning Professor of Education, to become the founding director of the center prior to its launch. “What happens in early childhood has lifelong effects on learning and behavior,” said Fisher. “The Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation’s support will allow SCEC to expand its focus on equity, community leadership, and partnership with front-line practitioners and families leading change in their communities. It will allow us to bring the very best minds together in service to caregivers and the needs of young children everywhere.” Joan Lombardi, adjunct professor and co-chair of the SCEC Leadership Council, added, “Families with young children and those who care for them are facing uncertainty and increasing challenges. They both need our ongoing support. Communities all across the country are stepping up to create more responsive early childhood systems, and innovation and new leadership are emerging around the world.” The RAPID Survey Project The foundation’s gift will allow the Stanford Center on Early Childhood to continue elevating the value of the RAPID Survey Project to the field of early childhood, focusing on the lived experiences of families and childcare providers. The RAPID Survey Project launched nationally in April 2020 to gather information about the well-being of young children and their caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. With its ability to capture and widely share monthly snapshots of families’ experiences, RAPID represents a major shift in early childhood research, which has too often been difficult to understand and access. The project has generated invaluable data and insights for policymakers, nonprofits, and researchers during the pandemic and become a key resource for addressing achievement and resource gaps in the pandemic’s wake. To date, more than 19,000 families from all 50 states have shared their experiences through RAPID. The Stanford Center on Early Childhood sees even greater potential for the platform. Increasingly, RAPID is being sought by community and state leaders who are invested in understanding the real-time experiences of families of young children and the early childhood workforce to develop and improve responsive early childhood systems of care. Preparing a new generation of early childhood leaders The foundation’s gift will also establish two complementary fellowship programs aimed at preparing future leaders in early childhood. The Zaentz Fellows Program will support GSE master’s students who are preparing for careers in early childhood, initially in the areas of policy and organizational leadership, with fellows selected from incoming classes of graduate students beginning in 2025. The second program, the Zaentz Community Fellows, will recruit multi-disciplinary, early childhood practitioners from community-based organizations, media, government, philanthropy, and the early childhood education sector and support their professional development. Decades of sparse investment have created significant challenges in the early childhood field, including a lack of career ladders in the policy and nonprofit sectors; difficulty filling critical leadership positions at the local, state, and national levels; and a dearth of high-quality training for practitioners. Both the community and graduate fellowship programs will contribute to growing a diverse, experienced pool of talent for the early childhood sector. Fellows from the two programs will have opportunities to collaborate with each other and faculty members, deepening their learning experiences and accelerating the exchange of ideas between academia and the broader early childhood learning community already underway at the center. “This philanthropic support will allow the Stanford Center on Early Childhood to expand the urgent work of incorporating community voices into research and policymaking while growing a network of talented, diverse early childhood professionals,” said Miriam Calderon, chief policy officer of Zero to Three and member of the Stanford Center on Early Childhood’s Leadership Council. “These are key ingredients for strengthening the alliances between communities, researchers, and policymakers that are crucial for improving early childhood outcomes.” This story was originally posted by Stanford Report.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_187
A gong sounded in an upstairs classroom at the Stanford d.school. Students circled small round tables, perched on stools, with a whiteboard behind each group and sticky notes and markers spread in front of them. There were undergraduate, master's, doctoral, and Distinguished Career Institute (DCI) students in the room, coming from fields as diverse as education, engineering, business, computer science, and humanities. The students' countries of origin included Barbados, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, South Korea, and the United States. For the interdisciplinary course, Design to Equip Learners in Under-Resourced Communities, each group of students was matched with a partner organization or school to co-design a solution to an educational challenge. Isabelle Hau, one of the course’s three instructors, addressed the students, who had recently interviewed their community partners to better understand the challenges they faced. “Let’s reflect on our empathy interviews,” said Hau, executive director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, a university-wide hub housed at the Graduate School of Education (GSE) for researchers, educators, entrepreneurs, and others to collaborate on learning solutions. She put up a slide with prompts: What worked about the interviews? What didn’t work? What surprised you? What lesson did you learn for next time? Each group shared reflections with the class. One group, working with the Sablayan branch of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), reported that the rural campus had wifi issues and they had to send questions over email when the Zoom connection failed. Another team had been using an AI note-taking app, which they realized only provided 30 minutes for free, so only part of their interview was recorded. A third group interviewed an overworked charter school teacher in Los Angeles who spent most of the conversation venting, and they were struggling to figure out how to advance their project. By the end of class, the teams were able to cover a poster with sticky notes describing the scope of their partner organization's main challenges, or “problem space.” They walked around the room, sharing their work with classmates. As class ended, another of the instructors, Laura McBain, managing director of the Stanford d.school and K12 Lab co-director, asked the students to take a step back. “Take a picture of your poster,” she said. “Where is there empty space on it? Where are there areas of opportunity? Where can design play a role in addressing the problem?” A trinity of flashlights The course emerged after a series of collaborations between the d.school and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, including an equity in learning design workshop and convening for teachers about generative AI. Hau and McBain decided to launch the new course to involve students in the work of co-designing education solutions and brought in Paul Kim, associate dean & chief technology officer at the GSE, as a third instructor. Kim had been working with GSE students for years on implementing and researching mobile technology in education in high-poverty areas in Mexico, Jordan, and Ghana, among other countries. “The three of us got together and there was a spark,” said Hau. “I’m a strong believer that you find people you love working with and take it from there.” Each instructor brought a different background and perspective as they helped the students develop their projects. McBain’s background in applying design processes to educational settings helped push the students toward novel and innovative solutions and a bias toward action. “She lives and drinks design,” said Kim. Hau brought knowledge of entrepreneurship and learning science, encouraging students to come up with solutions that were both novel and grounded in research. Her background with entrepreneur and investor communities gave her an eye for the strategic development of new solutions. Kim’s years of experience on the ground in schools across the world was key as the students navigated community partnerships. “He brings deep content and field expertise, and helps us ensure we aren’t causing harm,” McBain said. “We got different ideas from different instructors,” said Alessandra Napoli, a doctoral student in mechanical engineering who researches STEM education. “When it felt like my team was in the dark, they each had a different flashlight.” According to McBain, bringing in instructors with diverse areas of expertise and crafting interdisciplinary experiences for students are key elements of the d.school’s problem-solving model. The instructors drew on existing relationships with organizations around the world to help build partnerships for the students' projects. Hau had worked with Children’s Institute, which provides early childhood services, and Education Development Center, a global education organization with emerging entrepreneurship education projects in Senegal. Kim brought in Edify, an organization developing educational technologies in Ghana, and CIDE, which conducts national-level education research and supports education in rural communities in Mexico. Additional partners were part of Stanford’s Ed Equity Lab, including Camden Prep in New Jersey and Birmingham Charter in Los Angeles. Ramon Segismundo, a DCI student, brought in PUP Sablayan. Seeking out the best solutions in context The ten-week course started with overview sessions on the design process, learning science, and the education innovation landscape, paired with readings on inequities in education. Then the students conducted interviews with stakeholders from their partner organizations and prototyped possible approaches and solutions with their input. In addition to weekly class time, the teams met with the instructors for “studio hours” to further workshop and hone their solutions. Carina Fung, an undergraduate computer science major and education minor with a focus on human-computer interaction, signed up for the class despite her already heavy course load. “It’s rare to get to work with real-world problems in my course of study,” she said. “I wanted to develop a really meaningful product to use in real-world situations. This class was too cool an opportunity to pass up.” Fung went into the course expecting to design a solution based on technology. After her senior year of high school and first year at Stanford coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, she developed a passion for understanding and improving education technology tools. However, she and her team quickly realized that a tech solution wasn’t right for their partner, PUP Sablayan. The rural university campus had ongoing challenges with wifi, bandwidth, and other technological resources. “Even though I'm a big proponent of edtech, we didn't feel that this was the correct route to go,” said Fung. That was one of her key takeaways from the course. “The concept of humility in design has stuck with me. Even if you think it’s the best solution, it may not be in context.” In the end, her team designed a community engagement initiative where teacher training candidates from PUP Sablayan serve as teaching assistants in a penal colony located nearby. Other solutions designed by student teams included an information and communication technology (ICT) course using storytelling and local folklore for young children in Ghana, a podcast recorded by and for teachers in rural Mexico, and a gamified English language learning app for Syrian refugee teenagers in Lebanon. Embarking on a lifelong journey McBain said she hoped the course helped to build deeper connections between Stanford and the community partners, laying the groundwork for continued collaboration. “We are in their journey with them and exist in mutuality with them,” she said. “That’s how we make change.” Hau stressed the importance of involving students in building evidence-based education solutions, which motivated her to teach the course as part of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “So far, the Accelerator has focused its theory of change on faculty driving change at scale, and this is a beautiful avenue,” she remarked. “What I would like to see more is tapping into the phenomenal students we have here at Stanford, and we are still just at the beginning of that opportunity.” Several groups in the course are continuing to develop their project as part of the Learning Design Challenge, another student-facing resource of the Accelerator. “I want our students to understand how serious educational disparities are and work toward making the gap smaller and smaller,” added Kim. “Education doesn’t change just by innovation, which may not be sustainable or scalable. You also need compassion and commitment. I hope our students will embark on this lifelong journey.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_188
Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) such as autism and Down syndrome are often left behind when it comes to literacy instruction – casualties of the misperception that at best, they could only read by learning to recognize common words by sight. But researchers are finding that students with IDD, like their peers without disabilities, can benefit from a more complex approach, including phonics, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. “I always get frustrated when I hear teachers say about students with intellectual disability, ‘They’ll never read higher than a second-grade level,’ ” said Chris Lemons, an associate professor at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) and a faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “In every study I’ve ever done, there are kids who blow us out of the water and master everything we teach them. Truly, the sky is the limit with this population of students.” Lemons and GSE lecturer Lakshmi Balasubramanian, both former special education teachers whose research focuses on instructional practices and interventions for students with disabilities, shared tips for teaching literacy to IDD learners at a recent professional learning seminar for K-12 educators organized by the GSE. The strategies can also be useful, they noted, for struggling readers who don’t have a disability but still need additional support. ‘Science of reading’ for all Historically, literacy instruction for students with IDD has focused on sight-word recognition, teaching students to identify words at a glance without breaking them down or sounding them out. This approach, Lemons said, can help students function in the world but limits their ability to learn to read independently – a capacity linked to positive outcomes in school and beyond, including greater independence, employment, and quality of life. For students across the board, research increasingly supports an instructional approach based on the “science of reading,” which focuses on five key skills: phonemic awareness (the ability to focus on and manipulate the individual sounds that make up words), phonics (the relationship between sounds and letters), fluency (the ability to read quickly and accurately), vocabulary (knowing what words mean and how to use them correctly), and comprehension (the ability to understand and interpret a written text). Many teachers who otherwise subscribe to the science of reading don’t believe IDD students can learn these skills, Lemons said, or they’re not sure how to adjust their lessons for students who require more intense and tailored support. He co-authored a guide to help educators integrate components of the science of reading into instruction for students with IDD. For starters, he advises keeping big-picture goals for the student in mind, not just for the year ahead but even for post-secondary life and education. At the same time, educators should set measurable short-term goals for targeted skills, based on a clear picture of the student’s present level of functioning. Research indicates that the most effective and efficient way for students to learn these skills is through explicit, systematic instruction, Lemons said, and students with IDD are no exception. “Explicit instruction is, basically, not letting students fail,” said Lemons. “It's giving them a clear understanding of what you want them to learn, and providing a lot of guided practice and immediate corrective feedback.” He recommends an “I do, we do, you do” approach, sometimes referred to as the gradual release of responsibility, where a teacher first demonstrates a task (“I do”), then guides a student through it with prompts and clues (“we do”) before having the student complete the task (“you do”) on their own. Learning to adapt Another step-by-step approach, known as the ADAPT framework, can help teachers tailor general education lessons to address specific learning and behavior needs. The model, detailed in the book Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms, uses the acronym ADAPT to represent each step of the process. First, ask: What are you requiring the student to do? Then determine: What skills does the student need to complete the task you’ve just identified? Next, analyze the student’s particular strengths and struggles, to identify whether the student has the skills to complete the task or needs an adaptation. Based on that information, propose one or more adaptations in the material, activity, delivery, or content. Can you take advantage of an AI tool to adjust the reading level of material you’re asking the student to use? Would videos or other visuals help to build background knowledge? Can an individually based activity be done in small groups instead? Finally, test to determine whether the adjustment helped the student carry out the task. “It doesn’t have to be anything fancy,” said Lemons. “You just want to see if the student benefited from the adaptation. If not, you can try the process again with different adaptations.” Lemons emphasized the importance of increasing students’ access to general-ed curriculum content through any means, even if they’re not able to read a text independently. “We want kids to still engage with the same grade-level content as their peers,” he said. “Just because they’re still working on foundational reading skills, you don’t want them to lose access to content. It’s a balancing act.” Keeping reading fun Lemons suggests involving family members for added support, along with service providers such as speech pathologists. “But we caution parents from thinking they need to provide intensive, direct instruction at home,” he said. “We want to keep reading fun. I’ve had a handful of gung-ho parents in some of my studies who think, ‘If we do the reading activities six times a week, my kid will become a better reader.’ And in many of these situations, the student learns to dislike the activity.” Teachers can also seek out low- or no-cost professional development opportunities, especially through local universities, Lemons said, where they might be able to participate in research studies or audit courses on reading development and instruction. Forming a professional learning community at a school or district is another strategy, where teachers with similar interests dedicate time on a regular basis to come together and discuss books, articles, videos, or course modules to improve their practice. Most important, said Lemons, is for educators to understand that students with IDD are fully capable of becoming independent readers. “For this population of learners,” he said, “we can increase their reading skills beyond what we might ever imagine.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_189
The Stanford Accelerator for Learning is welcoming Professor Maisha T. Winn as head of the Equity in Learning initiative. The initiative is one of six launched by the Accelerator to seize new opportunities in data, technology, and the learning sciences to create novel solutions that improve education. “Maisha’s creativity, commitment to students and communities, and her innovative and groundbreaking research are a perfect combination for the Accelerator,” said Dan Schwartz, the I. James Quillen Dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Halper Family Faculty Director of the Accelerator. For Winn, MA ‘98, her new roles as professor of education and faculty director of the Accelerator’s initiative for equity in learning mark a return to the GSE, where she earned a master’s degree in Language, Literacy and Culture. She followed that up with a PhD in Language, Literacy & Culture from the University of California, Berkeley. “After completing my master’s program, I was confident that I would continue my journey in the academy and that I wanted to be a researcher,” said Winn, whose scholarship focuses on restorative justice and contemporary and historical perspectives in Black education. “It was such a sacred and special time in terms of being introduced to a body of research, literature and thinking that really inspired me.” Since then, she’s remained connected to Stanford as a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) for the 2022/2023 year, and to the Accelerator by participating in its Equity in Learning design workshop last May. Winn’s upcoming book, “Futuring Black Lives: Independent Black Institutions and the Literary Imagination,” will be published next year. It examines the ideas and writings of leaders in Black institution building during the Black Arts Movement (1965-1975) and puts them in contemporary perspective. Winn says these “historical signals” provide context for equity work. Winn comes to Stanford from the University of California, Davis, School of Education, where she was the Chancellor’s Leadership Professor and co-founder and faculty director of the school’s Transformative Justice in Education Center. In her new role with the Accelerator, she will build on existing equity-focused work across the accelerator, spearhead projects that address disparities in educational outcomes, and foster collaborations with community organizations and educational institutions. “I think this is such an exciting time right now for Stanford and the GSE,” Winn said. “The Accelerator is a source of such innovative thinking for how we can solve really important issues that are impacting young people in the country, all over the world, and across silos and disciplines.” Winn started on July 1. “I am incredibly excited and optimistic about Winn joining the Accelerator team,” said Isabelle Hau, the Accelerator’s executive director. “Her expertise and passion for equity in education will undoubtedly enrich our community and strengthen our efforts to create an inclusive learning environment for all students. “With a dedicated faculty director for every initiative, I hope our leadership team will be able to implement cohesive and comprehensive strategies to address the diverse needs of our students.” _ Winn is an American Educational Research Association (AERA) fellow and the association’s President-Elect, and a member of the National Academy of Education.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_190
A new report by researchers at Stanford and Harvard shows that U.S. students achieved historic gains in math and reading during the 2022-23 school year, the first full year of recovery from the pandemic. The report, which measures the pace of academic recovery during the 2022-23 school year for school districts in 30 states, finds that students recovered about one-third of the original loss in math and one-quarter of the loss in reading. These gains significantly exceed what students would be expected to learn in a typical year, based on past trends. Students in one state, Alabama, returned to pre-pandemic achievement levels in math, while students in three states reached 2019 levels in reading. But students in a majority of the states in the study remain more than a third of a grade level behind pre-pandemic levels in math, and students in almost half of the states are that far behind in reading. “Students overall haven’t returned to pre-pandemic levels of achievement,” said study co-author Sean Reardon, the Professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education and faculty director of the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University. “But clear progress is being made.” The new data also reveal that achievement gaps between high- and low-poverty districts have widened since 2019, the result of larger initial losses in poor districts and the slower recovery of poor students within the average district. The report was published Jan. 31 as part of the Education Recovery Scorecard, a collaboration between researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) and the Center for Education Policy and Research (CEPR) at Harvard. The researchers followed up on findings they released last year showing that, between spring 2019 and spring 2022, the average student in grades 3 through 8 had lost the equivalent of half a grade level in math achievement and a third of a grade level in reading. “We should thank teachers and principals and superintendents for what they’ve done for American schoolchildren in the last year. Their efforts have led to strikingly large improvements in children’s learning,” said Reardon. “But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the recovery has been uneven, and we have a long way to go.” Measuring losses and progress The report draws from the Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA), a comprehensive national database run by the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University that includes reading and math test scores from every public school in the United States. The database, first made available online in 2016, has been used by researchers and policymakers to study patterns and trends in educational opportunity across the country and by race, gender, and socioeconomic conditions. For this analysis, the researchers used standardized test results from roughly 8,000 school districts in 30 states. The remaining 20 states were not included either because they changed their state assessments since 2022 or because they did not provide sufficiently detailed data on their websites. To measure the original losses from the pandemic, the researchers compared test scores from spring 2019 and spring 2022. To measure the recovery, they compared scores from spring 2022 and spring 2023. Across all 30 states in the study, students recovered about 30 percent of the original loss in math and 25 percent of the loss in reading. While students in Alabama returned to pre-pandemic levels in math by spring 2023, students in 17 states remained more than a third of a grade level behind their 2019 achievement levels. Students in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi returned to 2019 levels of achievement in reading, but students in 14 states remained more than a third of a grade level behind. An uneven recovery The report illustrates disparities in the impact of both the pandemic and the recovery. Achievement gaps between high- and low-poverty districts widened during the pandemic, with students in high-poverty districts losing the most ground. The researchers found that the recovery so far has done little to close these gaps. “In many states, the recovery is being led by wealthier districts, which lost the least during the pandemic,” said Reardon, who is also a faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. “Students in poor districts are, on average, well behind where they were in 2019.” States in which achievement gaps have widened the most are Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Michigan, according to the report. Congress provided a total of $190 billion in federal aid to K-12 schools during the pandemic, with most of it targeted at high-poverty districts. The funding program is set to expire in September 2024, and according to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly a third of the funds remained unspent as of fall 2023. The report recommends ways for state and local agencies to allocate the remaining funds, including expanding summer learning opportunities this year and contracting for tutoring and after-school programs. “Despite strong gains last year, most school districts are not on track to complete the recovery this spring,” said Thomas Kane, faculty director of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University and a co-author of the report. “District leaders should use these data to check their progress and rethink how they spend the remaining federal relief dollars.” Additional collaborators on this project include Erin Fahle, Sadie Richardson, Julia Paris, Demetra Kalogrides, Jie Min, and Jiyeon Shim (Educational Opportunity Project); Daniel Dewey, Victoria Carbonari, and Dean Kaplan (Center for Education Policy Research); and Douglas Staiger (Dartmouth College). The research was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Citadel founder and CEO Ken Griffin and Griffin Catalyst, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. This story was originally published by Stanford Graduate School of Education.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_191
Certain skills are essential for many demands of everyday life, helping us to focus, control impulses, manipulate information in our minds, and shift from one task to another. These skills, known as executive functions (EFs), begin developing in early childhood and are linked to behaviors that serve well into adulthood, from learning to relationship-building. These skills are considered universal across cultures. But what about the way they’re measured? Tests used to track children’s development of these skills are often based on assumptions that don’t match cultural norms, producing inaccurate information and making it harder to support kids properly, researchers say. Young people around the world may be identified as having poor EF skills just because they were not familiar with certain parts of the testing protocol. “EFs strongly predict how kids thrive in school, and there are many ways to intervene and help them improve these skills,” said Jelena Obradović, a professor at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) and a faculty affiliate of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “But to understand where help is needed, we need to know that we’re measuring the right thing. We need assessments that align with their cultural context and everyday experiences.” Obradović, a developmental psychologist and director of the Stanford Project on Adaptation and Resilience in Kids (SPARK), recently set out to fill that need. A longtime researcher studying EFs in children around the world, she reached out to fellow experts in the field and established the Global Executive Function Initiative (GEFI) at Stanford, a network of scholars working to promote EF development and assessment across cultures. On Sept. 26, at an international conference on brain sciences, early childhood care, and education held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, Obradović presented on a panel about the importance of EFs and introduced new guidelines developed by GEFI for adapting assessments to better capture EF skills in children ages 3-12 around the globe. “These are foundational skills that support any kind of goal-directed behaviors, and they’re going to be important for lifelong learning,” said Obradović. “If we can measure them well, we can promote and improve them.” Skills for lifelong learning Executive functioning generally involves three core skills: inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Inhibitory control includes not only resisting an impulse or habit, but also being able to suppress distractions and focus on a task. Working memory refers to the ability to keep information in mind and use it in various circumstances, such as following instructions. Cognitive flexibility involves the ability to shift attention between various tasks or demands, especially in response to feedback or changes in the environment. To assess a child’s EF skills, there are two basic approaches: observing children’s actions in everyday settings, where teachers and parents report on behaviors linked to the skills; and direct testing, where children are given a battery of tasks designed to measure different components of EF skills. Both approaches have advantages, Obradović said, but they can also both be tainted by cultural biases. For starters, measures that work in one culture might not apply to another. A classic way to test children’s ability to control impulses is the marshmallow test, where children are left alone in a room with a marshmallow for a period of time and told they’ll be rewarded if they wait to eat the snack. Researchers are aiming to measure a universal skill – but the way children respond to this specific challenge depends on their culture. “If you come from a place where waiting for a snack is culturally socialized, where it’s the default, there’s no impulse to inhibit,” Obradović said. In a 2022 study to measure children’s ability to delay gratification, led by GEFI network member Yuko Munakata, U.S. and Japanese children were asked to wait before eating and before opening a gift. The Japanese children waited three times longer for food than for gifts, while U.S. children waited nearly four times longer for gifts than for food. Cultural conventions account for the discrepancy, Obradović said. In Japan, children are socialized to wait to eat until everyone is served, a habit less prevalent in U.S. children’s daily life. And in the United States, gift-giving often takes place on special occasions like birthdays and holidays, so kids are accustomed to waiting to receive them – whereas in Japan, children receive gifts regularly throughout the year, with no tradition of waiting. Biases embedded in testing Direct testing through tasks, often administered on a computer or tablet, is generally considered a reliable way to measure children’s EF skills, Obradović said. But many assessments have been developed in high-income, western countries like the United States, with cultural biases embedded in the test itself or how it’s administered. A child’s ability to maintain eye contact when given instructions for a task might indicate their ability to focus, but in some cultures, children may not be socialized to make direct eye contact with authority figures. And “gamifying” tasks is a popular way to engage children and standardize tasks, but it can lead to distorted results. “Gamelike tasks are a lot more relevant for kids who are schooled or for kids who are from a western context, because they engage in these kinds of one-on-one, game-like educational activities all the time,” Obradović said. Even interacting one-on-one with an assessor might be an unfamiliar experience in some settings. Young children in low- and middle-income countries especially tend to be inhibited in testing situations and hesitant to interact with strangers, and this reluctance could affect the measurement of their EF skills. EF tasks sometimes use talking puppets to motivate kids to participate, because U.S. children have been socialized to see puppets as approachable and fun. But doing research in rural Pakistan, Obradović found that preschoolers refused to take instructions from a puppet because the scenario was so unfamiliar. “These tasks work really well in many places,” Obradović said. “But we’re encouraging researchers to use local expertise and pilot testing to see what will work in their setting. We’re helping them think through the questions to ask and giving them ideas about how to adapt the tests.” Scaling up guidance The guidelines developed by Obradović and her GEFI colleagues grew, in part, from seeing a need to scale up and standardize the ad hoc guidance she’s extended over the years. Obradović has worked for more than a decade in the Global South, adapting standard EF tasks to the culture of the populations she studies. “Periodically I’ll get emails from researchers asking, ‘Can you send me your tasks?’ or ‘How would you modify this?’ ” Obradović said. “I’m glad to share with anyone, and I’ve always kept everything open-source. But at the end of the day, a lot of these decisions come down to a judgment call, and I wanted to widen the circle of people making those calls, to pool our knowledge and experience.” In addition to recommendations for making standard EF tasks culturally meaningful, the new guidelines from GEFI include considerations for working with children of different ages and in various spaces, strategies for training assessors, and procedures for processing and analyzing the data. More standardization and transparency in how data is processed will also advance scientific understanding. “We also offer cautionary notes for how not to misinterpret findings,” says Obradović. Obradović and her colleagues also recently launched a major survey of educators, parents, and researchers around the world, seeking out examples of everyday experiences linked to EF skills – common activities that require children to do things like wait their turn, pay attention, remember lengthy instructions, or work on a project with others. In the United States, for instance, a typical children’s household task that requires focus and persistence could be folding laundry or putting away groceries; in Bangladesh, tying up bundles of rice paddy as part of farm work might be more familiar, or in Malawi, walking to collect water. GEFI has begun piloting its tools in more than a dozen countries in the Global South, and GSE doctoral students are among the researchers involved in developing and evaluating the resources, including Kavindya Thennakoon working in Sri Lanka, Mateus Mazzaferro in Brazil, and Ishita Ahmed in Bangladesh. “In rural Bangladesh, children are constantly learning from their parents and using EF skills while they work on the farm or at a local business,” said Ahmed, whose doctoral research is focused on developing culturally relevant measures of learning, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. “Measuring these skills is important, to shed light on how policy is effective. But I’m not going in with assumptions about what the measure should look like. Measures should represent local experiences.” By advancing research into ways to measure these skills in different cultural settings, Obradović hopes that GEFI’s work will help identify programs and policies to support EF development worldwide. “We need rigorous, open-source, scalable assessments to understand all children’s learning capacities and needs – not just those in Western, high-income countries,” she said. “There’s much more work in this space to be done.” The Global Executive Function Initiative at Stanford has been supported by funding from the Jacobs Foundation.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_192
On a recent Wednesday morning, a group of K-12 educators and Stanford researchers gathered in an empty classroom at Abram Agnew Elementary School in San Jose, California. The group included elementary classroom teachers, academic resource specialists from the elementary and high schools, two principals, researchers from three Stanford education labs, and representatives from the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP). This powerhouse crew was the steering committee of the Stanford-Santa Clara Research Practice Learning Partnership (RPLP), working together to build new models for inclusive education. The RPLP is a collaboration between the Stanford Accelerator for Learning’s initiative for Learning Differences and the Future of Special Education (LDI) and the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD), signed in October 2022 by Professor Elizabeth Kozleski, faculty co-director of LDI, and Kathie Kanavel, assistant superintendent for educational services at SCUSD. The RPLP takes place on the Agnews K-12 campus, which houses three adjacent schools: Agnew Elementary, Dolores Huerta Middle School, and Kathleen MacDonald High School. The campus is a 55-acre site that historically housed the Agnews State Hospital, a facility for adults with severe disabilities and mental illnesses. Opened in the 2021-2022 school year, part of the foundational vision for the schools was that they provide inclusive education, where students with a range of disabilities and learning needs are provided with the support to be able to learn in general education settings, rather than self-contained special education classrooms. “My vision is that we stop limiting and siloing students with learning differences and those from underserved and historically marginalized groups. We want to allow them to have the same access to all the courses, to the high expectations and rigor, and to all opportunities that other students have,” said Kanavel, who has worked in the district for 35 years as a teacher, educational technology specialist, and instructional materials coordinator. “When you can do that successfully, it brings success to every student.” The steering committee of the RPLP, led by liaisons Nicole Henderson from Stanford and Sandra Velásquez from SCUSD, meets bimonthly to coordinate inclusive education explorations by educators and researchers happening across the three schools. At this meeting, the group touched base on 11 existing projects and brainstormed ways to assess the RPLP’s overall progress toward inclusion. The Stanford team shared updates on funding applications and possible ways of sharing research with the school; the educators gave insights into their end-of-year schedules and how the RPLP projects might fit in. Learning from each other: A model for partnership Kozleski has been doing education research in schools since 1988. Her model of collaboration involves working with district leadership to embed researchers in schools so that they can interact with the school community on a regular basis. “A model of ‘collaborative construction’ allows us to build a suite of research studies with different faculty while advancing what the school is trying to achieve,” she said. When Stanford signed the partnership agreement with SCUSD, Kozleski and Kanavel decided to call it a “research practice learning partnership,” an expansion of the concept of “research practice partnership” that has been a mainstay of education research. “The RPLP is more educator-driven, where people become part of the community and we develop projects together,” said Kozleski. “We are learning all the time,” added Kanavel. “When you’re a classroom teacher, you don’t always have time or resources to make sure you are using best practices that are research and evidence-based, and this can result in achievement gaps. What the RPLP brings is the reminder of how important it is to have a data inquiry cycle to see what's working and adjust when necessary.” The steering committee is a key piece of the collaboration model of the RPLP, with members of the committee representing the school community to bring questions and ideas they hear around the building to the forefront for researchers to explore. The committee includes educators from multiple grade levels and content areas, special education teachers, and school leadership. In some cases, the Stanford team brings in existing projects to share with the schools, such as the Para Pro Academy and Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR), led by Stanford Accelerator for Learning Faculty Affiliates Chris Lemons and Jason Yeatman, respectively. The two projects have been piloted at Agnew Elementary and there are plans to expand them to the secondary level at Huerta and MacDonald. Other projects emerge from the schools. In response to educator and family requests, Stanford researchers and school personnel co-created a project about social-emotional learning at Agnew and a career education program at MacDonald. While decisions in the RPLP are made in a democratic and shared way, ultimately the district and school leadership have authority as to what interventions are brought into the school. Joe Young, principal of Agnew Elementary and a member of the steering committee, encourages his school’s educators, parents, and staff to dream big. “How lucky are we that we have a well-respected collegiate partner with a network of folks to tap into?” he says. A lighthouse for inclusive education One of the goals of the RPLP is to serve as a “lighthouse” to show the education community what a truly inclusive school could look like, and build a network with other schools and districts doing the same. A lighthouse inclusive school has students with a number of divergent needs who are able to be in mainstream classrooms and taught effectively by general education teachers. Kozleski points out that many classroom practices that give access to students with disabilities are good for all learners. For example, describing one’s physical appearance when introducing oneself helps visually impaired learners, but also develops all students’ language skills. “Inclusive practices are within the capacity of schools to do, but schools need to understand how important it is, make the time for it, and give educators permission to do it,” she said. She sees the lighthouse model as a way to show educators, schools, districts, and researchers what is possible. Kanavel sees long-term mutual benefits for both the district and Accelerator researchers. “Based on what we learn together, I see us changing structures and systems to enact and broaden our vision of school as an inclusive place for all students, especially our students with learning differences,” she said. To amplify the findings of the RPLP, Kozleski envisions research that emerges from the partnership being published in peer-reviewed journals across disciplines. The RPLP is already starting to share its knowledge with the next generation of educators; the STEP program plans to place teacher candidates at the Agnew K-12 campus in the upcoming school year. “We are building a co-constructed definition of what inclusion is,” said Young. “But inclusion is a moving goalpost – how can we continue to be inclusive, every single day? How wonderful that we get to have the experience of recognizing and celebrating every new person who joins our community.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_193
At a meeting before the start of the school year at Abram Agnew Elementary School in San Jose, special education aides shared the strategies they planned to use to boost their effectiveness. One of Maria Ochoa’s goals was to initiate regular communication with classroom teachers. “I want to make sure we’re on the same page, and I’m going to be keeping notes about our work with students,” she said. In August, Ochoa, along with 15 other aides or paraeducators, completed their final session of Para Pro Academy, a collaboration between Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education and the Santa Clara Unified School District, where they learned techniques and strategies for a role that Stanford Accelerator for Learning Faculty Affiliate Chris Lemons describes as an underutilized and important link to student success. “The reason we are targeting paraeducators in this work is because they are some of the most critical staff in schools – they are where the rubber meets the road for improving outcomes for learners with disabilities,” Lemons said. “Schools infrequently devote sufficient professional development or coaching to this group.” Unlike teachers, paraeducators are not required to have teaching credentials or even bachelor’s degrees, and they often receive little, if any, training on the job. And teachers, including those trained to provide special education services, often don’t receive guidance for working with paraeducators. The vision for Para Pro Academy is to empower paraeducators and facilitate their work with teachers to improve student learning. The project is the first initiative in a research-practice learning partnership between Stanford and Santa Clara Unified District that will enable both Stanford faculty and educators to try ideas in real classrooms, improve on the ones that work, and then share them more widely. Graduate School of Education Professor Elizabeth Kozleski, the faculty co-director of the Learning Differences Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, said the partnership was designed to create a cycle of frequent communication and mutual learning. “A community of practice is where everyone is asking the questions,” she said. Through their interactions, everyone can be curious and ask, in different ways, “How does learning happen?” Seed funds from the Stanford Office of Community Engagement made it possible for paraeducators to attend the training sessions and receive coaching and educational materials, which will be available in the school’s library for use by other classroom aides. The shift toward inclusive classrooms Federal law has mandated since 1975 that students with disabilities be educated alongside their nondisabled peers to the extent possible. But for many years, in California and across the country, special education meant separate classrooms, separate teachers, and even separate sites. As the move toward providing special ed services within inclusive classrooms gains momentum, paraeducators are key to supporting the students who in years past might have been placed in separate classes, Kozleski said. At Agnew, where students with learning issues in 13 recognized disability categories learn side by side with other students, Principal Joe Young said the training program helped the school’s paraeducators focus on what they wanted to accomplish with their students – and with their own professional development. “Clearly identifying goals during the Para Pro Academy has really supported their intentional efforts to improve their practice,” he said. The program has elevated the profile of paraeducators within the school as part of the team contributing to student learning, he said, and “it has really given them a greater sense of their impact.” Reflecting on the first few months of the school year, Ochoa said that progress can be hard to measure with individual students because she changes classrooms regularly, working with students across the district. Detailed note-taking and close collaboration with teachers and other paraeducators have helped. “Luckily, my team keeps very open communication about the students we work with, so if we find techniques that work well for the student’s progress, we try to maintain that progress when we rotate working with the same students.” This story was originally published by Stanford Report.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_194
At a packed lunch during the 2023 ASU+GSV summit, Bill Gates reflected on his work leading the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where he said making an impact at scale in global health was “relatively easy” compared with scaling impact in education. The most crucial puzzle piece, he said: figuring out what really works in order to be able to replicate it. An annual conference on education innovation and technology, the ASU+GSV summit draws startup founders, edtech CEOs, investors, policymakers, and foundations from over 130 countries. Since its founding in 2010, it has exploded in size alongside the edtech sector itself, becoming a key meeting place for the education innovation community. The 2023 speaker lineup included former U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Sheryl Sandberg of Lean In, Sal Khan of Khan Academy, Wendy Kopp of Teach for All, and even Elmo of Sesame Street. The voice of academic research at the event has, in the past, been limited. However, at this year’s gathering, which took place in San Diego from April 17-19, more than a dozen Stanford scholars spoke to audiences who rarely turn to academia for guidance. Dan Schwartz, the I. James Quillen Dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), the Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Educational Technology, and the Halper Family Faculty Director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, gave a keynote the first day on StageX, the largest platform of the conference, where Bill Gates spoke just 24 hours later. The unprecedented spotlight on academia at the conference this year reflected a fundamental shift in the edtech ecosystem. Since the pandemic, where edtech became a stop-gap measure for millions of learners, edtech companies and school districts alike have increasingly realized the need for world-class research to back up proposed solutions and evaluate the impact of new interventions. What’s more, new technologies, the growing volume of data collected about learners, and advances in brain science make the role of research ever more critical for innovators. Some key takeaways from Stanford scholars, who spoke on a multitude of topics: - Artificial intelligence will have a drastic impact on the skills workers need, and we need to be prepared. At a panel on the impact of AI on education and the workforce, Emma Brunskill, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford, argued for the need to upskill and retrain workers rather than relying on temporary fixes. “We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that [the rise of AI] is necessarily going to be positive for everyone,” she said. “The U.S. has generally had a dismal record of retraining people after jobs become outsourced, but it doesn’t have to be like that.” GSE Professor Mitchell Stevens shared this cautious optimism, noting that this new organization of labor will “create enormous human capacity in future years that we have yet to script.” Schwartz echoed their thoughts in his keynote address, suggesting educators rethink conceptualizations of “mastery” and predicting that many types of mastery our society currently values will soon be obsolete. - High-quality tutoring is one of the most effective educational interventions we have – but we need both humans and technology for it to work. In a standing-room-only session, GSE Professor Susanna Loeb, a faculty lead at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, spoke alongside school district superintendents on the value of high-impact tutoring. The most important factors in effective tutoring, she said, are (1) the tutor has data on specific areas where the student needs support, (2) the tutor has high-quality materials and training, and (3) there is a positive, trusting relationship between the tutor and student. New technologies, including AI, can make the first and second elements much easier – but they will never be able to replace human adults in the relational piece, which is crucial to student engagement and motivation. - Technology can be a highly effective way to scale support for learners who have been excluded from education and the workforce. Jodi Anderson, Jr., MA ‘22, and Jason Spyres each earned degrees from Stanford after being incarcerated, and went on to launch innovative companies that provide opportunities they wished they had had. Anderson – who founded Rézme, a platform that connects job seekers who have criminal records to education and employment opportunities, counseling services, and more – started the company with support from the Digital Learning Design Challenge, a student program offered by the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Spyres’ company, Training All People (TAP), builds simulations for low-wage workers to visualize new possibilities and move into middle-class vocational careers. - Greater investment in early learning must be an urgent priority. Isabelle Hau, executive director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, moderated a panel on early childhood education challenges and opportunities. Hau emphasized that although 90% of the brain develops by age five, early childhood education has remarkably little investment from government, investors, and philanthropists. The panelists agreed that not only does this age group need greater investment in research and technology, but early childhood educators need to be paid more, not less, than their counterparts working with older learners. Hau cited the 2022 launch of the Stanford Center on Early Childhood, led by Philip Fisher, the Excellence in Learning Professor at the Graduate School of Education, as one example of an investment in this area. - Experiential learning takes different forms. Stanford was able to send 60 students to the event through an ASU+GSV-funded program – an opportunity that provided the students with a unique experiential opportunity to learn and connect with education entrepreneurs, innovators and leaders in the field. - Collaboration among researchers, school leaders, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and funders is critical for the greatest impact. “We’re at an inflection point in what we can do in learning,” said Schwartz, acknowledging that historically, universities haven’t been on the cutting edge. “Our specialty is long-term, slow, foundational research that eventually changes the world – but we’re not always the best at rapid response.” Citing a multitude of recent research innovations on learning from across Stanford, he emphasized the importance of universities retaining their strength in foundational research while building greater capacity to be nimble, and called for deeper connections between the Stanford Accelerator for Learning and the diverse stakeholders in the room. “One kind of partner we really need is partners to help us scale,” he said. “We need you, and that’s why I’m here. Because you’re the experts in scale.” In addition to the speakers listed above, Sean Reardon, the Professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education at the GSE, joined a panel on recovery from pandemic learning loss, and Dora Demszky, an assistant professor in education data science at the GSE, spoke on AI and the future of higher education. Entrepreneurs-in-residence Sergio Monsalve, Chris Thomas and Joy Chen also participated in panels on building global edtech from Latin America, scaling solutions in emerging markets, and the future of Chinese edtech, respectively.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_195
Last week more than a dozen policy leaders from across the country gathered at Stanford to take part in The Hunt Institute’s 2023 Early Childhood Policy Academy, a training aimed at educating and empowering leaders to support early education and care in their regions. The Stanford Center on Early Childhood, an initiative of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, hosted this year’s event in collaboration with The Hunt Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to informing policymakers about educational issues. The kick-off State leaders boarded a bus on an overcast Friday morning for the official kick-off – to see Menlo Park’s All Five school in action. All Five is an early education and care center focused on giving all families, regardless of income, access to high-quality care and education. Teachers gave attendees a guided tour of the center, where 75% of children, who range from six weeks to five years, come from low-income families who pay little to no tuition. The rest of the families pay full tuition, and the school closes its budget gap with philanthropic funding. But All Five founder Carol Thomsen said even with the innovative model, her educators still don’t get paid enough. “I think we’re at the bottom of the bottom or even lower in terms of status and in terms of pay than pretty much anyone else in the country,” Thomsen said about child care workers. Dr. Reshma Thadani, a doctor at the Ravenswood Family Health Center and assistant of pediatrics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, also discussed All Five's partnership with the health center. The center provides health care, but also resources for families, such as diapers and early literacy materials. Supporting the early childhood workforce Back at Stanford, attendees heard from an expert panel on how to support the critical early childhood care and learning workforce. The majority of child care workers are women of color, and many are immigrants, said Anna Powell, a Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst at the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at the University of California Berkeley. Half speak a language besides English, and over a third of providers in home-based settings have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In center-based settings, that rises to half. Yet, average national pay for a provider is at $13.71 for a child care provider and $16.99 for a preschool teacher, she said. “What they ultimately want from us is to see them for what they are, which is these highly skilled professionals doing incredibly challenging and complex labor, instead of being seen as babysitters,” Powell said. What the RAPID Survey Project tells us about America’s early childhood workforce Attendees also learned about the RAPID Survey Project from Stanford Center on Early Childhood Director Philip Fisher, and RAPID Director Cristi Carman. The online survey is a project at the Center on Early Childhood that provides ongoing real-time data about the lives of caregivers and families with young children across the United States, focusing on material hardship, well-being and the impact of policies and programs. Carman said RAPID was created with the idea “that there would be a need to put that timely ongoing data in the hands of people who could act on it as they were trying to make decisions about how to address those concerns and those experiences through policies, programs and services.” RAPID is also expanding its surveys to individual cities and counties with the Community Voices Project, which can give policymakers targeted knowledge of the specific needs of their own communities. Fisher said of the Center on Early Childhood: “We are fundamentally outwardly facing in our work, and we see the potential for impact as having a seat at the table where there are certain tools and knowledge we can bring to work collaboratively to solve issues in early childhood.” Building a comprehensive early childhood workforce through governance During another panel, leaders of early childhood departments in several states discussed the innovative approaches and challenges it took to get their systems off the ground. “We are a new agency,” said Alyssa Chaterjee, the Early Learning System director for the Oregon Early Learning Division. “[But] it does not happen overnight. It's a lot of work and there are a lot of intricacies. You think you have a really good plan on paper and then you start doing it and you realize, wow, you need way more.” Policy leaders also asked questions and heard from experts about early childhood financing. “The market itself is broken,” said Theresa Howley, executive director for Early Learning Funding Equity. “Most families, not a subset of families, but almost all families, can't actually afford what it would cost to run a high-quality program with salaries that are going to be competitive in today's marketplace for the skills they bring to the table.” Kenny Francis, director of Coaching and Capacity for the Children’s Funding Project, said fiscal mapping is key to understanding how early childhood programs can be funded, but it’s not easy. “Most of you might be surprised to learn that there isn't a simple place you can go and look at all the federal funding streams that are supporting children and youth in your community,” he told attendees. “And if it's hard to do that in your state budget, it's often even harder to do that at the local level.” Francis said the Children’s Funding Project is working on an online tool that will make searching for these streams of funding much easier. Technology in early childhood contexts Stanford Accelerator for Learning Executive Director Isabelle Hau moderated the closing panel on technology and AI in childhood contexts. “Technology in particular is designed to fire the reward center in your brain,” said Kris Perry, executive director of Children and Screens. “If you're two, three, four or five, and you learn that feeling at a young age, it's very hard to focus on people or other activities. My core belief is that the longer we can preserve and protect the human relationship, because love accelerates learning, the better our kids will do.” Victor Lee, associate professor at Stanford and faculty lead for AI+Education at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, said technology isn’t all bad, as long as it is used to amplify teachings, and not replace human interaction. “As a technologist, there are things that I'm enthusiastic about,” he said, “Where it can make it possible for kids who do not have a chance to talk with one another, or connect with one another, to connect with and through the technology. So that is fantastic.” Empowered to take action Closing out the academy was Dan Wuori, senior director of Early Learning at The Hunt Institute, who emphasized the brokenness of the early childhood system in the U.S. “We know that this is a workforce crisis, we know it is a compensation crisis, we know that governance is, frankly, a mess,” he said. Wuori hoped the academy was a “catalytic conversation,” that empowered policy leaders to be thinking about how they can take action. “What is my role?” he asked attendees to consider. “In my own sphere of influence, now that I have this knowledge, what are we going to do about it?” This story was originally published by the Stanford Center on Early Childhood here.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_196
Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) professor Bryan A. Brown has been appointed to an endowed chair, the highest honor the university can bestow on faculty. Brown was named the Kamalachari Professor of Science Education, and he receives the appointment after more than 20 years on the GSE faculty, including serving as current chair of the GSE’s program on Race, Inequality, and Language in Education (RILE) and as associate dean of students from 2014 to 2019. GSE Dean and Stanford Accelerator for Learning Faculty Director Dan Schwartz announced Brown’s appointment, as both chair and vice provost for faculty development, diversity and engagement, at a GSE faculty meeting on Feb. 6. “Bryan has worked for decades to bring marginalized youth into science in ways that leverage their experiences and knowledge,” said Schwartz, who nominated Brown for the professorship. “He’s also worked tirelessly to prepare the next generation of teachers and scholars. He is a superb teacher, researcher, and human being, and this honor is well-deserved.” Brown’s research focuses on how race, technology, language, and culture impact science teaching in urban schools, and examines how science education has underserved minority students by failing to design instruction that keeps cultural factors in mind. Since 2013 he has run a weeklong science camp at Stanford for fifth- and sixth-graders from inner-city schools, offering students a hands-on introduction to biology, physics, chemistry, and engineering. His 2020 book, Science in the City, was named 2021 Book of the Year by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. He received an award from the Journal of Research in Science Teaching in 2009 for his project on disaggregating science instruction, the idea that science teaching and learning can be separated into conceptual and language instruction components. In 2007 he won an award from the National Association for Research in Science Education for outstanding early career scholarship, and was named a National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation Fellow in 2005. Brown, who also led the Equity in Learning initiative task force for the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, earned his bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from Hampton University, and his master’s degree and doctorate in educational psychology from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Brown is the second person to hold the Kamalachari Professorship, which was originally established in December 2007 as the California Science Education Professorship. The endowment was created for a scholar who would play a major role in developing the university’s work in science education as part of the initiative on improving K-12 education in the Stanford Challenge. The previous chair holder was Jonathan Osborne, professor emeritus of science education. This story was originally published by Stanford Graduate School of Education.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_197
The release this fall of ChatGPT – a new natural language processor that can write essays, spit out a Haiku, and even produce computer code – has prompted more questions about what this means for the future of society than even it can answer, despite efforts to make it try. Faculty from the Stanford Accelerator for Learning are thinking about the ways in which ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence will change and contribute to education in particular. Here are some of their initial thoughts. Innovating with education rather than just for education “Too often, we treat new technology innovations as the product of a lone genius coder that has not set foot in a classroom since they were themselves a student. If we want generative AI to meaningfully improve education, there are the obvious steps we need to take by listening to educators, parents, and students and using what we learn to find the most pertinent and valuable use cases for generative AI in education. We need to also provide comfortable on-ramps so that someone who doesn’t already know what a ‘large language model’ is can know enough to make informed choices and avoid magical thinking about what generative AI will do – for good or ill – in schools.” – Victor Lee, associate professor of education What’s next for high school essays and writing? “Teachers are talking about ChatGPT as either a dangerous medicine with amazing side effects or an amazing medicine with dangerous side effects. When it comes to teaching writing, I'm in the latter camp. “First, ChatGPT may help students use writing as a tool for thinking in ways that students currently do not. Many students are not yet fluent enough writers to use the process of writing as a way to discover and clarify their ideas. ChatGPT may address that problem by allowing students to read, reflect, and revise many times without the anguish or frustration that such processes often invoke. “Second, teachers can use the tool as a way of generating many examples and nonexamples of a form or genre. Often, teachers have the resources and bandwidth to find or create one or two models of a particular kind of writing — say, a personal narrative about a family relationship. As a result, students may come to believe that there is only one way to write such a narrative. ChatGPT allows teachers to offer students many examples of a narrative about family where the basic content remains the same but style, syntax, or grammar differ. With many examples to compare and analyze, students can begin to see the relationship between form and content. They can develop criteria for what makes a strong piece of writing, or how one verb might affect readers differently than another. For teachers, designing instruction has just become much easier – ChatGPT is essentially a tool for creating contrasting cases, and most teachers will be delighted that ChatGPT is doing a lot of the legwork for them. “Obviously, teachers are less delighted about the computer doing a lot of legwork for students. And students still need to learn to write. But in what way, and what kinds of writing? A third side effect of this new medicine is that it requires all of us to ask those questions and probably make some substantive changes to the overarching goals and methods of our instruction. “I couldn't figure out a good last line for this that wasn't tacky, like ‘just what the doctor ordered,’ so I asked ChatGPT to come up with a final sentence that used the metaphor of medicine and side effects but didn't use those actual words. It came up with: As with any new treatment, the use of ChatGPT in teaching writing requires careful consideration of its potential effects on students and the overall goals of education. While it may offer promising solutions to certain challenges, it is important to be mindful of any unintended consequences and to approach its implementation with caution. I didn't love most of the sentence – too generic (that’s the way ChatGPT writes) – but I liked the word treatment. So I will end this by saying: As with any new treatment, we will have to experiment and proceed carefully. But there is a lot to be optimistic about.” – Sarah Levine, assistant professor of education What will it mean for college admissions? “There is some consternation in the admissions space about these technologies, and with obvious good reason. In one recent Twitter thread, someone posted an AI-generated essay and the results of an informal study showing that over half of admissions officers identified it as not being computer-generated. With SAT/ACT test score usage waning in many admissions sectors, the narrative portions of college applications may receive additional emphasis in evaluation of merit and deservingness. This was our worry when we found the content of admission essays to be more strongly correlated with income than are SAT scores. “AI complicates this space immensely, though in what direction policy-wise, it’s hard to say. My best guess is that access to the technology will make its use in admission essays more prevalent among lower-socioeconomic status households. Why? Because wealthier folks, as they’ve shown in the past, are quite savvy and will know that (1) places like ETS [Educational Testing Service, which develops standardized tests for K-12 and higher education] are already working on algorithms to accurately detect AI-written essays; and (2) anything available to the masses is something to not only avoid but to counter with a more exclusive strategy. That might look like writing non-standard essays — poetry or a mini-screenplay, for example — or something else. The drive for maintaining social distinction and its attendant privilege is quite strong. And there certainly will be a for-profit cottage industry rising up to meet the demand to help richer families in their quest. Things are moving fast, though, and perhaps at such a speed that technology’s potential democratic effects do surface in this space.” — Anthony Lising Antonio, associate professor of education Centering the intersection of language, culture, and cognition “The innovation centers the capacity to replicate and, in some cases, enhance how human intelligence emerges in dialogue. On its merit, this advancement has the potential to improve how software supports students’ learning through rich, computer-generated dialogue. This is an incredibly important technological advancement that must understand the cognitive and cultural benefits of dialogue as an educational tool. To replicate dialogue without an understanding of the cultural and cognitive benefits of dialogue runs the risk of centering a singular cultural lens: that of the designer. “Dialogue serves many purposes. Social science research indicates that dialogue represents cultural membership, gender identification, and group membership broadly. Said differently, how something is said sends multiple messages. On one level all dialogic communications send a message of content. The message shares an idea. On another level a message sends a message of belonging and identity. How the message is communicated sends a cue of who the message is for and who the speaker is. This subtle intersection of language cues and language identities embeds a message in every dialogical exchange. So, artificial intelligence must embed the power of cultural cues in its communicative pathways. They are already there. How something is said sends a message of who the speaker expects to be. “From my cognitive perspective, dialogue serves as both an assessment tool and a tool for developing mastery. It is vital that the AI developers create opportunities for students to explain their way toward expertise, to use artificial intelligence for feedback and corrective support, while explicitly ensuring all students are able to receive cues of cultural belonging. In thinking this way, all kids may benefit from AI technologies if developers do the important work of centering the intersection of language, culture, and cognition.” — Bryan A. Brown, professor of education What about opportunities for kids with disabilities? “In the disability space, I've been having conversations about (a) how we could use AI to code videos of teachers and other instructors to coach on instructional practices that have been demonstrated to be useful for kids (i.e., providing opportunities to respond; corrective feedback); and (b) ways AI could possibly help us develop smarter tutoring that is responsive to students’ needs. There seem to be a lot of opportunities.” – Chris Lemons, associate professor of education What students need to know now “We have a glimpse of new things that are going to be built with generative AI. What do we need students to know and understand about how these are built, how they work, and the costs and benefits (financial, ethical, environmental, social) of different technologies for different visions of what education is supposed to do? As a first step, we need to seriously examine how generative AI is changing how different fields and disciplines do their work and what ideas students need to develop to both build and use AI for humans rather than in place of humans.” – Victor Lee, associate professor of education	common_crawl_stanford.edu_198
When students who are now in kindergarten enter high school, what will their classroom look like? That was a question Stanford Graduate School of Education Dean Dan Schwartz asked Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent Alberto Carvalho during a fireside chat at the the first Stanford Accelerate Edtech Impact summit on Nov. 8. Carvalho generated a knowing laugh from the audience with his reply: “Who knows?” The Accelerate Edtech Impact summit, hosted by the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, of which Schwartz is the faculty director, brought together researchers, educators, edtech entrepreneurs, funders, and Stanford students to work toward a future of learning supported by technology that is effective, equitable, and responsive. Closing the event with insights from the superintendent of the second largest school district in the United States was intentional. During the pandemic, U.S. schools received $190 billion from Congress and spent millions on edtech solutions, many of which were not evidence-based and fell short in supporting student learning. Fostering connections between “unusual suspects,” and bringing in the expertise of researchers and educators to build a better future of edtech, was an explicit goal of the invitation-only event, which drew nearly 400 participants from across the country and beyond. The event featured panels, breakout sessions on a diverse range of topics, and the closing fireside chat. Getting this particular set of stakeholders in the same room is rare, and as Carvalho hinted, most of the conversations brought up more questions than answers. However, asking the right questions is often the first step to systemic change. Following are some of the key questions that emerged from the summit, and explorations of how stakeholders across sectors are approaching them. How is artificial intelligence changing edtech? The broad availability of generative AI technology over the past year has fundamentally shifted the types of tools that can be developed and the conversations in edtech circles. Julia Stiglitz, co-founder and CEO of AI-supported upskilling platform Uplimit, predicted, “Right now, we are an ‘AI and education company,’ but a year from now we’ll just be an ‘education company.’ Every company is going to have AI baked into it.” Researchers, educators, and entrepreneurs alike noted possible uses for AI tools that complement or enhance effective teaching practices. “We know what works in learning on average, but to really make principled instructional differentiation decisions, that’s where the power of AI can support,” said Candace Thille, faculty director for the Adult & Workforce Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “It can help us get to the true personalization question: For this learner, trying to learn this thing, in this context, what is the best thing for this learner to do?” Victor Lee, faculty lead for AI + Education at the Accelerator, sees AI as a way to support teachers: “How can we make AI tools that make teachers' lives better? How can we make it so that they can get back to teaching again, what brought them into the profession? Not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are capable of doing.” He called for the development of AI tools in little-explored areas: supporting learners with disabilities and multilingual learners, and innovations to subjects like art, geography, and physical education. Participants were largely in agreement that AI will never replace the human connection, community, and educator-student relationships that are crucial to learning. Valora Richardson, director of digital solutions and innovation at UNCF (United Negro College Fund), works with HBCUs to keep faculty, administrators, and students involved at every stage as AI tools are developed. “Human connection is the secret sauce of HBCUs’ success,” she said. “They have a unique culture that empowers the students after they graduate, and we need to stay attentive to those voices. AI can’t replace that.” How might edtech exacerbate or mitigate inequities in education? Recent years have seen a sea change in the edtech sector, with technology becoming increasingly accessible through widespread adoption of smartphones and government support for internet access. However, there are still many cases in which new education technologies, particularly those backed by evidence, are more widely available to privileged students. Jennifer Carolan, co-founder and partner at edtech investment firm Reach Capital, noted that the “digital divide” has shifted; while previously, many low-income students lacked devices or connectivity, teacher shortages have resulted in schools with fewer resources often relying on virtual teachers. “The premium learning experience is now the human touch,” she said. In a session entitled “Reaching the most underserved learners globally,” researchers and entrepreneurs alike noted the importance of collaborating with local communities when developing edtech tools in contexts where resources are scarce. Every researcher and founder on the panel cited local partnerships with governmental and non-governmental organizations to embed their work, and called for a change in the “top-down” approach researchers and companies often use. Amin Marei, senior director of Impact and Efficacy at Sesame Workshop, highlighted agency, transparency, and accountability as key tenets of his organization’s work in refugee camps. Joe Wolf, co-founder and co-CEO of Imagine Worldwide, builds learning tools for literacy and numeracy in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Many of the schools have unreliable electricity, let alone internet access, so his team crafts products that can work offline or using solar energy, and constantly iterates on them with feedback from teachers and learners. How could the research community, edtech, and schools work together differently? Increasingly, learners, parents, and districts are asking edtech companies: is your solution designed based on learning science, and is there evidence that it works? The necessity for edtech to be research-backed is a seismic shift for the sector, and has driven collaboration with researchers. Carolan said that Reach Capital encourages entrepreneurs to hire education experts, including teachers and researchers, for their founding teams. Matt Wayne, superintendent of San Francisco Unified School District, took it a step further. “I appreciate the comments about having educators at the table – but also, where is the table going to be located? Educators have so much on their plates right now, but we are also trying to build the structures for learning.” There were several examples of successful collaborations represented at the conference, including the relationship between Goodnotes and GSE Professor Guillermo Solano-Flores, faculty affiliate at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Goodnotes, a digital note-taking app with 24 million monthly users, sponsors research that then informs their product development. With Solano-Flores’ input, the app is expanding from note-taking to teaching and assessment. “We are guided by his research, and teachers and students will be better served because of it,” said Minh Ngan Tran, vice president of operations and academic affairs at Goodnotes, who flew from Hong Kong to California for just six hours to speak at the conference. “Ultimately, we are going to have a better product.” How can Stanford students build careers with impact in edtech? Stanford students from the GSE, the School of Engineering, the Graduate School of Business, and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies attended the conference, underscoring the interdisciplinary nature of the edtech sector. Two breakout sessions were designed specifically for students: “Education entrepreneurship 101: What I wish I’d known when starting,” and “How to build a successful career in edtech.” The latter included a panel of edtech leaders sharing a transferable skill they developed early in their careers that enabled their success. Beth Schmidt, founder and CEO of Uppercase, cited teaching as helping her gain the skills to listen, understand others’ needs, analyze data, and adapt based on these inputs. For Dylan Arena ‘01, PhD ‘12, vice president of learning and data science at McGraw Hill, doing an interdisciplinary major in symbolic systems when he was an undergraduate at Stanford meant he was constantly in rooms with people with more content knowledge than him; picking up key information quickly and finding connections with other disciplines was crucial to his future success. Meanwhile, Alex Bernadotte, MA ‘07, founder and CEO of Beyond 12, encouraged students to “be married to a problem, not a solution,” and to continuously iterate with input from users in order for the product to have a lasting, deep impact on the field of education. Looking to the future, together As at the notable edtech conference ASU+GSV, the panels were just one part of the event experience; participants networked throughout, posted on social media with takeaways and insights they’d gained, and joined small group dinners off campus at the end of the day. The convening brought to life the Accelerator’s approach: building upon the science of learning across disciplines, exploring the big questions that emerge from the influx of data and technology, facilitating the exchange of ideas between siloed stakeholders, and developing partnerships as a mechanism to get research-backed solutions to learners. After jokingly responding "Who knows?" to Schwartz's question about the future, Carvalho shared his vision for the future of learning at LAUSD. “Every student should have an individualized plan, not just students with disabilities,” he declared. Under his leadership, LAUSD is developing the “Individualized Acceleration Plan,” a tech platform and app that supports students through personalized and gamified learning, shares progress updates with parents and teachers, and helps leaders make informed decisions. He envisions a future of schooling that is personalized, data-driven, and not bound by time and space. “I think the ‘classroom’ will be more of an environment, or an ecosystem.” Babak Mostaghimi, assistant superintendent of Gwinnett County Public Schools in Georgia – the twelfth-largest district in the United States and the seventh-most diverse county in the country – also framed the day in terms of what the future might look like for learners in his district, with the help of research and edtech. Knowing Latin used to be the signifier of an educated citizen, Mostaghimi said, questioning the usefulness of that knowledge. “We need to make sure that edtech isn't solving yesterday’s problem – the things that don’t really matter as much anymore,” he said. “The core part of education should be getting the key pieces of content knowledge that allow you to solve problems that matter for you and your community. What I’m hopeful for is that when we think about the future, for every kid, we ask, ‘What do they need in order to be extremely successful in the life that they are going for?’ ” Learn more about the Accelerate Edtech Impact convening and view event video here. Photo credit to Ryan Zhang.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_199
State legislators from across the country gathered at Stanford in December to take part in The Hunt Institute’s Early Childhood Policy Academy, a program designed to highlight for policymakers the importance of the earliest years as a public investment. This is the second time the Stanford Center on Early Childhood co-hosted the three-day event in collaboration with The Hunt Institute and the Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation. This cohort of policymakers started out their time in the academy engaging in online modules, discussion boards and virtual sessions, building their understanding of the science and policy of early learning and development. They arrived at Stanford ready to hear from national resource experts about policy solutions to support families with young children and the early childhood workforce in their regions. Philip Fisher, director of the Stanford Center on Early Childhood, opened the academy by thanking participants for their commitment to improving the lives of young children and families. He said research and policy go hand in hand, and being able to share knowledge is crucial to moving both research and policy forward. “[It’s] really part of the critical work that’s necessary in order to have the kind of cross communication and information flow so that we can assist with the work that you’re doing,” Fisher said. "There is a need to make strong investments in the early, formative years of a child's education and raise expectations of early education programs," said Javaid Siddiqi, president and CEO of The Hunt Institute. “The Institute is committed to equipping leaders to make more informed decisions about education, including in the crucial area of early learning." Attendees had a chance to listen to experts about solutions to many of the problems lawmakers face when working with early childhood policy. Hawaii’s Lt. Gov. Sylvia Luke spoke with participants about her push in the state for universal access to preschool, called Ready Keiki. “Private preschools will always find a way to go into areas that parents can pay, but they’re not going to go into areas that you don’t have enough parents to pay and make their business model sustainable,” she told participants. “So the commitment is to build out public preschools where private preschools [can’t go].” “I know one of the things that all of us understand, is if we can make just small little dents in a child's life,” she said, “it will pay dividends for many of these families.” Experts also spoke about the early childhood workforce, a group that faces low wages, burnout, and poor working conditions. “I've found that programs that have been the most successful with staffing have focused their efforts on retention,” said Alissa Mwenelupembe, managing director of Early Learning at the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). “When I was a [child care program] director, my teachers were paid on par with kindergarten teachers in our community,” she said. But salary isn’t everything, she added. “What we saw happening when our community moved to a state/public pre-k option, [is that] many teachers decided to leave the early learning programs and go into that public system that paid better, they got their summers off, [and] they had other benefits.” Mwenelupembe said that when organizations grant access to benefits, including professional development opportunities, support for continuing education, and a supportive work environment, “teachers stay.” A highlight of the Academy for policymakers was visiting All Five, an early education program in Menlo Park, California. Participants received a guided tour of the center to underscore some of the biggest takeaways of the Academy: the importance of creating a sustainable early childhood workforce, and giving all families, regardless of income, access to a high quality early education program. In order to remain accessible and keep their doors open, a quarter of families at All Five pay full tuition for their children. The rest of the children come from low-income families who pay little to no tuition. The revenue gap is closed with philanthropic funding. All Five has also trained and hired mothers from the community of East Palo Alto to become early education teachers, investing back in the community. Carol Thomsen, founder and executive director of All Five, asked legislators to understand that early childhood education is an investment that will be repaid in later years, by making sure children have the skills necessary to navigate adolescence and adulthood. “Early childhood education is the ultimate unworkable equation,” Thomsen said. “Somebody has to pay, right? It's either the teachers with low wages, the parents, by having to pay tuition, or the state, or a philanthropist.” “But because brains grow more during our first five years than at any other time,” she said, “we're shaping the future of our world, each and every day in these first five years.” This story was originally published by the Stanford Center on Early Childhood.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_200
“My ‘why’ is kids,” said Santrice Jones, director of early childhood initiatives in Harris County, Texas, the third most populous county in the United States, speaking on a panel at Stanford. “At the end of the day, is what we’re doing best for kids? That's what I've been asking since my first day walking into a classroom, and if the answer is no, then maybe we need to reevaluate what we're doing here.” For five years, the RAPID Survey Project has been helping decision makers like Jones learn what young children and their families need in real time. The Stanford program provides timely and actionable insights for policies and programs that affect our youngest community members. Founded on April 5, 2020, RAPID was initially an acronym for “Rapid Assessment of Pandemic Impacts on Development.” It was conceived in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and the first surveys were designed, funded, and sent out in just three weeks to over 1,000 families from around the U.S. “The last pandemic was in 1918,” said RAPID founder Philip Fisher, faculty director of the Stanford Center on Early Childhood, an initiative of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “There were few people alive who lived through that. We knew that if we could create a sort of living chronicle with high-quality data of what people across the U.S. were living through, who had young kids in their lives, that it would help people trying to develop supports.” Now celebrating its fifth anniversary, RAPID has chronicled the well-being and needs of families and child care providers on a monthly basis. It has sent out 169 family surveys, gathering data from 60,000 parents of young children, and 122 workforce surveys, completed by over 13,000 child care providers. These national surveys, available in English and Spanish, have garnered responses from all 50 states. To report survey findings back to the community and to policymakers, the RAPID team has summarized the data in 90 fact sheets. In honor of its birthday, RAPID brought together over 100 people who have been involved in the survey work for a celebration and strategy meeting on the Stanford campus. As a nod to the children they serve, conference goers' tables included coloring pages and colored pencils – providing an outlet for creativity and even promoting mindfulness. During the day, participants heard from parent advocates, child care center owners, county and state policymakers, funders, researchers, and leaders of community-based organizations. Nearly everyone in the room had contributed to the survey’s design or dissemination, used its data, or both. The RAPID survey is one-of-a-kind when it comes to university research. Its speed and frequency, its collaborative approach to survey design and participant recruitment, and its focus on real-time dissemination of results beyond traditional peer-reviewed publications set it apart. Each survey contains five multiple-choice questions regarding well-being, open-ended questions (which have gathered 468,000 written responses frequently quoted in fact sheets), and “add-on” questions around thematic areas such as the impact of digital technology and extreme weather. Recruited through partnerships with national, state, and local organizations who have established trust with families, the participants fill out the survey through a link which can be completed on a smartphone or tablet. They receive $5 compensation each time they participate. The data are then shared in a monthly fact sheet, available to policymakers, researchers, and the survey participants themselves. The RAPID team posts the findings on their website, newsletter, and social media channels. “In academia, we historically have relied largely on scientific journals to get information out there,” said Fisher, who is the Diana Chen Professor of Early Childhood Learning at Stanford Graduate School of Education. “But the scientific community was not our top priority in disseminating results from RAPID. We needed to get the information out there quickly.” Rather than formal peer review, the fact sheets are vetted for accuracy by a research advisory group. “I think that the question of how to do something that's as scientifically rigorous as possible, but doesn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, is a really important goal that we continuously straddle,” said Fisher. Still, RAPID data has led to at least 11 peer-reviewed articles. It has also informed local and national media coverage in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, PBS, Newsweek, Forbes, USA Today, and more. Becoming visible: Parents and child care workers Parents and early childhood workers alike have found RAPID surveys to be a meaningful way to share their perspectives and needs with decision makers. “After the survey, our voices get heard,” said Isabel Blair, owner and director of Mi Casa Es Su Casa Bilingual Family Child Care, a community-based child care center in Byron, Michigan. “We were invisible and we became visible…it's like everybody in our society realized that we are the bone marrow for our communities. We realized how important the early childhood programs and educators are.” Anthony Queen, a parent leader in Kent County, Michigan, emphasized that in order to spend precious time and energy filling out a survey, parents want to see impact. “As we reach out to these families, I try to make sure that they trust me, and they know I'm not gonna put them in a situation where I wouldn’t put myself,” said Queen. “They're willing to speak, but they want to know that their voice is being heard. They care about, are you going to listen to what we're saying? They figure, if I do this survey, am I going to see the results of this survey? Am I going to read it back?” Listening to key community leaders such as Queen and Blair, who provide input on the survey design from the perspective of its end user and vouch for the survey to prospective participants, has been key to RAPID’s success. So, too, has been keeping the promise of sharing the results back to survey participants. “In every way, this is a story about partnerships, and partnerships with organizations that families trust,” said Fisher. “They are the glue that holds everything together.” Promoting proximity: Data for policy making “RAPID is absolutely the best political tool I've ever had in my back pocket,” said Sarah Simpson, the child and families program supervisor in Whatcom County, Washington. “I think it is the most powerful thing in the world. I've been doing this work for almost 20 years, and I've never felt so strong going to speak to elected officials to advocate for things that I'm pushing through ever before, because I can preemptively speak on the behalf of parents, because of the quotes, because of the data.” Simpson emphasized that the timeliness of the survey results is key to their value. “RAPID is absolutely the best political tool I've ever had in my back pocket." - Sarah Simpson, child and families program supervisor, Whatcom County, Washington RAPID data is frequently cited by policymakers when advocating for support for families. In the early days of the pandemic, then-Governor of Oregon Kate Brown told Fisher that she had allocated additional funding to childcare providers to cover their basic needs based on RAPID’s findings of economic hardship. Over the years, RAPID data have been requested by the White House and RAPID team members have briefed the staff of the Senate Finance Committee. “RAPID operates to close the gaps between those of us who look at data to translate it into policy and programs, those of us who tell the story, and those of us who live the story,” said Ralph Smith, founding managing director of the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading. “RAPID promotes proximity by getting all of us much closer to the perspective of those who are closest to the challenge.” The next five years With the pandemic now in the rearview mirror, RAPID has expanded beyond national surveys to local and state surveys, often conducted in collaboration with community organizations or governments, providing even more targeted information to decision makers. International surveys are next: the first RAPID survey outside the U.S. will be conducted in Monterrey, Mexico in the coming months. With many federal early childhood programs facing funding challenges, actionable and real-time data can help lawmakers, particularly those at the community and state level, direct funding where it's needed most. “The messages of hope that I've been hearing today are really important, for my own personal morale and that of my organization focusing on early education,” said Rosa Valdes, director of evaluation, accountability, and impact at the Los Angeles Education Partnership, which collaborates with RAPID, as she reflected on her experience at the anniversary gathering. “It’s really critical to think about the long term impacts of the work that we're doing now. Hopefully in five years, we'll have stories about how the advocacy that has come from the messaging from the RAPID findings has resulted in some upward movement in terms of funding and positive policy changes.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_201
What do teachers want from AI? How can AI make the lives of students and teachers better? What new tools actually work? AI scholars, educators, school administrators, and startup founders grappled with these questions at the second AI+Education Summit, hosted by Stanford HAI and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning on Feb. 1. The event highlighted the latest advances in AI technologies for students and teachers, offered insights on the future of teaching strategies and student assessment, and surfaced ethical and safety issues. “We think education is one of the key areas where AI is going to make an impact on the world,” said HAI Vice Director James Landay to a standing-room-only crowd. “The changes that AI and foundation models are bringing to education is almost going to force educational reform.” “We knew AI was coming,” added Daniel Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “We didn’t know it would come this fast and this big. This could completely disrupt education – check your assumptions of what you should learn and how you should think.” The day included panel discussions, keynotes, lightning round conversations, and a poster session featuring new research. Here we pulled together insights from speakers on what issues teachers currently face and exciting new research that could make a difference. Improving AI Literacy Many teachers are understandably skeptical about AI and its effects on student learning, said Amanda Bickerstaff, co-founder and CEO of AI for Education and a former high school teacher. She suggested starting with comprehensive AI literacy training. Teachers and school leaders need to know what AI is, its capabilities and limitations. “That’s No. 1,” she said. “They don’t need to be AI experts. Teachers should be expert at teaching, and they should be augmented by technology to help them teach better.” Tools That Solve Real Problems What could help free teachers’ time for more learning and less paperwork? “We don’t need a thousand tools,” Bickerstaff said. “We need ones that are really helpful.” Candace Thille, associate professor (teaching) at Stanford GSE and faculty director of the Adult and Workforce Learning initiative of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, identified several paths for AI assistance: grading, lesson planning, creating new and interesting questions and problems. Once teachers identify a real need, developers must solve that problem with the work processes and tools already in use, incorporating teacher input along the way. “That’s the only way to do it. You can’t add one more thing onto a teacher’s role,” she said. One toolkit now available to teachers is CRAFT, which offers AI literacy resources for high school teachers in any subject, said Victor Lee, associate professor at Stanford GSE and faculty lead for AI + Education at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “Our goal was to be highly responsive to teachers. We co-designed with teachers to build the resources that are going to help them address AI in their disciplines.” Safe and Smart Rollout Teachers and school systems want guidance on responsible use and more help on which tools are safe and reliable for students. As panelists pointed out, U.S. senators just this week took social media executives to task for algorithms that harm young people’s mental health. How can we learn lessons from social media to prevent similar harm to students using AI tools? Pat Yongpradit, the chief academic officer of Code.org, says his organization has developed AI guidance toolkits that cover both AI in instruction and in policy. Keith R. Krueger, CEO of the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), said his association developed a “readiness” assessment for school districts to determine how prepared they are to roll out AI, covering operations, data, security, legal risk, and more. “There’s a lot of confusion about where to get started,” he said. Efficiency at What Cost? While many AI education tools target efficiency, some panelists challenged that goal. “If efficiency means teachers will now have to serve 150 students instead of 30, do they want that?” asked Dora Demszky, assistant professor of education at Stanford GSE. “Efficiency doesn’t always mean it’s going to lead to better life and work conditions.” Additionally, she noted, certain aspects of teaching should never be optimized for speed. “Being able to learn new skills efficiently is super important, but you can’t think about relationship building, for example, as a function of efficiency.” Added Ge Wang, associate professor of music in the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, we should critically evaluate our desires in the first place and the means to achieve them. “What are we doing with AI, what should we be doing with AI?” he asked the audience. Latest Stanford Research The summit included new research from leading Stanford AI and education scholars. Emma Brunskill, associate professor of computer science in the Stanford School of Engineering, explores how reinforcement learning improves AI tutors and assistants. In one project, a chatbot “monster” helps students master math problems and proved particularly useful for struggling students. Another project – a learning game called DreamGrader – offers dense feedback on what parts of the game students struggled with. Brunskill said DreamGrader reduced grading time by 44% and improved accuracy by 6%. Demszky’s work includes Tutor CoPilot, which helps novice tutors effectively remediate student math mistakes in real time; StaffGen, which assists teachers in individualizing lesson plans for students with different needs; and Teach M-Powered, which encourages teachers to use more growth-mindset language in feedback to students (read more about these projects). Demszky involves teachers in the process of developing all her tools, and to ensure that new models are accurate and effective for marginalized learners, rolls out projects in a variety of school settings including Title 1 schools. While saving teachers’ time is laudable, Demszky questioned whether we could build more revolutionary tools: “Can AI someday give students agency, motivate them, ensure they feel like they belong in the classroom, improve how they learn?” Judith Fan, assistant professor of psychology in the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, offered a note of caution. Her lab, working to improve STEM education through AI, recently explored learning data visualization skills to find that humans still greatly outperform models: “I’m really excited for the next generation of AI teaching assistants and tutors, and I think they can have an enormous transformative impact on education. But we really need rigorous and thorough testing in place to ensure robustness, reliability, and responsible innovation.”	common_crawl_stanford.edu_202
The launch of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots has triggered an alarm for many educators, who worry about students using the technology to cheat by passing its writing off as their own. But two Stanford Accelerator for Learning faculty affiliates say that concern is misdirected, based on their Accelerator-funded ongoing research into cheating among U.S. high school students before and after the release of ChatGPT. “There’s been a ton of media coverage about AI making it easier and more likely for students to cheat,” said Denise Pope, a senior lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE). “But we haven’t seen that bear out in our data so far. And we know from our research that when students do cheat, it’s typically for reasons that have very little to do with their access to technology.” Pope is a co-founder of Challenge Success, a school reform nonprofit affiliated with the GSE, which conducts research into the student experience, including students’ well-being and sense of belonging, academic integrity, and their engagement with learning. She is the author of Doing School: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed-Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students, and coauthor of Overloaded and Underprepared: Strategies for Stronger Schools and Healthy, Successful Kids. Victor Lee is an associate professor at the GSE whose focus includes researching and designing learning experiences for K-12 data science education and AI literacy. He is the faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning and director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), a program that provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students. Here, Lee and Pope discuss the state of cheating in U.S. schools, what research shows about why students cheat, and their recommendations for educators working to address the problem. What do we know about how much students cheat? Pope: We know that cheating rates have been high for a long time. At Challenge Success we’ve been running surveys and focus groups at schools for over 15 years, asking students about different aspects of their lives — the amount of sleep they get, homework pressure, extracurricular activities, family expectations, things like that — and also several questions about different forms of cheating. For years, long before ChatGPT hit the scene, some 60 to 70 percent of students have reported engaging in at least one “cheating” behavior during the previous month. That percentage has stayed about the same or even decreased slightly in our 2023 surveys, when we added questions specific to new AI technologies, like ChatGPT, and how students are using it for school assignments. Isn’t it possible that they’re lying about cheating? Pope: Because these surveys are anonymous, students are surprisingly honest — especially when they know we’re doing these surveys to help improve their school experience. We often follow up our surveys with focus groups where the students tell us that those numbers seem accurate. If anything, they’re underreporting the frequency of these behaviors. Lee: The surveys are also carefully written so they don’t ask, point-blank, “Do you cheat?” They ask about specific actions that are classified as cheating, like whether they have copied material word for word for an assignment in the past month or knowingly looked at someone else’s answer during a test. With AI, most of the fear is that the chatbot will write the paper for the student. But there isn’t evidence of an increase in that. So AI isn’t changing how often students cheat — just the tools that they’re using? Lee: The most prudent thing to say right now is that the data suggest, perhaps to the surprise of many people, that AI is not increasing the frequency of cheating. This may change as students become increasingly familiar with the technology, and we’ll continue to study it and see if and how this changes. But I think it’s important to point out that, in Challenge Success’ most recent survey, students were also asked if and how they felt an AI chatbot like ChatGPT should be allowed for school-related tasks. Many said they thought it should be acceptable for “starter” purposes, like explaining a new concept or generating ideas for a paper. But the vast majority said that using a chatbot to write an entire paper should never be allowed. So this idea that students who’ve never cheated before are going to suddenly run amok and have AI write all of their papers appears unfounded. But clearly a lot of students are cheating in the first place. Isn’t that a problem? Pope: There are so many reasons why students cheat. They might be struggling with the material and unable to get the help they need. Maybe they have too much homework and not enough time to do it. Or maybe assignments feel like pointless busywork. Many students tell us they’re overwhelmed by the pressure to achieve — they know cheating is wrong, but they don’t want to let their family down by bringing home a low grade. We know from our research that cheating is generally a symptom of a deeper, systemic problem. When students feel respected and valued, they’re more likely to engage in learning and act with integrity. They’re less likely to cheat when they feel a sense of belonging and connection at school, and when they find purpose and meaning in their classes. Strategies to help students feel more engaged and valued are likely to be more effective than taking a hard line on AI, especially since we know AI is here to stay and can actually be a great tool to promote deeper engagement with learning. What would you suggest to school leaders who are concerned about students using AI chatbots? Pope: Even before ChatGPT, we could never be sure whether kids were getting help from a parent or tutor or another source on their assignments, and this was not considered cheating. Kids in our focus groups are wondering why they can't use ChatGPT as another resource to help them write their papers — not to write the whole thing word for word, but to get the kind of help a parent or tutor would offer. We need to help students and educators find ways to discuss the ethics of using this technology and when it is and isn't useful for student learning. Lee: There’s a lot of fear about students using this technology. Schools have considered putting significant amounts of money in AI-detection software, which studies show can be highly unreliable. Some districts have tried blocking AI chatbots from school wifi and devices, then repealed those bans because they were ineffective. AI is not going away. Along with addressing the deeper reasons why students cheat, we need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology. For starters, at Stanford we’ve begun developing free resources to help teachers bring these topics into the classroom as it relates to different subject areas. We know that teachers don’t have time to introduce a whole new class, but we have been working with teachers to make sure these are activities and lessons that can fit with what they’re already covering in the time they have available. I think of AI literacy as being akin to driver’s ed: We’ve got a powerful tool that can be a great asset, but it can also be dangerous. We want students to learn how to use it responsibly. Learn more about the AI + Education program. This story was originally published by Stanford Graduate School of Education.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_203
Criminal Justice Overview Societies do not have to choose between high levels of incarceration and high crime rates. Crime and incarceration can be reduced simultaneously by adopting better addiction-focused policies. SNAP’s criminal justice initiative disseminates effective policies based on scientific findings about how people make decisions to consume addictive drugs, how those drugs change behavior in the short and long terms, and how addicted criminal offenders respond to different correctional programs. Scope of the Problem: Most of the 2.2 million Americans incarcerated in jails or prisons meet medical criteria for an alcohol and/or other drug use disorder. Over a million Americans a year are arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs. Between one-quarter to one-third of people who commit property and violent crime under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs at the time. Challenges in Policy and Practice: Learning to change addictive behavior is difficult. Change is most likely to occur when a person receives consistent, prompt responses to their behavior. The criminal justice system, however, is usually inconsistent and slow. Addiction lessens self-control, shortens time perspective, and alters how people make decisions. Punishments far off in time (e.g., increasing a mandatory minimum sentence from 5 to 10 years) rarely motivate them. Parole and probation are often implemented with insufficient support for and monitoring of addicted individuals. Addiction persists in the brain beyond a period of forced abstinence during incarceration. Leaving a correctional facility with an untreated, unmonitored addiction increases the risk of recidivism and of overdose.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_204
Opioid Epidemic Overview The opioid addiction and overdose epidemic has claimed more American lives in the 21st century than did World Wars I and II combined. In addition to this terrible loss of life, millions of Americans are addicted to opioids, damaging their health, their families, and their communities. SNAP’s opioid epidemic initiative is disseminating evidence-informed policies that promote safer opioid prescribing, better health care, and stronger recovery support for addicted individuals. Background on the Opioid Epidemic Scope of the Problem: Beginning in the late 1990s, aggressive promotion by opioid manufacturers caused U.S. prescribing to nearly quadruple, addicting millions of Americans. The only other nation to increase opioid prescribing this much is Canada, which is also experiencing an epidemic of opioid addiction and overdose. More recently, a class of extremely potent, synthetic opioids known as fentanyls have infiltrated the illicit opioid supply (e.g., heroin) in multiple regions of the U.S. and Canada, accelerating opioid-related deaths even further. Fentanyls are also increasingly present in non-opioid drugs (e.g., cocaine). The U.S. has reduced opioid prescribing over the past decade, but still has a higher per capita rate than any other nation. Licit and illicit opioids cause nearly 200 fatal overdoses in the U.S. per day. The epidemic of opioid addiction and overdose has damaged public health in the U.S. more than the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and is estimated to cost the nation $500 billion per year. Challenges in Policy and Practice: Blanket anti-opioid policies deprive patients who need opioids of their medication, causing further suffering. Incarcerating opioid addicted individuals causes them to lose tolerance for the drug, making their normal dose potentially fatal upon their release from jail or prison. The most effective medications for treatment of opioid addiction and for rescue during overdose are not universally available. Non-opioid alternatives for pain are underutilized.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_205
Aerospace Design Lab Welcome to the Aerospace Design Laboratory, a computational analysis and design research laboratory in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University. The Aerospace Design Lab, directed by Prof. Juan Alonso, specializes in the development of high-fidelity, multi-disciplinary analysis and design methods to enable the creation of efficient, environmentally friendly, and realizable aerospace systems. Our work in the past has involved a large number of applications including transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic aircraft, helicopters, turbomachinery, and launch and re-entry vehicles. Current topics of research interest include multiphysics simulations of high-speed flows, uncertainty quantification in the analysis and design of complex systems, architectures for high-fidelity multi-disciplinary analysis and design, and the use of advanced mathematical techniques for large-scale high-performance computing to realize a simulation-based design vision. Research Further descriptions of ADL research areas can be found here. Web Accessibility Stanford University is committed to providing an online environment that is accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities. Having trouble accessing any of this content due to a disability? Learn more about accessibility at Stanford and report accessibility issues	common_crawl_stanford.edu_206
Numerical Methods Main content start Main content start Results for: Numerical Methods - Berkenstock, Dan, and Juan Alonso. “Analytic Solutions of Hypersonic Newtonian Flows Over Ellipses”. AIAA SciTech Forum, January 2022. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2022-1322. - Garbacz, Catarina, Fabio Morgado, Marco Fossati, Walter Maier, Brian Munguía, Juan Alonso, and Adrien Loseille. “Parametric Study of Nonequilibrium Shock Interference Patterns over a Fuselage-and-Wing Conceptual Vehicle”, AIAA Journal, September 6, 2021, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J060470. - Maier, Walter, Jacob Needels, Catarina Garbacz, Fabio Morgado, Juan Alonso, and Marco Fossati. “SU2-NEMO: An Open-Source Framework for High-Mach Nonequilibrium Multi-Species Flows”, MDPI Aerospace, 8, no. 7 (July 16, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8070193. - Garbacz, Catarina, Walter Maier, James Scoggins, Thomas Economon, Thierry Magin, Juan Alonso, and Marco Fossati. “Shock Interactions in Inviscid Air and $$\hbox {CO}_2 $$ CO 2–$$\hbox {N}_2 $$ N 2 Flows in Thermochemical Non-Equilibrium”, Shock Waves, 31, no. 3 (May 11, 2021): 239-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-021-00999-8. - Xu, Zan, Leopold Cambier, Juan Alonso, and Eric Darve. “Towards a Scalable Hierarchical High-Order CFD Solver”, AIAA SciTech 2021 Forum, January 2021. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0494. - Garbacz, Catarina, Marco Fossati, Walter Maier, Juan Alonso, James Scoggins, Thierry Magin, and Thomas Economon. “Numerical Study of Shock Interference Patterns for Gas Flows With Thermal Nonequilibrium and Finite-Rate Chemistry”, AIAA Scitech Forum, January 6, 2020, 1805. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-1805. - Mishra, Aashwin, Jayant Mukhopadhaya, Gianluca Iaccarino, and Juan Alonso. “Uncertainty Estimation Module for Turbulence Model Predictions in SU2”, AIAA Journal, 57, no. 3 (March 2019). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J057187.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_207
SU2 Main content start Main content start Results for: SU2 - Cantwell, Brian, Eylul Bilgin, and Jacob Needels. “A New Boundary Layer Integral Method Based on the Universal Velocity Profile”, Physics of Fluids, 34, no. 7 (July 22, 2022). https://doi.org//10.1063/5.0100367. - Needels, Jacob, Umran Duzel, Kyle Hanquist, and Juan Alonso. “Sensitivity Analysis of Gas-Surface Modeling in Nonequilibrium Flows”, December 29, 2021. https://arc-aiaa-org.stanford.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2022-1636. - Garbacz, Catarina, Fabio Morgado, Marco Fossati, Walter Maier, Brian Munguía, Juan Alonso, and Adrien Loseille. “Parametric Study of Nonequilibrium Shock Interference Patterns over a Fuselage-and-Wing Conceptual Vehicle”, AIAA Journal, September 6, 2021, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J060470. - Maier, Walter, Jacob Needels, Catarina Garbacz, Fabio Morgado, Juan Alonso, and Marco Fossati. “SU2-NEMO: An Open-Source Framework for High-Mach Nonequilibrium Multi-Species Flows”, MDPI Aerospace, 8, no. 7 (July 16, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8070193. - Garbacz, Catarina, Walter Maier, James Scoggins, Thomas Economon, Thierry Magin, Juan Alonso, and Marco Fossati. “Shock Interactions in Inviscid Air and $$\hbox {CO}_2 $$ CO 2–$$\hbox {N}_2 $$ N 2 Flows in Thermochemical Non-Equilibrium”, Shock Waves, 31, no. 3 (May 11, 2021): 239-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-021-00999-8. - Xu, Zan, Leopold Cambier, Juan Alonso, and Eric Darve. “Towards a Scalable Hierarchical High-Order CFD Solver”, AIAA SciTech 2021 Forum, January 2021. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0494. - Munguía, Brian, Walter Maier, Jacob Needels, and Juan Alonso. “Goal-Oriented Mesh Adaptation for Flows in Thermochemical Nonequilibrium”, 23rd AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, March 10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-2400. - Garbacz, Catarina, Marco Fossati, Walter Maier, Juan Alonso, James Scoggins, Thierry Magin, and Thomas Economon. “Numerical Study of Shock Interference Patterns for Gas Flows With Thermal Nonequilibrium and Finite-Rate Chemistry”, AIAA Scitech Forum, January 6, 2020, 1805. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-1805. - Munguía, Brian, and Juan Alonso. “One Shot Optimization With Generalized Constraints”, AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, January 5, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-0886. - Mishra, Aashwin, Jayant Mukhopadhaya, Gianluca Iaccarino, and Juan Alonso. “Uncertainty Estimation Module for Turbulence Model Predictions in SU2”, AIAA Journal, 57, no. 3 (March 2019). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J057187. - Munguía, Brian, Jayant Mukhopadhaya, and Juan Alonso. “Shock-Induced Separation Suppression Using CFD-Based Active Flow Control Optimization”, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, January 6, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-0695. - Munguía, Brian, Thomas Economon, and Juan Alonso. “A Discrete Adjoint Framework for Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft Shape Optimization”, 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, June 2, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3326. - Economon, T, F Palacios, S Copeland, T Lukaczyk, and J Alonso. “SU2: An Open-Source Suite for Multi-Physics Simulation and Design”, AIAA Journal, 54, no. 3 (December 29, 2015): 828-46. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053813.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_208
6.2.1 Computer and Network Usage Policy Formerly Known As Policy Number: 62 This policy covers the appropriate use of all information resources including computers, networks, and the information contained therein. Applicability: Applies to all University students, faculty and staff, and all others using computer and communication technologies, including the University's network, whether personally or University owned, which access, transmit or store University or student information. Policy Statement: Use of Stanford's network and computer resources should support the basic missions of the University in teaching, learning and research. Users of Stanford's network and computer resources ("users") are responsible to properly use and protect information resources and to respect the rights of others. This policy provides guidelines for the appropriate use of information resources. 1. Definitions As used in this policy: - "Information resources" are all computer and communication devices and other technologies which access, store or transmit University or student information. - "Information" includes both University and student information. - "Personally owned resources" are information resources that are under the control of University employees or agents and are not wholly owned by the University. 2. Policies a. General Policy Users of information resources must protect (i) their online identity from use by another individual, (ii) the integrity of information resources, and (iii) the privacy of electronic information. In addition, users must refrain from seeking to gain unauthorized access, honor all copyrights and licenses and respect the rights of other users of information resources. b. Access Users must refrain from seeking to gain unauthorized access to information resources or enabling unauthorized access. Attempts to gain unauthorized access to a system or to another person's information are a violation of University policy and may also violate applicable law, potentially subjecting the user to both civil and criminal liability. However, authorized system administrators may access information resources, but only for a legitimate operational purpose and only the minimum access required to accomplish this legitimate operational purpose. (1) Prohibition against Sharing Identities Sharing an online identity (user ID and password or other authenticator such as a token or certificate) violates University policy. (2) Information Belonging to Others Users must not intentionally seek or provide information on, obtain copies of, or modify data files, programs, passwords or other digital materials belonging to other users, without the specific permission of those other users. (3) Abuse of Computing Privileges Users of information resources must not access computers, computer software, computer data or information, or networks without proper authorization, or intentionally enable others to do so, regardless of whether the computer, software, data, information, or network in question is owned by the University. For example, abuse of the networks to which the University belongs or the computers at other sites connected to those networks will be treated as an abuse of University computing privileges. c. Usage The University is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization and, as such, is subject to specific federal, state and local laws regarding sources of income, political activities, use of property and similar matters. It also is a contractor with government and other entities and thus must assure proper use of property under its control and allocation of overhead and similar costs. Use of the University's information resources must comply with University policies and legal obligations (including licenses and contracts), and all federal and state laws. (1) Prohibited Use Users must not send, view or download fraudulent, harassing, obscene (i.e., pornographic), threatening, or other messages or material that are a violation of applicable law or University policy. In particular, contributing to the creation of a hostile academic or work environment is prohibited. (2) Copyrights and Licenses Users must not violate copyright law and must respect licenses to copyrighted materials. For the avoidance of doubt, unlawful file-sharing using the University's information resources is a violation of this policy. (3) Social Media Users must respect the purpose of and abide by the terms of use of online media forums, including social networking websites, mailing lists, chat rooms and blogs. (4) Political Use University information resources must not be used for partisan political activities where prohibited by federal, state or other applicable laws, and may be used for other political activities only when in compliance with federal, state and other laws and in compliance with applicable University policies. (5) Personal Use University information resources should not be used for activities unrelated to appropriate University functions, except in a purely incidental manner. (6) Commercial Use University information resources should not be used for commercial purposes, including advertisements, solicitations, promotions or other commercial messages, except as permitted under University policy. Any such permitted commercial use should be properly related to University activities, take into account proper cost allocations for government and other overhead determinations, and provide for appropriate reimbursement to the University for taxes and other costs the University may incur by reason of the commercial use. The University's Chief Financial Officer and Vice President for Business Affairs will determine permitted commercial uses. (7) Use of University Information Users must abide by applicable data storage and transmission policies, including Admin Guide 6.3.1 (Information Security). Consult the University Privacy Officer (privacyofficer@stanford.edu) for more information. d. Personally Owned Resources Stanford does not require personnel to use their personally owned resources to conduct University business. Individual units within the University may permit such use, and users may choose to use their own resources accordingly. Any personally owned resources used for University business are subject to this policy and must comply with all Stanford requirements pertaining to that type of resource and to the type of data involved. The resources must also comply with any additional requirements (including security controls for encryption, patching and backup) specific to the particular University functions for which they are used. e. Integrity of Information Resources Users must respect the integrity of information and information resources. (1) Modification or Removal of Information or Information Resources Unless they have proper authorization, users must not attempt to modify or remove information or information resources that are owned or used by others. (2) Other Prohibited Activities Users must not encroach, disrupt or otherwise interfere with access or use of the University's information or information resources. For the avoidance of doubt, without express permission, users must not give away University information or send bulk unsolicited email. In addition, users must not engage in other activities that damage, vandalize or otherwise compromise the integrity of University information or information resources. (3) Academic Pursuits The University recognizes the value of legitimate research projects undertaken by faculty and students under faculty supervision. The University may restrict such activities in order to protect University and individual information and information resources, but in doing so will take into account legitimate academic pursuits. f. Locally Defined and External Conditions of Use Individual units within the University may define "conditions of use" for information resources under their control. These statements must be consistent with this overall policy but may provide additional detail, guidelines restrictions, and/or enforcement mechanisms. Where such conditions of use exist, the individual units are responsible for publicizing and enforcing both the conditions of use and this policy. Where use of external networks is involved, policies governing such use also are applicable and must be followed. g. Access for Legal and University Processes Under some circumstances, as a result of investigations, subpoenas or lawsuits, the University may be required by law to provide electronic or other records, or information related to those records or relating to use of information resources, ("information records") to third parties. Additionally, the University may in its reasonable discretion review information records, e.g., for the proper functioning of the University, in connection with investigations or audits, or to protect the safety of individuals or the Stanford community. The University may also permit reasonable access to data to third-party service providers in order to provide, maintain or improve services to the University. Accordingly, users of University information resources do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the University's information resources. 3. Oversight of Information Resources Responsibility for, and management and operation of, information resources is delegated to the head of a specific subdivision of the University governance structure ("department"), such as a Dean, Department Chair, Administrative Department head, or Principal Investigator ("lead"). This person will be responsible for compliance with all University policies relating to the use of information resources owned, used or otherwise residing in their department. The lead may designate another person to manage and operate the system, but responsibility for information resources remains with the lead. This designate is the "system administrator." The system administrator is responsible for managing and operating information resources under their oversight in compliance with University and department policies, including accessing information resources necessary to maintain operation of the systems under the care of the system administrator. (See also section 4.b; system administrators should defer to the Information Security Office for access beyond that necessary to maintain operation of the system.) a. Responsibilities The system administrator should: - Take all appropriate actions to protect the security of information and information resources. Applicable guidelines are found at http://securecomputing.stanford.edu. - Take precautions against theft of or damage to information resources. - Faithfully execute all licensing agreements applicable to information resources. - Communicate this policy, and other applicable information use, security and privacy policies and procedures to their information resource users. - Cooperate with the Information Security Office to find and correct problems caused by the use of the system under their control. b. Suspension of Privileges System administrators may temporarily suspend access to information resources if they believe it is necessary or appropriate to maintain the integrity of the information resources under their oversight. 4. Reporting or Investigating Violations or University Concerns a. Reporting Violations System users will report violations of this policy to the Information Security Office, and will immediately report defects in system accounting, concerns with system security, or suspected unlawful or improper system activities to the Information Security Office during normal business hours and the Office of the General Counsel emergency after-hours phone line at other times. b. Accessing Information & Systems Inspecting and monitoring information and information resources may be required for the purposes of enforcing this policy, conducting University investigations or audits, ensuring the safety of an individual or the University community, complying with law or ensuring proper operation of information resources. Only the University's Chief Information Security Officer (or designate) may authorize this inspection and monitoring. c. Cooperation Expected Information resource users are expected to cooperate with any investigation of policy abuse. Failure to cooperate may be grounds for cancellation of access privileges, or other disciplinary actions. 5. Consequences of Misuse of Information Resources A user found to have violated this policy may also have violated the University Code of Conduct, the Fundamental Standard, the Student Honor Code, and/or other University policies, and will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action up to and including discharge, dismissal, expulsion, and/or legal action. The Chief Information Security Officer will refer violations to University units, i.e., Student Affairs for students, the supervisor for staff, and the Dean of the relevant School for faculty or other teaching or research personnel, if appropriate. 6. Cognizant Office University's Chief Information Security Officer, or other person designated by the Vice President for Business Affairs and Chief Financial Officer, shall be the primary contact for the interpretation, monitoring and enforcement of this policy. 7. Related Policies a. Student Discipline See Student Life/Codes of Conduct/Fundamental Standard/Honor Code b. Staff Discipline See Guide Memo 2.1.16: Addressing Conduct & Performance Issues c. Faculty Discipline See the Statement on Faculty Discipline in the Faculty Handbook d. Patents and Copyrights See Research Policy Handbook 9.1 and 9.2; see also the Stanford University Copyright Reminder e. Political Activities See Guide Memo 1.5.1: Political Activities f. Ownership of Documents See Research Policy Handbook 9.2 and Guide Memo 1.5.5: Ownership of Documents g. Incidental Personal Use See Research Policy Handbook 4.1, and Guide Memo 1.5.2: Staff Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest h. Security of Information See Guide Memo 6.6.1: Information Security Incident Response i. Privacy and Security of Health Information (HIPAA) See Guide Memo 1.6.2: Privacy and Security of Health Information j. Data Classification, Access and Transmittal and Storage Guidelines See http://dataclass.stanford.edu. k. Endpoint Compliance See http://securecomputing.stanford.edu/endpoint_compliance.html l. Accessibility of Electronic Content See https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapter-6/subchapter-8/policy-6-8-1	common_crawl_stanford.edu_209
6.3.1 Information Security Formerly Known As Policy Number: 63 The purpose of this policy is to ensure the protection of Stanford's information resources from accidental or intentional unauthorized access or damage while also preserving and nurturing the open, information-sharing requirements of its academic culture. This Guide Memo states requirements for the protection of Stanford's information assets. Applicability: This policy is applicable to all University students, faculty and staff and to all others granted use of Stanford University information resources. Every user of any of Stanford's information resources has some responsibility toward the protection of those assets; some offices and individuals have very specific responsibilities. This policy refers to all University information resources whether individually-controlled or shared, stand-alone or networked. It applies to all computer and communication facilities owned, leased, operated, or contracted by the University. This includes networking devices, personal digital assistants, telephones, wireless devices, personal computers, workstations, mainframes, minicomputers, and any associated peripherals and software, regardless of whether used for administration, research, teaching or other purposes. 1. Principles of Information Security The purpose of information security is to protect the information resources of the University from unauthorized access or damage. The underlying principles followed to achieve that objective are: a. Information Resource Availability The information resources of the University, including the network, the hardware, the software, the facilities, the infrastructure, and any other such resources, are available to support the teaching, learning, research, or administrative roles for which they are designated. b. Information Integrity The information used in the pursuit of teaching, learning, research, or administration can be trusted to correctly reflect the reality it represents. c. Information Confidentiality The ability to access or modify information is provided only to authorized users for authorized purposes. d. Support of Academic Pursuits The requirement to safeguard information resources must be balanced with the need to support the pursuit of legitimate academic objectives. e. Access to Information The value of information as an institutional resource increases through its appropriate use; its value diminishes through misuse, misinterpretation, or unnecessary restrictions to its access. 2. Classification of Information All University information is classified into one of 4 levels based on sensitivity and risk. These classifications take into account legal protections, contractual agreements, ethical considerations, privacy issues, and strategic or proprietary worth. The classification level determines the security protections and access authorization mechanisms which must be used for the information. Security guidelines can be found in the Stanford Minimum Security Guidelines. The information classifications are as follows: a. Prohibited Information Information is classified as "Prohibited" if protection of the information is required by law or government regulation, or Stanford is required either to provide notice to the individual if information is inappropriately accessed or to report unauthorized access to the government b. Restricted Information Information is classified as "Restricted" if (i) it would otherwise qualify as "Prohibited" but it has been determined by the Data Governance Board that prohibiting information storage on Computing Equipment would significantly reduce faculty, staff, or student effectiveness when acting in support of Stanford's mission, or (ii) it is listed as Restricted in the Classification of Common Data Elements. c. Confidential Information Information is classified as "Confidential" if (i) it is not considered to be Prohibited or Restricted and is not generally available to the public, or (ii) it is listed as Confidential in the Classification of Common Data Elements. d. Public Information All information which does not fall into one of these categories is considered to be "public." Please see the Information Security Office for a list of frequently used public information. Responsibilities a. Information Security Officer The Information Security Officer is responsible for providing interpretation of this and other related policies and disseminating related information. b. University Privacy Officer The University Privacy Officer is responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures governing the privacy of data that the University is required or elects to protect. c. Data Governance Board The Data Governance Board is an advisory group charged with oversight of policies and procedures relating to the protection and use of Stanford's non-public information. d. Business and Data Owners System Business and Data Owners are responsible for the application of this and related policies to the systems, data, and other information resources under their care or control. e. System Administrators System Administrators are responsible for the application of this and related policies to the systems, information, and other information resources in their care at the direction of the Business and Data Owners. f. System Developers and Integrators System Developers and Integrators are responsible for the application of this and related policies to the systems, information, and other information resources in their care at the direction of the Business and Data Owners. g. Users Every user of Stanford's information resources is responsible for the application of this and related policies to the systems, information, and other information resources which they use, access, transmit or store. h. Third-party Affiliates Stanford expects all partners, consultants and vendors to abide by Stanford's information security and privacy policies. If non-public information is to be accessed or shared with these third parties, they should be bound by contract to abide by Stanford's information security and privacy policies. 4. Violations of Policy and Misuse of Information Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to: accessing information to which the individual has no legitimate right; enabling unauthorized individuals to access information; disclosing information in a way that violates applicable policy, procedure, or other relevant regulations or laws; inappropriately modifying or destroying information; inadequately protecting information; or ignoring the explicit requirements of Data Owners for the proper management, use, and protection of information resources. Violations may result in network removal, access revocation, corrective action, and/or civil or criminal prosecution. Violators may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal or expulsion, pursuant to campus policies, collective bargaining agreements, codes of conduct, or other instruments governing the individual's relationship with the University. Recourse shall be available under the appropriate section of the employee's personnel policy or contract, or by pursuing applicable legal procedure. - Any School or Department found to have violated this policy may be held accountable for the financial penalties and remediation costs associated with a resulting information security incident. - Third party vendors found to have violated this policy may incur financial liabilities, in addition to termination of contract. 5. Cognizant Office Information Security Office 6. Sources of More Information - Guide Memo 6.1.1: Administrative Computing Systems - Guide Memo 6.2.1: Computer and Network Usage - Information Security Office - Classification of Information - Student Discipline—See Student Life/Codes of Conduct/Fundamental Standard/Honor Code - Staff Discipline—See Guide Memo 2.1.16: Addressing Conduct & Performance Issues - Faculty Discipline— See the Statement on Faculty Discipline - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) - Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) - Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) - Specific information security guidelines, procedures, standards, and practices can be found at Stanford's Information Security Office website; a more detailed breakout of criteria used to determine which information classification is appropriate for a particular information or infrastructure system can be found in the Data Classifications chart. - University Privacy Officer, privacyofficer@stanford.edu	common_crawl_stanford.edu_210
3. Financial Administration Main content start Financial policies in this chapter pertain to management of university funds, expenditures, and revenue. - These policies review managing the university's financial assets; how university funds are organized; expenditure accounts; the cost policy; requirements for retention of financial records; and charitable donations. - These policies outline responsibilities for the management of funds in University Projects, Tasks and Awards (PTAs); cost transfers (also referred to as transfers of expense; and the procedures for expense allocations and salary distribution offsets. - These policies govern the infrastructure charge (ISC) for both new and existing funds, and identify the expendable funds investment and return allocation, and the tier 1 and 2 buffer policy. - These policies provide guidance on revenue recognition policy; acceptance and processing of credit/debit card, account number, or third-party account numbers; and define the categories of fees and charges for student billing. - This policy identifies the procedures to follow when a suspicion or discovery of financial irregularities arise. - This section governs the establishment, maintenance and closure of university domestic and foreign bank accounts. - This section identifies the compliance and responsibilities related to legal entities affiliated with Stanford. - This section identifies the policy and responsibilities related to Account Balance Reconciliation and Attestation of the University’s Statement of Financial Position.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_211
3.8.2 Account Balance Attestation This Guide Memo section outlines the policy and responsibilities for attesting to account balances in the University’s general ledger and the Statement of Financial Position. Applicability: This policy applies to all Stanford departments and employees responsible for attesting to account balances in the University’s general ledger and the Statement of Financial Position. See also sections 3.1, Funds Management and 3.2.1.4c, Expenditures of Restricted Funds – Quarterly Certification of Changes of the Stanford Administrative Guide. These sections cover accounting for University fund balances and reconciling and attesting to expenditure statements for sponsored projects, respectively. 1. Attestation Purpose Account balance attestations serve as evidence that account balances in the general ledger and the Statement of Financial Position have been reconciled in a timely manner. Together the account balance reconciliations and account balance attestations are key internal controls that provide reasonable assurance around the following financial statement assertions: - Accuracy: Transactions were accurately recorded at appropriate amounts. - Completeness: All assets, liabilities and net asset balances that should have been recorded were correctly recorded on the Statement of Financial Position. - Existence: All assets, liabilities and net asset balances that were recorded on the Statement of Financial Position existed at the end of the financial period. 2. Definitions Account Balance Attestation: Account balance attestations are forms that are signed by Attestation Owners, University finance officials and staff that have been designated by the University Controller's Office, to verify that all conditions on the Balance Sheet Reconciliation Review Attestation form have been met for account balances under their authority. The Balance Sheet Reconciliation Review Attestation form is available in the Balance Sheet Account Reconciliations section of the Gateway to Financial Activities website. 3. Responsibility for Attestations A. Attestation Preparation and Submission Attestation Owners are responsible for attesting to all statements on the Balance Sheet Reconciliation Review Attestation form, including the statement that the account balances under their authority have been reconciled and reviewed at least quarterly. Attestation Owners are responsible for ensuring that attestation forms are submitted to the University Controller’s Office on time. The University Controller's Office determines and communicates the timing of attestation submissions. Information about attestation submission timing is available in the Balance Sheet Account Reconciliations section of the Gateway to Financial Activities website. B. Training Account balance attestations should only be signed by individuals with reconciliation approval authority, knowledge of the account and an understanding of the reconciliation purpose. University departments are responsible for communicating changes in attestation ownership to the Controller’s Office on a timely basis. Information about how to communicate a change in attestation ownership is available in the Balance Sheet Account Reconciliations section of the Gateway to Financial Activities website. 4. Attestation Procedures Account balance attestation procedures and resources are available in the Balance Sheet Account Reconciliations section of the Gateway to Financial Activities website.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_212
3.3.2 Expendable Funds Investment, Return Allocation and Buffer Policy Formerly Known As Policy Number: 37.4 This policy replaces the “Expendable Funds Investment, Interest Allocation and Buffer Policy” adopted by the Board of Trustees on June 9, 2016. The policy was most recently updated by the Board of Trustees on June 13, 2023 and December 4, 2023. 1. Expendable Funds Investment and Return Allocation Policy The university has two pools for managing expendable funds, the Endowment Income Funds Pool (“EIFP”) and the Expendable Funds Pool (“EFP”). a. Endowment Income Funds Pool The EIFP comprises funds holding unspent prior year payout distributed from pure endowment funds (including amounts reinvested in those funds). - Investment Policy: One hundred percent of the assets in the EIFP are to be invested in cash and liquid short-term investment vehicles managed in the Short-term Investment Pool (“STIP”). - Return Allocation Policy: Each endowment income fund holding unspent prior years’ payout will receive an allocation equal to the net return on the STIP, less the cost to administer the portfolio. b. Expendable Funds Pool The EFP holds the following types of expendable funds: - Endowment Income Funds – current year payout distributed from pure endowment funds and all payout from Funds Functioning as Endowment (“FFE”) not yet expended - Restricted Funds – gifts or other restricted expendable funds not yet expended - Designated Funds – funds designated for a specific school, department, faculty or purpose, not yet expended - Unrestricted Funds – university, school, department, auxiliary or faculty funds held in reserve or pending expenditure - Gifts Pending Designation – gift funds received for which the purpose has not yet been designated and which are not invested in the Merged Pool or Intermediate Pool - Plant Funds – funds designated for facilities, not yet expended. - Recycling Pool – proceeds from internal debt amortization available to lend to projects - Insurance and Benefit Program Reserves – reserves held for claims within self-insurance programs - Student Loan Funds – funds available to lend for student loans - Agency Funds – funds held by Stanford University on behalf of third parties Investment Policy Depending on the University’s operating and other liquidity requirements, the University’s Chief Financial Officer or their designee will determine appropriate balances to be invested in the Intermediate Pool (IP) or cash and liquid investment vehicles managed in the STIP. The remainder of the EFP is to be cross-invested in the MP. The University may also draw on a bank line or other debt vehicle to fund liquidity needs as deemed necessary by the University’s Chief Financial Officer or their designee. Return Allocation Policy Funds invested in the EFP are grouped into two categories for purposes of allocating investment returns. a. Money-Market Accounts The following types of Expendable Funds will be treated as “Money-Market Accounts” and will receive an allocation equal to the net return on the STIP: - Restricted Funds, only when stipulated by donor requirement - Gifts Pending Designation, excluding class gift funds and donor funds of less than $100,000 - Plant Funds, raised from gifts exceeding $1 million - Insurance and Benefit Program Reserves - Student Loan Funds - Agency Funds b. Zero-Interest Accounts All other Expendable Funds will be treated as “Zero-Interest Accounts.” Investment returns on these funds will not be allocated to the individual fund, but will be accumulated and distributed to the funds, as described below: - School of Medicine (SoM) Dean’s Unrestricted Fund will receive an allocation related to zero-interest account balances controlled by the SoM dean’s office, departments, and faculty. - Graduate School of Business (GSB) Dean’s Unrestricted Fund will receive an allocation related to zero-interest account balances controlled by the GSB dean’s office, departments, and faculty. - Hoover Institution’s Finance and Director’s Office Unrestricted Fund will receive an allocation related to zero-interest account balances controlled by Hoover’s Finance and Director’s Office, departments, and faculty. - Provost’s General Fund will receive an allocation related to all other zero-interest account balances. Effective Sept. 1, 2024, the allocation shall be 5.5% of the zero-interest account average monthly balances during the prior fiscal year. 2. Buffer Policy The total allocation to Money-Market Accounts, General Fund and Dean's Unrestricted Funds will differ from the investment returns of the EFP. These differences will be buffered by the "Tier I Buffer" and the "Tier II Buffer." - The Tier I Buffer is the University's unrestricted FFE funds, excluding Land Development Funds. These funds are fully invested in the MP and receive a regular MP-based payout used to support the Provost's General Fund. - The Tier II Buffer is a single unrestricted FFE fund. This fund is primarily invested in the MP. A fraction of the Tier II Buffer is invested in separately managed investments such as the President’s Venture Fund. The portion of the Tier II Buffer invested in the MP receives a regular MP-based payout that is distributed at the President’s discretion (“President’s Funds”). In addition, the President is authorized to withdraw up to $30 million in principal each year to be used at their discretion. To the extent there is a shortfall in EFP investment returns relative to stipulated allocations, principal will be withdrawn from the Tier I and Tier II Buffers to make up such shortfall, as follows: - First, from the Tier I Buffer up to a limit of 20% of the fiscal year-end market value of the Tier I Buffer in any fiscal year - Second, from the Tier II Buffer until fully depleted - Third, from the remainder of the Tier I Buffer To the extent there is a surplus of EFP investment returns relative to stipulated allocations, excess returns will be added to the Tier I and Tier II Buffers as follows: - First, to the Tier I Buffer until such time as the value of the Tier I Buffer, in total, equals 35% of the total value of the EFP ("the target threshold") - Second, to the Tier II Buffer	common_crawl_stanford.edu_213
4. Giving to Stanford Main content start This chapter covers policies and procedures on managing gifts to the university, including: - Processing, acknowledging, and recording donations - Departmental special collections - Guidelines for naming facilities and land features - Funding new programs and prioritizing fundraisers - This policy provides detailed information, about gifts, including definitions, responsibilities, descriptions of gift classifications and their designations, and tax considerations. - This section describes the various types of gifts accepted by the University and proper procedures for processing, acknowledging, and recording gifts, including equipment, land, buildings, and special collections. - This section contains information about operating policies for development activities in the Office of Development and around the university. - This section outlines the review and approval process, including the procedures by which requests are reviewed for academic merit, budget impact, and fundraising potential. - Proposals for new programs, projects, or activities should take into account the feasibility of obtaining required funding as well as the budgetary and other impacts the proposals may have on the university.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_214
4.2.2 Acknowledgment of Gifts Formerly Known As Policy Number: 42.1 This Guide Memo states responsibilities and procedures for acknowledging gifts to the University. 1. Gift Receipts All gifts to Stanford of cash, checks, and securities, as well as most other types of gifts, are officially acknowledged by the University through the Office of Development. It is the Office of Development's goal to issue a receipt to the donor within 10 working days after Development Services has been notified and received relevant documentation for each gift. Receipts issued by Development Services conform to certain government mandated format requirements, including a statement as to whether the donor has received anything of value in return for the gift and, where applicable, a reference to the University's charge on restricted funds (see Guide Memo 3.3.1: Infrastructure Charges). Under Federal law donors must possess a conforming gift receipt in order to claim a tax deduction for most charitable contributions. a. Monetary Gifts Receipts state the dollar value of the gift. b. Securities Gifts Receipts describe the number and type of securities donated, and as a courtesy to the donor will generally state the value of any publicly-traded securities credited to the donor's gift record. The value claimed by the donor for tax purposes is the donor's responsibility. c. Other Nonmonetary Gifts Receipts describe the gift in reasonably specific terms, including number and type of property involved, but do not include a valuation. The value claimed by the donor for tax purposes is the donor's responsibility. For equipment gifts, see Guide Memo 4.2.3: Records of Donated Equipment. Receipts for gifts of real estate are issued by the Office of Development in coordination with the Gift Real Estate section of the Stanford Management Company. d. "Quid Pro Quo" Gifts Under federal law, receipts for gifts made to Stanford where the University has given the donor something of value in return must state this fact on the University's gift receipt and must include a valuation of the benefit received by the donor. The donor's tax deduction is reduced by this amount. These requirements do not apply to certain narrowly defined nominal items given in return for a gift (contact Development Services, (650) 725-4360, or Planned Giving, (650) 725-4358, for information). e. Life Income Gifts Planned Giving in the Office of Development is responsible for preparing and issuing receipts for life income gifts. 2. Acknowledgment Letters In addition to the University's official gift receipt, certain gifts are acknowledged by a letter signed by the President of the University and/or the Vice President for Development, a School Dean, a Director of a Center, or the Chair of the Board of Trustees. Stewardship Officers throughout the University have the responsibility for tracking gifts that meet certain criteria (which vary slightly from area to area and by signer) and drafting letters for the appropriate signature.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_215
4.2.3 Records of Donated Equipment Formerly Known As Policy Number: 42.2 This Guide Memo covers policy on recording and processing donations of equipment. Detailed procedures may be found in the Stanford University Property Management Manual, available from the Property Management Office. Applicability: This policy applies to all Stanford faculty and staff who are involved with the receipt of gifts of equipment and related material. 1. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to ensure that Stanford complies with all of its contractual and legal obligations with regard to recording donations of equipment. 2. Applicability This policy applies to all Stanford faculty and staff who are involved with the receipt of gifts of equipment and related material. 3. Recording Policy a. Gifts for University Purposes A donation of capital equipment such as a computer, laboratory equipment, vehicle, or machine tool that is to be used for University purposes must be recorded as a donation in the University accounting system at the Controller's Office and in the University's Sunflower Assets system (SFA) and in Oracle Fixed Assets. The items are recorded at fair market value as of the date of donation. b. Gifts for Resale A donation of equipment that is given with the understanding that the University intends to resell it upon receipt should not be entered into the University's accounting system or in Sunflower Assets. However any sale proceeds should be recorded as a gift of cash in the Controller's Office and reported to the Office of Development for inclusion in its gift records. If sale action is not initiated within 60 days of receipt, the donated item must be recorded in the Sunflower Assets system and in Oracle Fixed Assets. 4. Definitions a. Capital Equipment is equipment that individually at the time of donation has (i) a minimum market value of $5,000 or more and (ii) a useful life of more than one year. b. Fair Market Value for various circumstances: (1) Educational Discount If an educational discount is normally available to Stanford for purchase of the equipment, its recorded value should be net of the applicable educational discount; i.e., the fair market value is the price at which the vendor (donor) will sell the equipment to Stanford. (2) New Equipment From Private Individuals Equipment purchased for the purpose of a donation is valued at the invoice price to the donor. Donation must occur within 60 days of purchase. (3) Used Equipment Fair market value is obtained from backup paperwork or appraisal (at the donor's expense) verifying the value at the time of the donation. At the discretion of the University Property Management Office (PMO) and at the cost of the receiving fund (school/department), an independent or a second appraisal may be requested. (4) Additional Costs Any third party installation or modification costs, attachments, accessories or auxiliary apparatus that are paid for by the department to make the donation usable for the purpose that it was given are not included in the equipment valuation. However, they are included in the acquisition cost when the item is entered into Sunflower Assets and Oracle Fixed Assets. 5. Responsibilities - The donor is responsible for: - Bearing the cost of the appraisal if an appraisal is required for the donor's tax purposes (see Guide Memo 4.1.1: Gifts to the University). - The School/Department receiving or benefiting from the donation is responsible for: - Bearing the cost of an independent or second appraisal if needed to establish the University's record of fair market value. - Bearing any other cost incurred for or by the donation. - The faculty member or department official receiving notice that a donation was received is responsible for: - Informing the Department Property Administrator (DPA). - Providing the DPA with a legible copy of all documentation received. - Notifying the University Property Management Office (PMO) if they know that the estimated/appraised value of the donation is more than what would be an acceptable value. - Ensuring that the equipment is used for the purpose for which it was donated. - The Department Property Administrator (DPA) is responsible for: - Gathering all supporting documentation. - Establishing a no-cost Rapid Purchase Order (RPO) in the Oracle iProcurement system. - Establishing a record within the Sunflower Assets System (SFA). - Providing a legible copy of all documents to the PMO office. - University Property Management Office (PMO) is responsible for: - Verifying that the donation is appropriately recorded into the Sunflower Assets (SFA) and Oracle Fixed Assets systems. - Verifying that all documentation is in order. - Providing appropriate documentation to Accounts Payable to initiate a journal entry of equipment donation value into the accounting system. - Processing required IRS forms through the Accounting Officer. IRS Forms 8283 and 8282 must be routed through PMO prior to signature by the Accounting Officer. - Accounts Payable is responsible for: - Preparing journals to initiate entry of equipment donation values into the accounting system. - Accounting Officer (Controller's Office) is responsible for: - Signing IRS Forms 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions and IRS Form 8282, Donee Information Return (see Guide Memo 4.1.1: Gifts to the University). The Accounting Officer (or authorized designee) is the only individual within the University with authority to do so. - Fund Accounting (Controller's Office) is responsible for: - Recording the value of the donation in the University accounting system. - The Office of Development (OOD) is responsible for: - Ensuring that Noncash Charitable Contributions forms (IRS Form 8283) and any other documents received from a donor with respect to gifts of donated capital equipment are sent to the Property Management Office (PMO). - Informing the PMO office of prospective donations and notifying PMO of acknowledged donations. 6. Disposal of Donated Equipment a. PMO Involvement Disposal requests must be cleared through the PMO office before disposal of equipment occurs. b. IRS Filing Requirements See Guide Memo 4.1.1: Gifts to the University, for circumstances under which the IRS requires submittal of IRS Form 8282. c. Sale of Equipment Claimed as a Tax Deduction (1) Unrestricted Donations Resale or cannibalization, within two years of the date of receipt, of equipment that is donated with no utilization restrictions may reduce the donor's tax deduction, and should be done only by mutual written agreement between Stanford and the donor. (2) Restricted Donations Equipment donated to Stanford and claimed as a tax deduction under Internal Revenue Code Sec. 170(e)(4) (which restricts its use to research experimentation, or research training in the United States, in physical or biological sciences) must be held in Stanford's possession for at least two years from the date of receipt, after which disposition must be cleared through PMO. Restricted donations may not be sold. d. Successor Donees If property is transferred to another organization, external to Stanford, within two years of receipt, an IRS Form 8282 must be filed. Contact the University Property Management Office (PMO) for more information. e. Sale Proceeds All proceeds from the sale of unrestricted donated equipment are credited in accordance with the terms stated by the donor or as defined in the donation agreement. If no terms are specified then all proceeds are credited to the fund that originally recorded the gift. f. Source for More Information Policy on sale of surplus property may be found in Guide Memo 5.2.4: Surplus Property Sales. Detailed information on disposal procedures may be found in the Stanford University Property Administration Manual available from the PMO office. 7. Getting Help Additional information or assistance in addressing issues regarding donations of equipment or materials is available from the Property Management Office (PMO), and Property Manual chapter 2.5.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_216
11.4 Global Human Resources Benefit Programs Main content start Benefit programs vary by country for employees outside of the US, as described in these guidelines. Authority: Approved by the Vice President of Human Resources. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Global HR Programs is the responsible party to initiate employee benefits for Stanford and its affiliates in locations outside of the US. Global HR Programs will also typically administer these benefits, unless explicitly... - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Stanford makes available an international life insurance plan for affiliated employees outside of the US. US citizens and legal residents may be allowed to continue US-based life insurance programs. Contact Global HR... - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Stanford offers an international health (medical and dental) plan to employees and affiliated employees working outside of the US. In specific countries, a health plan that aligns with that country’s social insurance may be... - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Does not apply to global employees. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Does not apply to global employees. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Stanford provides disability coverage in each country in compliance with law and appropriate for University and affiliated staff. Leave and salary continuation policies will be maintained and communicated by Global HR... - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Refer to University Administrative Guide Memo 2.3.6.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_217
11.5 Global Human Resources Employment General Information Main content start General guidelines regarding global university human resources practices. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 The University and its affiliates will comply with each country’s visa and employment law at all times. All affiliated employees must have the legal right to work and reside in the country where work is being performed. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Refer to University Administrative Guide Memo 2.4.2. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 The hiring department will be notified of an employee’s or affiliate's Stanford identification number after personal data is entered into the relevant Stanford database. This number is then communicated to the employee to... - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Refer to Administrative Guide Memo 2.4.4. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Refer to Administrative Guide Memo 2.4.5. - Last Updated March 11, 2014 Employment contracts or agreements will govern the indemnification of employees in each country.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_218
11.2.1 Global Staff Personnel Policies These policies describe the development of, administration of, and decisions about policies affecting personnel of Stanford University, a university entity and/or its affiliates, whose primarily work location is outside of the United States. 1. Purpose Global staffing policies and procedures are intended for supervisors and administrators with current or anticipated ongoing operations outside of the US. 2. Policy Authority a. Policy Development Global personnel policies are approved and authorized by the Vice President of Human Resources (VP of HR), in consultation with other University officials. b. Policy Revisions Send proposals for policy changes to the VP of HR for study and recommendation. Approved changes are published in the Administrative Guide and may be communicated in the Stanford Report or by written notice to officers and administrators. Changes in policies for global benefits plans are reflected on the University Human Resources website for Global Staff Employees, and brochures of the individual plans. c. Policy Interpretation Questions regarding policy interpretation should be brought to the attention of the Human Resources Manager responsible for the employee’s unit and/or Global HR Programs. d. Alleged Policy Violations Suspected policy violation information should be brought to the attention of management, Human Resources Manager responsible for the unit and/or Global HR Programs. 3. Administration of Global Staff Personnel Policies University officers and administrators, both academic and nonacademic, are responsible for the administration of University policies and procedures including those applicable to staff supporting Stanford global operations. 4. Exceptions to Global Personnel Policies In the event an exception to established policy appears to be necessary, the unique facts of the situation should be discussed in advance with an appropriate representative from Human Resources, usually the Global HR Programs Manager. When necessary, cognizant Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts or University officers will be included in the decision-making of proposed exceptions. Exceptions to personnel policies must be approved by the VP of HR, or their designee.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_219
1. Guiding Policies and Principles Main content start This chapter details the cornerstone policies of Stanford University and covers standards of conduct, conflict of interest, Stanford name and trademark use, privacy/HIPAA compliance, protection of minors, signature and financial approval authority, and organization charts for all major academic, research, and administrative offices. - This Guide Memo defines the University's Code of Conduct. - This Guide Memo describes the governing organization of the University (reporting relationships are detailed in Chapter 9). - This policy briefly summarizes the roles of various faculty groups on issues that affect the academic policy of the University. - This policy provides guidance to University officers, faculty, and staff concerning issues that might arise and that need to be addressed prior to entering into third-party agreements with independent entities. - The Conflict of Interest policies detail the constraints, allowable activities, and associated guidelines related to university, state, and federal compliance, along with the permissible use of Stanford identity, trademarks, and documents. - These policies define Prohibited, Restricted and Confidential Information and explain how the University implements HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and regulates protected health information ("PHI") through the - These policies govern community and workplace responsibilities related to sexual harassment, consensual sexual relationships, and our commitment to adhere to non-discrimination, equal employment opportunity, and affirmative action policies. - This policy describes the responsibilities of administrators, faculty, staff, students, and volunteers who work with, supervise, chaperone, or otherwise oversee Minors in these activities (“Program Staff”). - This policy sets forth a framework governing the assignment of responsibility to individuals throughout the university.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_220
1.4.1 Academic and Business Relationships With Third Parties Formerly Known As Policy Number: 14 From time to time, the University enters into agreements with various independent entities that may result in an ongoing business or academic relationship with the University. For example, entities with current relationships include Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford Bookstore, Inc., and Stanford Federal Credit Union. Although these types of entities remain independent from the University, nonetheless, the nature of the relationships makes it desirable to outline how the relationships might be structured. This Guide Memo also provides guidance to University officers, faculty and staff concerning issues that might arise and that need to be addressed prior to entering into such third party agreements. 1. General Guidelines a. Potential Issues The agreement between the University and the other entity should make adequate provision for issues that may be called into play by the nature of the proposed relationship. Such issues might include the following: - Potential property tax or unrelated business income tax imposed on the University - Failure to appropriately file for a property tax exemption associated with leases of on-campus or off-campus space - Government contract and similar allocation issues - Vicarious liability to the University and indemnities - Issues relating to public image or government scrutiny - Effects on legal compliance of University benefit plans - All aspects of land use and landowner issues regarding environmental matters - The potential for liens or claims against Stanford property or assets - Fraud and abuse issues in the medical area - Employment law issues - Private inurement or private use where University assets, income or facilities may be used in a way that benefits or results in profits to private individuals or entities - Utilities issues - Conflicts of interest - The potential triggering of other statutes or governmental regulations b. Definition of Relationship The agreement should provide a clear definition of the nature of the relationship and of any responsibilities or obligations undertaken by the parties. The agreement should also address appropriate limitations on those responsibilities or obligations in both time and scope; the defense and indemnification of the University in the event of suit or other adverse action; the need for the University to be named as an additional insured on policies of insurance; the right of the University to review financial records of the entity, where appropriate in light of the relationship; and a date for termination or reevaluation of the agreement and relationship. c. Form of Agreement A detailed contract will not always be necessary; often a well-drafted business letter agreement may suffice. Whatever form the agreement takes, the other parties need to understand that the University does not seek to intrude inappropriately into the internal affairs of the other parties and in no way is taking on responsibility for their actions—except as to specified actions (if any) for specific reasons that are relevant to the relationship and are clearly delineated in the agreement. Land, Buildings and Real Estate (LBRE)/Real Estate department must receive a copy of any lease agreement made with third parties, for consideration of property tax or property tax exemption issues. 2. Approvals and Consultations a. Delegated Authority The appropriate office or offices for reviewing and/or approving an agreement will depend upon the areas in which the proposed relationship arises. In this regard, please refer to the relevant resolutions and memoranda concerning delegations of authority by the University President, Vice Presidents and other senior officers. For more information concerning such delegations, contact the Office of the Secretary of the Board of Trustees. b. Cognizant Offices The following are examples of elements that may be present or contemplated and the corresponding office that needs to be consulted and whose approval generally will be required in connection with that element: c. Guidance on Legal or Liability Issues As a general proposition, if the arrangement presents novel legal issues, or if the Stanford entities involved in the relationship would like general legal guidance, the Office of the General Counsel should also be consulted. Similarly, the Risk Management Department should be consulted on proposed relationships that raise risk or liability concerns, or whenever Stanford personnel expect their activities (whether on-site or off-site) to be covered by the University's policies of insurance and self-insurance. 3. Situations not Covered By This Guide Memo The following situations or types of agreements are not covered by this Guide Memo: - Conferences and summer camps - Arrangements with individuals to become visiting scholars - Consulting agreements with individuals - Externally-sponsored projects and gift-supported programs - Financial investments managed by the Stanford Management Company - Real estate investments managed by LBRE - The procurement of goods or services for University use in the ordinary course of business - Normal business and licensing transactions entered into by the Office of Technology Licensing 4. Related Policies Additional guidance on issues raised in this Guide Memo may be found in the following sources: - Guide Memo 1.5.2: Staff Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest - Research Policy Handbook Document 4.1: Faculty Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest - Guide Memo 1.5.3: Unrelated Business Activities - Guide Memo 8.2.1: University Events - Guide Memo 8.2.2: Conferences	common_crawl_stanford.edu_221
1.6.2 Privacy and Security of Health Information (HIPAA) Formerly Known As Policy Number: 16.2 This Guide Memo describes Stanford University's implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and its regulations ("Privacy Rule" and "Security Rule") governing the protection of identifiable health information by health care providers and health plans. The portions of Stanford University that are impacted by HIPAA include the Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Group Health Plan, defined in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. This Guide Memo references Stanford University HIPAA Components policies on the University HIPAA website and the Group Health Plan HIPAA policies. The Group Health Plan maintains HIPAA policies and procedures in the Resource Library section of the Benefits website. These policies outline more specific rights of individuals regarding their protected health information ("PHI") as well as the operational and system requirements to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules. Applicability: This policy applies to all staff, faculty, physicians, volunteers, students, consultants, contractors and subcontractors who are part of the Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Stanford University Group Health Plan ("Group Health Plan") workforce. Stanford Health Care ("SHC"), including Menlo Health Alliance and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital ("LPCH"), and their respective ERISA health benefit plans have separate HIPAA policies. 1. The Privacy Rule The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") Privacy Rule limits Stanford University's use and disclosure of information that could potentially associate an individual's identity with their health information. Stanford University may not use or disclose PHI except as authorized by the individual, or as permitted or required by law. Use or disclosure of health information that does not have the potential to reveal an individual's identity is not limited. 2. The Security Rule The Security Rule requires Stanford University to implement administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of PHI maintained in an electronic form ("ePHI") and to protect ePHI against any reasonably anticipated threats or hazards, unauthorized uses or disclosures. The Security Rule protects ePHI stored in University systems during processing and during transmission 3. Stanford University HIPAA Components Designation The portions of Stanford University that provide health care, or share PHI with those portions, are "health care components" and are known collectively as the "Stanford University HIPAA Components." Stanford University has authorized its Privacy Officer to designate the health care components to be included in the Stanford University HIPAA Components. A list of the schools, departments and functions designated as part of the Stanford University HIPAA Components can be found on the Stanford University HIPAA website or requested from the University Privacy Officer. Anyone who believes that their department or program uses or discloses PHI and ought to be designated as part of the Stanford University HIPAA Components should contact the University Privacy Officer. In addition, the Stanford University HIPAA Components have joined Stanford Health Care ("SHC"), including Menlo Health Alliance and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford ("LPCH") which are together referred to as the "Hospitals," to form a single affiliated entity under the Privacy and Security Rules, known as the Stanford Affiliated Covered Entity. By combining as a single affiliated entity, the Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Hospitals have the greatest flexibility to share information with one another to accomplish their missions. 4. Group Health Plan As an employer, Stanford University sponsors and maintains various ERISA health benefits plans that comprise the Group Health Plan. The Group Health Plan is a separate covered entity from the Stanford University HIPAA Components and, as such, has separate HIPAA privacy and security policies. The list of the plans included in the Group Health Plan can be found on the Stanford University HIPAA website or requested from the University Privacy Officer. 5. Privacy and Security Information a. Privacy Officials Stanford University has designated a HIPAA privacy officer (the "University Privacy Officer") for the Stanford University HIPAA Components, the Stanford Affiliated Covered Entity and the Group Health Plan. The University Privacy Officer is responsible for the development and implementation of the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the Privacy Rule. Contact information for the University Privacy Officer is located in Section 13. The University Privacy Officer may request that local privacy officials be designated by a school, department or program included in the Stanford University HIPAA Components or by the Group Health Plan (collectively and individually referred to as "Program") as necessary in order to implement the policies within their program effectively. Programs will promptly comply with any such request. b. Security Officials Stanford University has designated a HIPAA security officer (the "Chief Information Security Officer") for the Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Group Health Plan. The Chief Information Security Officer is responsible for the security of Stanford University HIPAA Components and Group Health Plan ePHI, including development of the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the Security Rule and the implementation of security measures to protect ePHI. Contact information for the Chief Information Security Officer is located in Section 13. The Chief Information Security Officer may designate local security officials ("delegates") as necessary to facilitate the implementation of policies, local procedures, and security measures. 6. Policies and Procedures The University Privacy Officer has developed policies and guidelines designed to keep the Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Group Health Plan in compliance with the Privacy Rule. The University Privacy Officer may add or modify policies and guidelines as necessary and appropriate to incorporate changes in the law or to improve the effectiveness of compliance with the Privacy Rule. The Chief Information Security Officer has developed policies and guidelines to comply with the Security Rule and may add or modify those policies and guidelines as necessary and appropriate to improve Security Rule compliance. Each of the Stanford University HIPAA Components programs and the Group Health Plan must develop, implement, document, and train its workforce on the procedures necessary to comply with the appropriate HIPAA policies and this Administrative Guide Memo. For information concerning specific program procedures, workforce members should contact the local privacy or security official, as appropriate, or their supervisor. Programs will comply with requests by the University Privacy Officer, the Chief Information Security Officer, the Office of the General Counsel and/or the Internal Audit Department to make written procedures and training materials available for review. 7. Safeguards The Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Group Health Plan will institute reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect PHI from any intentional, incidental or unintentional use or disclosure that is in violation of the requirements of HIPAA, the Privacy Rule, the Security Rule or the Stanford University HIPAA policies. Please see the Stanford University HIPAA website for more details. 8. Training The Stanford University HIPAA Components and Group Health Plan will train members of their respective workforces, including management, on the Stanford University privacy and security policies and Program procedures to the extent necessary or appropriate for the members of the workforce to carry out their functions. New members of the workforce for whom HIPAA training is necessary or appropriate will be trained prior to initial contact with PHI and in no event later than 30 days from the first date of employment. Each member of the workforce whose functions are affected by a material change in the policies or procedures will be trained on those changes in a timely manner, but normally not later than 30 working days from the effective date of the change. Programs will document that workforce training has been completed and will retain these records in the format requested by the University Privacy Officer and Chief Information Security Officer. Training documentation will be provided on request to the University Privacy Officer or the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Chief Information Security Officer will implement a security awareness program to instruct all workforce members on good security practices. The content of the security awareness program will include, but not be limited to information about (a) guarding against, detecting and reporting malicious software, (b) monitoring login attempts and reporting discrepancies, and (c) creating, changing and safeguarding passwords. The program will include periodic updates and reminders on pertinent security measures and issues, including environmental and operational changes affecting the security of ePHI. 9. Violations Anyone who knows or has reason to believe that the Privacy Rule and/or Security Rule, the Stanford University HIPAA policies, the policies contained in this Administrative Guide Memo, or any Program procedure developed to implement these regulations and policies have been violated should report the matter promptly to their supervisor, a local HIPAA official, the University Privacy Officer or Chief Information Security Officer, as appropriate. All reported matters will be investigated in a timely manner and, when possible, will be handled confidentially. See Appendix A: Guidelines for the Implementation of Corrective Action in Matters Involving Violations of Patient, Research Participant and other Medical Information Privacy or Security. If the workforce member requires anonymity, their may also report such matters to the Institutional Compliance Hotline. If the workforce member does not have internet access, their may contact Institutional Compliance at (650) 721-COMP or 721-2667. To the extent practical, any known harmful effect from a violation of the Privacy Rule or the Security Rule or a security incident will be mitigated. Where appropriate, sanctions will be considered and imposed by the program and/or the University. Programs should document all investigations, resolutions, remedies and sanctions, and forward a copy of such documentation to the University Privacy Officer or Chief Information Security Officer, as appropriate. 10. Refraining from Intimidating or Retaliatory Attacks The Stanford University HIPAA Components and Group Health Plan will not intimidate, threaten, coerce, discriminate against, or take other retaliatory action against any patient, physician, employee, or any other person for exercising their rights, or for participating in any process, established under the Privacy Rule or Security Rule, including submitting a complaint or reporting a violation. Any attempt to retaliate against a person for reporting a violation in accordance with Section 9 above, may itself be considered a violation of this policy and may result in sanctions. An individual who raises concerns about any act or practice allegedly made unlawful by the Privacy Rule or the Security Rule, however, must have a good faith belief that the act or practice is unlawful, and the manner of raising such concerns must be reasonable and not violate the Privacy Rule or Security Rule. 11. Sanctions Violations of the Privacy Rule or Security Rule may, under certain circumstances, result in civil or criminal penalties. Members of the workforce who violate the Privacy Rule, the Security Rule, policies contained in this Guide Memo or the Stanford University HIPAA policies, or any program's procedures implementing these policies, may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment, contract, or other relationship with the University. See Appendix A: Guidelines for the Implementation of Corrective Action in Matters Involving Violations of Patient, Research Participant and other Medical Information Privacy or Security. 12. Evaluation and Reporting Each program will provide to the University Privacy Officer or Chief Information Security Officer all requested information in order that the University Privacy Officer or Chief Information Security Officer may (a) adequately address complaints, (b) respond to requests from the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or other HHS official, and (c) inform Stanford University or Hospital leadership about compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules. Stanford University HIPAA Components and the Group Health Plan will periodically, and when deemed necessary in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI (e.g., newly identified security risks, newly adopted technologies), conduct a technical and non-technical evaluation of its security safeguards to establish the extent to which its security policies and procedures meet the requirements of the Security Rule, and document its compliance with the Security Rule. 13. For More Information Questions: If you have questions about these policies, please contact your supervisor. Department management should contact the appropriate program official and/or the University Privacy Officer (with respect to the Privacy Rule) or the Chief Information Security Officer (with respect to the Security Rule) with any questions related to the interpretation of these policies and/or the development of departmental procedures. It is important that all questions be resolved as soon as possible to ensure compliance with the Privacy Rule and Security Rule. - University Privacy Office, privacy@stanford.edu or call (650) 725-1828 - Information Security Office, securityofficer@stanford.edu 14. Appendix A: Guidelines for the Implementation of Corrective Action in Matters Involving Violations of Patient, Research Participant and other Medical Information Privacy or Security OVERVIEW Stanford University is committed to conducting business in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and University policies. The University endeavors to provide a strong infrastructure that promotes a culture committed to safeguarding the privacy and security of patient, medical and research participant information. These guidelines serve a dual purpose. They provide faculty, staff, trainees, students, contractors, vendors, volunteers, and other members of the Stanford community ("workforce members") notice of the consequences they will face for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), the Health Information Technology Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("COMIA"), or other federal and state laws and regulations governing the confidentiality and security of patient information ("applicable laws"), or University policies relating to privacy and security of patient, medical and research participant information. Separately, the guidelines provide University offices (e.g., privacy offices, human resources, academic and student affairs offices) and individual managers direction in determining appropriate consequences for workforce members who violate applicable laws or University policies that safeguard protected health information ("PHI") and other patient medical information. These guidelines should be used in conjunction with the corrective action or discipline policy applicable to the relevant workforce member including: - Guide Memo 1.1.1:Code of Conduct - Guide Memo 2.1.16: Addressing Conduct and Performance Issues - Collective Bargaining Agreement between SEIU Local 2007 and Stanford Section 12.7 - Faculty Handbook Chapter 4.3 (Statement on Faculty Discipline) - The Fundamental Standard for Students - MD Program Handbook Chapter 8 (Committee on Performance, Professionalism & Promotion) - Research Policy Handbook Chapter 10 (Non Faculty Research Appointments) For definitions pertaining to HIPAA and frequently asked questions relating to HIPAA and other applicable laws relating to the protection of patient health information, see the University's HIPAA website. PRINCIPLES A. Imposition of Appropriate Sanctions Workforce members will be sanctioned appropriately in the event that they: - access, use or disclose more than the minimum PHI necessary to complete their job-related functions; - fail to adequately protect PHI in accordance with Stanford University's information security policies; - fail to promptly report a known or suspected HIPAA violation; or - violate any of Stanford University's other HIPAA policies, procedures or guidelines. Sanctions may also be imposed for failure to report a known or suspected HIPAA violation or for violating any of Stanford University's other HIPAA policies, procedures or guidelines. Sanctions for violations of HIPAA may include, without limitation, counseling, written warning, suspension, and termination. A workforce member's compensation and eligibility to continue in an academic or training program may also be impacted in the event of a violation. These guidelines are not intended to dictate a particular consequence in any particular situation. Rather, in consultation with the appropriate Human Resources and/or Privacy Office, managers, academic affairs and student affairs administrators have the discretion to decide: - at which level to start the corrective action process based on the severity of the offense, the potential or actual harm to the patient and/or the Hospital(s) or University, and any mitigating factors; and - whether immediate termination is justified based on the seriousness of the offense. B. Levels of Violations The level of a violation is determined by the severity of the privacy or security breach, whether the breach was intentional or unintentional or motivated by malice or personal gain, and the impact on the patient and/or institution. The following outlines some, but not all, types of violations and categorizes them broadly according to likely severity. Level 1: A workforce member carelessly or inadvertently accesses PHI without a job-related need to know, or carelessly or unintentionally reveals PHI to which their has authorized access. Examples of Level 1 violations include, but are not limited to: - Leaving PHI in a public area in the workplace or disposing of it in the trash instead of shredding receptacles; - Misdirecting faxes, emails or other documents that contain PHI; - Discussing PHI in public areas where the discussion could be overheard; - Other behaviors reflecting carelessness or lack of judgment in handling PHI. Level 2: A workforce member intentionally accesses PHI without authorization or seriously fails to protect PHI. Examples of Level 2 violations include, but are not limited to: - Intentionally accessing or asking another to access PHI without a job-related need to know, the PHI or a friend, relative, co-worker, public personality or any other individual (including searching for the existence of a record or an address or phone number); - Leaving paper files and records, computers, laptops, notebooks, smart phones or other devices containing PHI accessible and unattended; - Sharing log-in IDs and passwords with others; - Using personal email accounts (e.g., Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo), cloud computing, or other media or storage devices not approved by Stanford University for transmission or storage of PHI or not meeting required security standards (such as encryption, secure email, password protection); - Removing PHI from the Stanford University workplace without supervisor approval or failing to appropriately safeguard PHI if removed with supervisor approval or while in transit; - Other behaviors reflecting intentional conduct or serious failure to safeguard PHI. Level 3: A workforce member intentionally accesses, uses or discloses PHI without authorization, often motivated by willful disregard, malice or personal gain. A Level 3 violation is considered serious misconduct. Examples of Level 3 violations include, but are not limited to: - Intentionally using or disclosing without a job-related need to know the PHI of a friend, relative, co-worker, public personality, or any other individual’s PHI; - Accessing, using or disclosing PHI for personal purposes or gain, or with an intent to harm the patient or any third party; - Discussing or disclosing PHI with any third party either directly or via social networking or blogging sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. - Intentionally assisting an individual in gaining unauthorized access to PHI. - Jeopardizing the integrity of Stanford University’s systems. - Failing to cooperate during the investigation of a privacy or security incident. - Falsifying information during a privacy investigation or reporting in bad faith or for malicious purposes. - Other behaviors reflecting personal purpose or gain, malice or misconduct. C. Considerations in Evaluating Violation for Appropriate Sanctions Factors in determining appropriate disciplinary action may include, but are not limited to: - Whether the breach was intentional or inadvertent; - The nature of the breach, including whether the breach involved specially protected information such as HIV, psychiatric, substance abuse, or genetic data; - The magnitude of the breach, including the number of patients and the volume of protected health information accessed, used or disclosed; - The workforce member’s motive in accessing, using or disclosing PHI, and whether there was an element of malice or desire for personal gain; - Whether the workforce member has committed prior HIPAA violations; - The workforce member’s response or conduct during investigation; - Risk of harm to the victim(s) of the breach or to the University; - The existence of any compelling, aggravating or mitigating factors. PROCEDURES A. Prompt Reporting and Investigation Each workforce member must report any alleged, apparent, or potential violations of HIPAA or applicable privacy and security laws promptly (within no more than twenty-four hours) to their supervisor/designee or to the supervisor's supervisor. Suspected violations shall be investigated appropriately and in coordination with the relevant supervisor, Human Resources officer, and the Privacy Officer. Matters involving faculty, students or trainees should also be brought to the attention of the appropriate senior associate dean(s) which may include: - Senior Associate Deans for Clinical Affairs—for events related to clinical faculty - Senior Associate Dean for Medical Student Education—for events related to medical students - Senior Associate Dean for Finance and Administration—for events related to any other individuals to whom this policy applies - Dean, Vice Dean and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, as applicable—for events related to faculty - Senior Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs—for events related to graduate students or postdoctoral scholars Results of the investigation and any decision regarding discipline will be documented in writing and disciplinary actions will be made part of the workforce member’s personnel, training or student file. Discipline will be issued in accordance with existing discipline or corrective action policies applicable to the particular workforce member. When faculty members are involved, the Senior Associate Dean shall be consulted, and the faculty member shall have the rights outlined in relevant faculty policies and grievance procedures. The cognizant vice president or dean, or their designee, retains final authority concerning sanctions and will review any sanction involving suspension, dismissal, or termination before it is implemented. In the event of a possible violation of HIPAA or applicable law involving both University and SHC or LPCH personnel, the investigation must be coordinated and any correction actions or sanctions must be consistent between the organizations. Reports to state/federal oversight agencies may be required. In addition to any internal corrective action, employees may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, and referral to applicable licensing boards. B. Guidelines for Sanctions The following will serve as guidelines for appropriate sanctions for violations of HIPAA or other applicable laws or policies. Faculty Appropriate sanctions will be imposed in accordance with the Statement on Faculty Discipline, Faculty Handbook section 4.3. Employees, post-doctoral fellows, volunteers - Level 1. Violations shall, in most cases, result in oral or written counseling and/or retraining. Repeat Level 1 violations shall be subject to further disciplinary action up to and including termination. - Level 2. Violations shall, in most cases, result in a written disciplinary warning with or without an unpaid suspension, and retraining shall be required. Disciplinary action up to and including termination may be taken for repeat Level 2 violations. - Level 3. Violations, in most cases, shall result in immediate termination of employment, academic appointment or ending of a volunteer assignment. Students enrolled in undergraduate or graduate degree programs - Level 1: Violations shall, in most cases, result in oral counseling and/or retraining. Repeat Level 1 violations shall be subject to progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination from the program of study. - Level 2: Violations shall, in most cases, result a written reprimand in the student’s file and retraining. The student may also be suspended from the program of study. - Level 3: Violations, in most cases, shall result in immediate termination from the program of study. Contractors/Vendors Violations of any level shall, in most cases, result in termination of the contract/business relationship and disqualification from future contractual/business relationships.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_222
1.1.1 University Code of Conduct Formerly Known As Policy Number: 1 This Guide Memo defines the University's Code of Conduct. Applicability: The Code applies to these groups of people, referred to as members of the Stanford University Community: - Faculty, staff, students and postdoctoral scholars of Stanford University; - Members of the Board of Trustees; - Consultants, contractors and others, when performing services for the University or interacting with members of the University Community, acting on behalf of the University, or otherwise required under contract to comply with this Code; and - Individuals who perform services for the University as volunteers. 1. Introduction and Purpose a. Introduction All members of the University Community are responsible for sustaining the high ethical standards of this institution, and of the broader community in which we function. The University values integrity, diversity, respect, freedom of inquiry and expression, trust, honesty and fairness and strives to integrate these values into its education, research, health care and business practices. b. Purpose In that spirit, this Code is a shared statement of our commitment to upholding the ethical, professional and legal standards we use as the basis for our daily and long-term decisions and actions. We all must be aware of and comply with the relevant policies, standards, laws and regulations that guide our work. We are each individually accountable for our own actions and, as members of the University Community, are collectively accountable for upholding these standards of behavior and for compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies. 2. Standards of Integrity and Quality Stanford recognizes that it must earn and maintain a reputation for integrity that includes, but is not limited to, compliance with laws and regulations and its contractual obligations. Even the appearance of misconduct or impropriety can be damaging to the University. Stanford must strive at all times to maintain the highest standards of integrity and quality. There are times when Stanford's business activities and other conduct of its University Community members are not governed by specific laws or regulations. In these instances, rules of fairness, honesty, and respect for the rights of others will govern our conduct at all times. In addition, each individual is required to conduct University business transactions with the utmost honesty, accuracy and fairness. Each situation needs to be examined in accordance with this standard. No unethical practice can be tolerated, even if such practice is "customary" outside of Stanford or even if some of the goals it serves are worthy. Expediency should never compromise integrity. 3. Respect for Others Stanford University is an institution dedicated to the pursuit of excellence and facilitation of an environment that fosters this goal. Central to that institutional commitment is the principle of treating each University Community member fairly and with respect, and embracing diversity and inclusion. See Statement from the President and Provost on Advancing Free Speech and Inclusion. The University prohibits discrimination and harassment and provides equal opportunities for all Community members and applicants regardless of their race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, reproductive health decision-making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, military status, veteran status or any other characteristic protected by law. Where actions are found to have occurred that violate this standard the University will take prompt action to cease the offending conduct, prevent its recurrence and discipline those responsible. Find policies in support of this standard at these locations: - General Employment Policies - Faculty Handbook 4.2 Statement on Academic Freedom - Policy on Sexual Harassment - Policy on Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships in the Workplace and Educational Setting - Policies on Prohibited Sexual Conduct: Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Assault, Stalking Relationship Violence, Violation of University Court Directives, Student-on-Student Sexual Harassment and Retaliation - Policy on Equal Employment Opportunity, Non-Discrimination, and Affirmative Action - Policy for Protection of Minors - Harassment/Discrimination - Title VI - Diversity & Access Office - Sexual Harassment Policy Office 4. Compliance with Laws and Applicable Policies and Procedures Members of the Stanford University Community must transact University business in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and University policy and procedure. Managers and supervisors are responsible for teaching and monitoring compliance. When questions arise pertaining to interpretation or applicability of policy, contact the individual who has oversight of the policy. Refer all unresolved questions and/or interpretation of laws and regulations to the Office of the General Counsel. University-wide policy documents can be found at policy.stanford.edu. a. Contractual, Grant and Other Obligations The acceptance of an agreement, including sponsored project funding, may create a legal obligation on the part of Stanford University to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, only individuals who have authority delegated by an appropriate University official may enter into agreements on behalf of the University. See Administrative Guide Memo 5.1.1 Procurement Policies. b. Environmental Health & Safety, including Workplace Health and Safety Members of the University Community must be committed to protecting the health and safety of its members by providing safe workplaces. The University will provide information and training about health and safety hazards, and safeguards. University Community members must adhere to good health and safety practices and comply with all environmental health and safety laws and regulations. See Stanford Health and Safety Training Policies. c. Non-University Professional Standards Some professions and disciplines represented at the University are governed by standards and codes specific to their profession (such as attorneys, certified public accountants, and medical doctors). Those professional standards generally advance the quality of the profession and/or discipline by developing codes of ethics, conduct, and professional responsibility and standards to guide their members. Those belonging to such organizations are expected to adhere to University policies and codes of conduct in addition to any professional standards. If a University Community member believes there is a conflict between a professional standard and University policy, they should contact the Office of the General Counsel. d. Academic Policies See Academic Policies and Statements on the Stanford Bulletin website for academic policies. 5. Confidentiality, Privacy and Information Security University Community members receive and generate various types of confidential, regulated, proprietary and private information on behalf of the University. All members of the Community are expected to comply with all applicable rules, laws, and regulations (whether federal, state, local or foreign), contractual obligations, and University policies pertaining to the use, protection and disclosure of this information. When disaffiliating from Stanford, University Community members must return all sensitive University data unless an exception has been granted. Find office websites and supporting policies at the following locations: - Privacy Office - Information Security Office - Policy on Privacy and Access to Electronic Information - Policy on Information Security - Policy on Information Security Incident Response - Policy on Privacy and Security of Health Information (HIPAA) - Policy on Computer and Network Usage - University Policies and Statements (for Students) 6. Financial Responsibilities and Internal Controls Members of the University Community are expected to employ sound business practices and exercise prudent financial management in their stewardship of University resources. Refer to Section 3 of the Administrative Guide for responsibilities related to protection and management of University financial assets. 7. Use of University Resources University resources must be reserved for business purposes on behalf of the University. They may not be used for personal gain, and may not be used for personal use except in a manner that is incidental, and reasonable in light of the employee's duties. University resources include, but are not limited to: - University systems (e.g., telephone systems, data communication and networking services), - The Stanford domain for electronic communication forums, - Stanford name, logo, and letterhead, - University equipment (e.g., computers and peripherals, University vehicles), - Stanford facilities, - Procurement tools such as purchasing cards, travel cards and petty cash, - University records including student, employee, donor, sponsor, and patient records, and - The time and effort of staff, students and others at Stanford. Please see the following policies for more information: - Policy on Political, Campaign and Lobbying Activities - Policy on Unrelated Business Activity - Policy on Ownership and Use of Stanford Trademarks and Images 8. Conflict of Commitment/Conflict of Interest University Community members who are Stanford faculty and staff owe their primary professional allegiance to the University and its mission to engage in the highest level of education, research, health care and business practices. A conflict of commitment can arise when a person’s external activities, e.g., consulting agreements, speaking engagements, public service, personal business, etc. interfere with the person’s responsibilities to the university. A conflict of commitment usually involves issues of time allocation. Outside professional activities, private financial interests or the receipt of benefits or gifts from third parties can cause an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Relationships between Stanford and its vendors or sponsors must be free of any real or perceived impropriety or favoritism. University Community members should not solicit any gift, and should not personally accept any material gift, gratuity or payment, in cash or in kind, from any third party seeking to do business with the University or currently doing business with the University. In order to protect our primary mission, University Community members with other professional or financial interests shall disclose them in compliance with applicable conflict of commitment/conflict of interest policies and, if permitted, manage them in compliance with all controls put in place. The policies are available on the following websites: - Faculty Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest - Staff Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest - Conflict of Commitment and Interest for Academic Staff and Other Teaching Staff - Policy on Political, Campaign and Lobbying Activities - Policy on Unrelated Business Activity - Policy on Ownership and Use of Stanford Trademarks and Images 9. Response to Governmental or Other Investigations Stanford University is committed to cooperating with government investigators as required by law. If an employee receives a subpoena, search warrant or other similar document, before taking any action, the employee must immediately contact the Office of the Chief Risk Officer or the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the General Counsel is responsible for authorizing the release or copying of any University records or documents. If a government investigator, agent, or auditor comes to the University, an employee should contact their supervisor and the appropriate University office before discussing University business with such investigator, agent, or auditor. If the appropriate office is unknown, the supervisor should contact the Office of the Chief Risk Officer or the Office of the General Counsel. 10. Reporting Suspected Violations Adherence to this Code also requires that any suspected violations of applicable standards, policies, laws or regulations be brought to the attention of the appropriate cognizant office. Raising such concerns is a service to the University and does not jeopardize the University Community member’s position or employment. a. Reporting to Management Members of the University Community should report suspected violations of applicable laws, regulations, government contract and grant requirements or this Code and University policies and procedures. This reporting should normally be made initially through standard management channels, beginning with the immediate supervisor, instructor or advisor. If for any reason it is not appropriate to report suspected violations to the immediate supervisor (e.g., the suspected violation is by the supervisor), or the employee is uncomfortable doing so, individuals may go to a higher level of management within their school or department. b. Other Reporting If for any reason it is not appropriate to report suspected violations through management channels within the school or departments, or the employee is uncomfortable doing so, individuals may go to: - Human Resources, - The Office of the Chief Risk Officer, - The Office of the General Counsel, - The Office for Institutional Equity and Access, - The Ethics and Compliance Helpline at: - Phone: 650-721-2667, - Email: integrity@stanford.edu - Web Form (anonymous): helpline.stanford.edu Every concern is treated seriously and reviewed in the appropriate manner. c. Confidentiality Concerns may be reported confidentially, and even anonymously, although the more information given, the easier it is to investigate the concerns. The only anonymous reporting mechanism at the University is the Compliance and Ethics Helpline web form: helpline.stanford.edu. d. Cooperation All members of the University Community are expected to cooperate fully in the investigation of potential violations of University policy and applicable rules, laws, or regulations. e. Non-Retaliation Stanford policy prohibits retaliation against an individual who in good faith reports or provides information about concerns or suspected violations. Retaliation is an adverse action taken because an individual has made a report or has participated in an investigation. An adverse action is any action that materially affects that individual's standing or terms and conditions of employment. False accusations made with the intent of harming or retaliating against another person may subject the accuser to disciplinary action. f. Consequences of Violation Confirmed violations will result in appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or other relationships with the University. In some circumstances, civil or criminal charges and penalties may apply.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_223
2.3.5 Disability and Family Leaves Formerly Known As Policy Number: 27.7 This Guide Memo describes medical and other disability-type leaves, and the coordination of these types of leave with University benefit plans. Applicability: Applies to regular employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements, regular Academic Staff - Research, and regular Academic Staff - Libraries. (The term "regular employee" is defined in Guide Memo 2.2.1: Definitions.) For policies that apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement, refer to the agreements at Labor Relations & Collective Bargaining on the Cardinal at Work website. Notes: - Faculty may consult the Faculty Handbook, chapter 3. - See information on each disability plan for specific details about plan eligibility. 1. Overview Eligible University employees can participate in a variety of family and medical leaves and disability benefit plans. Policies are described in this document. Before the employee goes out on leave, they should consult with their local Human Resources office. Important information regarding the scope and use of the disability benefit plans is included in the relevant plan brochures available on the Cardinal at Work website. a. Specific Process for filing a disability claim: - The employee reports the absence (or planned absence) to their immediate supervisor. - The employee calls Stanford's disability administrator to initiate a claim. The disability administrator will inform the employee if there are any forms or certification documents to submit. - If the employee does not call the disability administrator, it is the department's responsibility to notify the disability administrator. - Continue steps per the general process for all disabilities in section 1.b. b. General Process: (1) Timeliness Employees must give a 30-day advance notice of a family or medical leave. Notice should be given to the immediate supervisor, the local Human Resources office and the disability administrator. In unforeseeable situations (e.g., hospitalized), employees are expected to notify the above parties as soon as possible. For work-related leaves, refer to section 45, Workers' Compensation. (2) Workers' Compensation When the employee's disability is, or may be, work-related, the department should report the circumstances to the Risk Management Office within 24 hours of the employee's injury. See section 5, Workers' Compensation. SLAC employees should refer to SLAC Human Resources for the relevant reporting requirements. (3) The local Human Resources office The local Human Resources office works with the employee, their supervisor and the disability administrator to ensure that information is communicated in a timely manner. (4) Disability and Leaves Services (DLS) DLS within University Human Resources is responsible for updating employee records in the Human Resources Management System (HRMS) during a disability leave. DLS manages the employee’s timecard and ensures that combined pay from the disability administrator and Stanford does not exceed 100% of the employee base pay. (5) Supervisor's Ongoing Communication The supervisor (or local Human Resources office on the supervisor's behalf) should routinely check the determination made on the employee's claim for short-term (VDI/SDI) disability benefit or Workers' Compensation benefit payments. The supervisor should arrange with the employee to be kept informed about the estimated return to work date for an employee who is absent for an extended period. If the employee is unable to advise the supervisor personally about their inability to return to work, the supervisor should make other arrangements to be kept advised of the status of the employee's return to work. (6) Medical Certification The employee must contact the disability administrator to initiate a leave request and open a disability or Paid Family Leave (PFL) claim, who will then work with the employee to obtain the necessary certification from a health care provider. The employee must provide certification within 15 days to the disability administrator. Certification is also required to request a leave extension. (7) Length of Leave - Maximum Duration - Except as otherwise required by law, the maximum duration that a regular employee is eligible to be on an approved medical leave of absence due to a non-work-related injury or illness is no more than 12 consecutive months, inclusive of any periods of full- or part-time leave, Family Medical leave, pregnancy disability leave, or leave for personal reasons. If, through the interactive process, it is determined that an employee is unable to return to work at the end of an approved medical leave with or without reasonable accommodations, the employee will be terminated. 12 months of leave is not guaranteed. The maximum duration of leave will be determined based on the particular circumstances of the situation, including the operational needs of the department, the number of times extensions of leave have been previously granted, and any disability accommodation leave that may have been granted. - Exceptions - If a proposed leave will result in a total period of absence exceeding 12 months, prior approval is required from the local Human Resources office and in concurrence with the Vice President for Human Resources (or their designee). Requests for exceptions must be submitted in writing to the local Human Resources office. Such exceptions are likely to be approved only in limited circumstances. 2. Family and Medical Leaves a. Introduction Family Medical Leave is leave authorized by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and/or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Certain leaves for members of the armed forces and their families are outlined in Guide Memo 2.1.18. In most cases, FMLA and CFRA run concurrently with each other and with Short-Term Disability Leave, including leave due to work-related illness or injury, and with Paid Family Leave (PFL). Eligible employees are assured up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during a rolling 12-month period that begins on the verified FMLA/CFRA start date. "Assured" means the department cannot refuse the leave when any one of the following situations is appropriately verified: - The birth of a child or the placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care. Under CFRA, if both parents are employed by Stanford, each parent is eligible for up to 12 weeks of baby bonding leave. Limitations: Leave for birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care should generally be taken in blocks of time (two weeks minimum) and must be concluded within the first 12 months after the birth or placement. A request for baby bonding leave in less than two weeks' duration may be granted on any two occasions. - A serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform their job. - Under FMLA, the serious health condition of a spouse, same-sex domestic partner, parent, or child that requires the employee's absence from work to care for the ill family member. - Under CFRA, the serious health condition of a child, parent, parent-in-law (parent of a spouse or domestic partner), grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, domestic partner, or designated person that requires the employee’s absence from work to care for the ill family member. “Designated person” means any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The “designated person” may be identified by the employee at the time leave is requested. An employee is limited to one “designated person” per 12-month period. Definition of "Serious Health Condition" Serious health condition (as defined by the Dept. of Labor) means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either: - Inpatient care (i.e., an overnight stay) in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical-care facility, including any period of incapacity (i.e., inability to work, attend school, or perform other regular daily activities) or subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care; or - Continuing treatment by a health care provider, which includes: - A period of incapacity lasting more than three consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment or period of incapacity relating to the same condition that also includes: - treatment two or more times by or under the supervision of a health care provider (i.e., in-person visits, the first within seven days and both within 30 days of the first day of incapacity); or - one treatment by a health care provider (i.e., an in-person visit within seven days of the first day of incapacity) with a continuing regimen of treatment (e.g., prescription medication, physical therapy); or - Any period of incapacity related to pregnancy or for prenatal care. A visit to the health care provider is not necessary for each absence; or - Any period of incapacity or treatment for a chronic serious health condition that continues over an extended period, requires periodic visits (at least twice a year) to a health care provider, and may involve occasional episodes of incapacity. A visit to a health care provider is not necessary for each absence; or - A period of incapacity that is permanent or long-term due to a condition for which treatment may not be effective. Only supervision by a health care provider is required, rather than active treatment; or - Any absences to receive multiple treatments for restorative surgery or for a condition that would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than three days if not treated. - A period of incapacity lasting more than three consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment or period of incapacity relating to the same condition that also includes: b. Eligibility Employees working in the U.S. are eligible if employed by Stanford at least one year and have worked at least 1,250 hours (paid time off, paid leave and unpaid leave not included) during the 12 months before the start of the requested leave. c. Notification Employees are expected to provide 30 days advance notice to their manager when the need for leave is foreseeable (i.e., anticipated date of birth, adoption, or planned medical treatment). When advance notice is not possible, employees should give as much advance notice as feasible. If advance notice was not provided when the employee had sufficient prior knowledge of the need for leave, the department may deny leave until 30 days have elapsed. Such denial should be made only when operationally necessary, and always in consultation with the local Human Resources office. Employees are required to give a minimum of two days' notice if the return to work will be later or earlier than the expected return date. d. Medical Certification The employee must call the disability administrator to request FMLA/CFRA leave. The disability administrator will work with the employee to obtain certification from a health care provider that the employee, their child, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner has a serious health condition, the condition's expected duration, and the need for the employee to attend to the family member. The employee must provide certification within 15 days to the disability administrator. Certification is also required to request a leave extension. e. Intermittent Leave Under some circumstances, employees may take FMLA/CFRA leave intermittently (taking leave in separate blocks of time for a single qualifying reason) or on a reduced schedule (reducing the employee's usual weekly or daily work schedule). When leave is needed for planned medical treatment, the employee must make a reasonable effort to schedule treatment to avoid unduly disrupting department operations. For birth and care of a child or "baby bonding" under California (CFRA) law, an employee may use intermittent leave in segments of two weeks. A request for baby bonding leave of less than two weeks duration may be granted on any two occasions. 3. Pregnancy and Disability Leave California law currently provides eligible employees up to four months off for pregnancy disability leave (PDL). The first three months of PDL run concurrently with the employee's federal FMLA entitlement. Following PDL, the employee may be eligible to use up to 12 weeks of California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave. Verified pregnancy disability leave does not count against an employee's California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave entitlement unless the employee has exhausted the maximum pregnancy disability leave permitted by law. 4. Paid Organ Donor Leave a. Introduction Under California law, eligible employees are entitled to a paid leave of absence of up to 30 days for the purpose of organ donation and up to five days for bone marrow donation. For organ donation, eligible employees are entitled to an additional unpaid leave of absence of up to 30 days. The leave may be taken in increments during any one-year period. The one-year period starts on the first day of leave. Use of accrued time for a portion of the leave will be required (see section 4.d). Periods of authorized Paid Organ Donor leave do not run concurrently with either FMLA or CFRA leave and are not counted against an employee's annual FMLA/CFRA entitlement. b. Eligibility The employee must complete at least 90 days of service with the University before requesting Paid Organ Donor leave. c. Medical Certification The employee must call the disability administrator to request a Paid Organ Donor leave and provide written medical verification that the employee is an organ or bone marrow donor and the medical necessity for the donation. The disability administrator must receive the certification within 15 days of the Paid Organ Donor leave request. d. Pay During Leave During the period of Paid Organ Donor leave, employees will be required to use five days of accrued time for bone marrow donation and 10 days for organ donation. Once the amount of required accrued time is used, the employee will be on a paid leave of absence for up to 30 days for organ donation and five days for bone marrow donation. 5. Workers' Compensation a. Introduction The purpose of this coverage is to provide partial income continuation during absences resulting from work-related injuries, illnesses, or exposures and payment of certified medical benefits for such injuries and illnesses. The university pays the full cost of Workers' Compensation coverage. Workers' Compensation payments are a non-taxable benefit paid directly to the employee by a third-party administrator. b. Eligibility All employees of the university, including student employees, staff, and faculty, are covered by Workers' Compensation. Work-related disability provisions are applicable to contingent employees (e.g., temporary and casual employees), and student employees, as defined in Guide Memo 2.2.1: Definitions. c. Reporting Work-related Incidents and Associated Absences From Work Departments have additional requirements for reporting all work-related injuries and illnesses. See Guide Memo 7.6.1: Employee Work-Related Incident Reporting. See also, the Stanford Risk Management and Insurance website. d. Payments The Workers' Compensation administrator normally pays benefits from the fourth day of the disability period or the first day of hospitalization, whichever occurs first. If the employee is out of work for more than 14 days (need not be consecutive) with a doctor's authorization, the three-day waiting period is waived, and retroactive payments will be made so that payments start with the first day of disability. For Workers' Compensation, Stanford charges up to the initial five full work days of absence (days need not be consecutive) of an accepted claim to work-related disability paid leave. The university will augment the Workers' Compensation benefit with salary during this period. An employee's sick time or vacation is not charged for these days of absence. By state law, an employee may not receive both Workers' Compensation benefits and full pay. Therefore, employees are required to reimburse the university for any Workers' Compensation benefits paid for the first five days including any associated holidays, because the university has already paid the employee for the time. For part-time employees, the full day is prorated based on the employee's normal work schedule. e. Delayed Claims If acceptance of a claim is delayed, the initial five full days of absence (need not be consecutive) are charged to accumulated sick time and the leave is handled as a short-term non-work-related disability. If accumulated sick time is exhausted, the time is charged to accrued PTO, floating holiday, and vacation, in that order. If the employee does not have enough accrued time, the remaining hours are unpaid. If the claim is then accepted under Workers' Compensation, any sick, PTO, floating holiday, and /or vacation time taken during the first five days will be restored. f. Supplementing Workers' Compensation Payments Employees may receive both paid leave and disability plan benefits concurrently, not to exceed the employee's base pay. After the initial five work days of disability, accumulated sick, PTO, floating holiday, and vacation time will be used, in that order, to supplement Workers' Compensation benefits. Thus, the employee continues to receive income equivalent to full pay. g. Role of Disability and Leaves Services (DLS) DLS within University Human Resources is responsible for updating employee records in the Human Resources Management System (HRMS) during a disability leave. DLS manages the employee’s timecard and ensures that combined pay from the disability administrator and Stanford does not exceed 100% of the employee base pay. h. More Information Details regarding claims procedures, incident reports, and related matters may be obtained from the Office of Risk Management and Insurance, (650) 723-7400. Also, Guide Memo 7.6.1: Employee Work-Related Incident Reporting, has additional information about Workers' Compensation. SLAC employees should refer to SLAC Human Resources. 6. Income during Family and Medical Leaves a. Use of Accrued Time Accrued time consists of sick time, PTO for the calendar year, floating holiday for the calendar year and vacation, to be used in that order. During medical leaves (including Workers' Compensation, FMLA, CFRA, and PDL), the university will use an employee's accrued time to maintain the employee's base pay. For Paid Family Leaves (PFL), please see section 6.d. When the employee is also receiving disability benefits, DLS ensures that combined income from both the disability vendor and the University does not exceed pre-disability pay. Accrued time is used until the employee goes off disability, including Worker's Compensation, or until all balances are exhausted. The use of some forms of accrued time is at the employee's option during certain FMLA/CFRA leaves. If an employee chooses not to use accrued time during a medical leave, the employee must notify DLS by email within 24-48 hours of their claim being approved. An employee's request to opt out of the payment practice can only be for future pay cycles and not retroactively. Disability and Leave Services (DLS) administers the employee's records in the Human Resources Management System (HRMS). Procedures at SLAC will differ. Thus, if the employee has accrued time and is also receiving disability benefits, the employee will receive disability checks from the disability administrator and/or the Worker's Compensation administrator and reduced paychecks from the university until their accrued time has been exhausted. Once the accrued time is exhausted, the employee will only receive disability checks from the disability vendor for the duration of the approved leave. b. Overpayment If an employee has been overpaid, the employee must reimburse the university for the overpayment either by direct payment or through payroll deduction. Failure to repay an overpayment could result in disciplinary action. c. Voluntary Disability Insurance (VDI)/Short-Term Disability (STD) (1) Introduction The university's VDI plan is state-approved to take the place of SDI by providing benefits that are better than those of the state's plan. The VDI plan provides partial income continuation for periods of disability of up to 52 weeks or a maximum dollar amount. This plan is described in the Statement of Coverage available on the Cardinal at Work website. For information on SDI, go to the State of California Employment Development Department's website. (2) Eligibility Faculty and staff based in California are covered for short-term disabilities by either the university's Voluntary Disability Insurance plan (VDI) or State Disability Insurance (SDI) if the employee opted out of VDI. Non-California employees are covered under a separate 26-week short-term disability plan (STD). (3) Benefit Waiting Period Refer to the Voluntary Disability Insurance Statement of Coverage on the Cardinal at Work website. (4) Taxability Short-term disability (VDI/SDI) payments are non-taxable benefits. These non-taxable benefits are paid directly to the employee by the disability administrator. d. Paid Family Leave (PFL) (1) Introduction This California state program provides partial income replacement during absences from work to care for seriously ill family members (parent, child, spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or parent-in-law) or to bond with a new child. It is not a separate type of leave. (2) Eligibility Faculty and staff based in California contribute to a Paid Family Leave (PFL) insurance benefit according to state law as part of the VDI deduction. (3) Supplementing PFL Payments During PFL, eligible employees will receive a portion of their base pay, up to a weekly maximum, from the disability administrator or state disability program, for up to eight weeks in a rolling 12-month period. The university will supplement the approved state paid family leave benefit to maintain the eligible employee’s base pay for the first six weeks that the employee is receiving PFL benefits. For the additional two weeks that the employee is eligible for PFL benefits, they may elect to use sick, vacation, floating holiday or PTO time, combined with the approved state leave, to maintain their base pay. Together, the state PFL and the university’s supplement will not exceed 100% of an employee’s base pay as of their last day worked before starting their leave. Disability and Leave Services (DLS) within University Human Resources administers the employee's records in the Human Resources Management System (HRMS). DLS ensures that combined income from both the disability vendor and the university does not exceed pre-disability pay. Procedures at SLAC will differ. (4) Overpayment If an employee has been overpaid, the employee must reimburse the university for the overpayment either by direct payment or through payroll deduction. Failure to repay an overpayment could result in disciplinary action. (5) Taxability PFL is a non-taxable benefit for state and FICA but is a taxable benefit for Federal tax purposes. (6) More Information The benefit is described on the Cardinal at Work website. Forms are available on this website in the Resource Library. e. Long-Term Disability (LTD) (1) Introduction This plan provides partial income continuation during longer periods of disability. LTD benefits could start after a disability period of 180 consecutive days. After a disability period of 15 months, the plan's benefits are more restricted because a more stringent definition of "disability" is used. (2) Eligibility Employees whose approved disability continues past 180 consecutive days may be eligible for Long-Term Disability. The disability vendor provides the employee with the appropriate information when the employee's disability period approaches 180 days. Eligible employees based outside of California in a state that offers paid family leave must apply for paid family benefits through their state. Eligible employees based outside of California in a state that does not offer paid family leave benefits can file a paid family claim through Stanford's disability vendor. (3) Taxability Long-term disability benefits are taxable for federal and state, non-taxable for FICA. (4) More Information The Summary Plan Description for the Long-Term Disability Plan provides information about coverage, definition of disability, and benefits. It is available on the Cardinal at Work website. 7. Benefits During Disability Periods a. Health and Life Benefits (1) Paid Leave Employees on paid FMLA/CFRA, PFL, VDI or Workers' Compensation will have their applicable benefit contributions deducted from their reduced paychecks. See (3) for LTD. (2) Unpaid Leave Employees on unpaid PFL, VDI, Workers' Compensation, and all LTD participants (paid or unpaid) will have the same university benefit contributions as when actively employed. The employee will be billed for the employee portion of the costs on an after-tax basis. (3) LTD and Part-Time Work If an employee continues to receive LTD benefits, but is able to work part-time, there will be no change in benefit contributions. Employees will have applicable benefit contributions deducted from their reduced paychecks. b. Retirement Savings Plan (SCRP) (1) Paid Leave When an employee continues to receive pay from the university, retirement savings plan benefit accruals and/or contributions continue, subject to plan provisions. (2) LTD Plus Paid Leave Employees who supplement LTD benefits with accrued time (e.g., sick, vacation, PTO, floating holiday) will have that paid time counted as earnings for university retirement savings plans, subject to plan provisions. c. Retiree Medical Eligibility During the first 180 days on Short-Term Disability or Workers' Compensation, time is counted toward official retiree medical eligibility. After 180 days on disability, the time does not count toward official retiree medical eligibility. d. Benefits in Cases of Termination (1) Medical and Dental Coverage A regular employee whose university employment is terminated while the employee is receiving benefit payments from a Short-Term Disability plan or Workers' Compensation plan may continue medical and dental coverages at their own expense through COBRA for 18 months, or until LTD is approved. (2) Life Insurance Life insurance portability or conversion to an individual plan is available. The employee should contact Stanford Benefits at the time of termination for the appropriate forms. 8. For More Information Employees can consult with the local Human Resources Office or review the Cardinal at Work website. General questions about State Disability Insurance (SDI) and Workers' Compensation should be referred to the appropriate government office.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_224
2.4.2 Directories and Distribution Lists Formerly Known As Policy Number: 28.3 The University maintains lists of names, addresses, telephone numbers and electronic mail accounts of individuals and organizations of importance to the University. This Guide Memo sets forth policies concerning use of such University data and describes the major lists used to conduct the University's business. Applicability: This policy applies to all Stanford University employees and students. 1. Use of University Distribution Lists and Directories a. Publicly Available Information (1) Privacy Students have rights with respect to their educational records under the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA); see the Student Bulletin, for more information. Additionally, students, affiliates, faculty and staff may have rights to privacy under California Law with regard to certain information used in distribution lists and directories. StanfordYou provides members of the community the ability to update key directory and contact information, including work and emergency information. To ensure contact information is available and accessible within the Stanford community, staff must maintain their work information in StanfordYou. (2) Printed Stanford Directory Contains information about Stanford employees, and students registered for autumn term. It is available free of charge to all continuing Stanford employees and registered students, and for purchase by the general public. By making this information publicly available, the University relinquishes control over the use to which it may be put. Therefore, particular care is taken to carry out individuals' wishes regarding the confidentiality of their home address and telephone number information. See 1.a (1) above. (3) StanfordWho Online directory contains information for and about current Stanford students, faculty and staff, including people affiliated with the University, Stanford Healthcare and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC). This directory allows the public and Stanford community to search for the contact information of members in the community. Results are based on the settings maintained within StanfordYou. b. Alumni Directory The Stanford Alumni Association and other school alumni associations publish an online and print directory that is available to alumni, current students and some University departments for the user's personal use only. The directory may not be used for commercial purposes. c. Lists for University Purposes Distribution lists not publicly available may be used only for University purposes. Such lists include both mailing lists and electronic mail distribution lists including those created by members of the Stanford community from University sources. Use of the distribution lists (including production of listings of file contents, production of mailing labels and online use of electronic mail distribution lists) is authorized only when all of the criteria below are met: - The organization is responsible to the President of the University; - The use is for official University business; and - When such use is consistent with the University responsibilities of the individual requesting or using the list. University distribution lists may not, for example: - Be used for personal, partisan political, or commercial purposes - Be provided to persons or entities outside the University - Be used for promotional purposes or solicitations by other than Stanford University d. Department Responsibilities Departments are responsible for ensuring that any lists they maintain are used in conformity with University policies. In addition to this Guide memo, the following contain applicable policies: - Administrative Guide Memo 1.5.1: Political, Campaign and Lobbying Activities - Administrative Guide Memo 1.5.2: Staff Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest - Faculty Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest, Research Policy Handbook, 4.1 - Administrative Guide Memo 6.2.1: Computer and Network Usage Policy e. Exceptions Any request for University data for use other than in accordance with this policy must have the approval of the President of the University or their designee. 2. Person Registry a. Contents The Person Registry contains basic identifying information for all faculty, staff, students and affiliates. b. Original Sources of Information The Person Registry brings together student information from Student Administration, faculty and staff information from the Human Resources Management System, (HRMS) and sponsored affiliates' information from the SUNet ID system. c. How Changes are Made Faculty, staff, students and recent graduates may change their own information using the Axess portal or by using StanfordYou for service related information (e.g., email settings). Faculty and staff may change some personal information in StanfordYou; work-related changes are made in the university's HRMS by human resources administrators, with the exception of a name change, which is personal in nature but must be updated in the HRMS. d. Outputs (1) StanfordWho: See 1.a (3) above. (2) Listings in the Printed Stanford Directory: See 1.a(2) above. (3) Axess: An Intranet (referred to as the Axess portal) that faculty, staff and students use to complete many tasks. (4) Corrections to Source Systems: Changes made through StanfordWho and Axess go to the Person Registry and then to the university's Student Administration system and HRMS. (5) Other authorized uses: Data is available to other official University business systems, e.g., the ID Card system and the Library system. e. More Information See the University IT website for more information about the Registry. 3. Human Resources Management System a. Contents The Human Resources Management System (HRMS) contains detailed demographic and work data on all University employees and retirees. b. Sources of Information Information on current employees and retirees comes from the university's HRMS and is submitted by the employee or retiree's department. c. How Changes are Made (1) Employees' Address and Phone Information StanfordYou allows employees to update information published in Stanford directories. See StanfordYou for more information. (2) Work-Related Changes Changes other than the employee's address and telephone information are generated by the department's human resources administrator online in the university's HRMS. (3) Retirees Changes to retiree information are entered on receipt of written instructions from the retiree or by contacting the University HR Service Team. Only emeriti are included in the StanfordWho directory. d. Outputs (1) Person Registry The HRMS feeds data to the Person Registry. (2) Mailing Labels The HRMS can generate mailing labels for specific populations. For advice on options available, departments should consult with Mail and Delivery Services. 4. Student Administration a. Contents The university's Student Administration system includes student and applicant demographic information, including physical and email addresses. b. Sources of Information (1) Central Offices Including: Bursar's Office, Office of the Registrar, Financial Aid, and Undergraduate Admissions (2) Academic Departments Department administrators with appropriate access enter advisors, graduate degree support information, graduate financial support information, and admissions data. c. How Data Changes are Made Central offices and academic departments can, in most cases, update data they have originally entered. Students can update personal information through the Axess portal and StanfordWho. d. Outputs (1) Person Registry The university's Student Administration sends data to the Person Registry. (2) Student Records Reporting systems contain detailed student information including personal addresses. Access to this data requires approval by the appropriate School Dean for academic departments or the Registrar's Office for central office staff, and access to private information is set up only on a "need-to-know" basis. Address rosters, mailing labels, and personal reports can be generated for business purposes. (3) Applicant Information Undergraduate and graduate applicant demographic information is contained in university systems and/or an authorized vendor's database. Access to this data requires approval by the appropriate School Dean for academic departments or the Registrar's Office for central office staff, and is set up only on a "need-to-know" basis. Mailing labels and personal reports can be generated from the system. 5. Alumni Information a. Contents (1) PostGrads The PostGrads alumni information database includes basic demographic data for Stanford alumni, parents of students, and University friends, including corporations and foundations. This file is used to create mailing lists for the Stanford Magazine and various mailings and solicitations sent by the Office of Development, the Stanford Alumni Association, and the University. The data in this file may be selected according to particular purposes, such as those alumni who received law degrees in 1980. The Office of Development maintains and controls PostGrads. (2) Department and School Databases Some departments and schools keep records of their own alumni and friends. The following restrictions apply to such databases: - Schools and departments may receive data changes as a result of their mailings. The data changes should be sent to alumni.information@stanford.edu for updating in PostGrads. - Any use of PostGrads information for gift solicitations outside of the Office of Development must be approved in advance by the Office of the Vice President for Development. - Any use of records must be consistent with the purpose communicated to the persons providing such information. b. Sources of Information (1) Alumni Data on current and graduated students is downloaded to PostGrads from PeopleSoft Student Administration. Although recent graduates can update information in Axess, information is not currently shared between Axess and PostGrads. (2) Parents Data on parents of Stanford students is forwarded to Development Services and PostGrads by the Stanford Parents Program in the Office of Development, which receives the information from the New Undergraduate Student Information Project, administered by the Housing Center. (3) Stanford Friends Data on Stanford friends is forwarded to Development Services by various other sections of the Development Office. c. How Data Changes are Made Development Services enters changes into PostGrads. Sources of information for changes are returned mail, postal change of address cards, correspondence with individuals on the list, changes made by the individual via their online profile, and notification from a University department with which the individual is associated. Information needed includes: - The individual's University ID number - The individual's name - Change information - Name, Stanford department, and phone number of the information source, when the information is not directly from the individual d. Outputs from File (1) Lists for Directories Directories of specific populations published by schools use PostGrads as source data. (2) Labels and Address Lists Departments and schools needing output from PostGrads should contact their School's Development Office for assistance, after obtaining approval from the Office of the Vice President for Development. Mailing information will be prepared only for University departments. If an outside vendor provides mailing services, the department is responsible for assuring that the vendor will protect the confidentiality of the data and will gain no rights over the data. e. Control of File Only Development Services may make changes to PostGrads biographic and gift information. The Director of Development Services acts as coordinator in resolving questions that may arise in application of University policies on use of PostGrads.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_225
2.4.6 Indemnification Formerly Known As Policy Number: 15.7 This policy covers indemnification of employees. Applicability: This policy applies to all faculty and staff of the University. 1. Indemnification Policy Stanford's policy is to indemnify and defend its faculty and staff in compliance with California Labor Code Section 2802 or (in the University’s discretion) when indemnification and defense is appropriate in defense of academic freedom or other important values of the University. If there is a request from a faculty or staff member for defense and indemnity in connection with their duties at Stanford, it should be directed initially to the Office of the General Counsel to look into the request. If the OGC has concerns about approving the request, it should refer the matter to the Provost, who may (though is not required to) seek advice from whomever the Provost desires, including individuals or an existing faculty body; the Provost shall make the final decision. 2. Sources For More Information Any questions regarding indemnification should be referred to either the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) or the Office of Risk Management. See also the Office of the General Counsel website.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_226
2.4.5 Protection of Property Formerly Known As Policy Number: 28.6 This Guide Memo outlines departmental responsibilities for safeguarding University property. 1. Security of Facilities a. Arrangements Each department is responsible for making whatever arrangements are necessary to secure University facilities when they are not in use. b. Instructions to Employees All employees should be instructed to lock all windows, doors, and storage facilities when they leave an area unattended and at the close of normal work. Employees who work outside of regular hours should relock doors upon entering as well as when leaving a building. 2. Protective Measures Against Theft and Vandalism a. Keys The number of people given keys to buildings, offices, labs, and storerooms should be kept to a minimum. A list of people with keys should be kept by each department. Keys must be returned upon termination of employment. Arrangements should be made to change keys and locks from time to time. b. Safeguarding Equipment Each department is responsible for the inventory and safeguard of all valuable equipment. If equipment is loaned, a record should be kept of each temporary assignment. Portable equipment of value should be kept in locked storage when not in use if this can be arranged. Consideration should be given to bolting or chaining computers, microscopes, and similar equipment to the working surface. Contact the Police Department at 650/723-9633, or see http://police.stanford.edu for advice concerning security of property through the STOPP program. Monetary losses to the department may be reduced by implementation of the program and the $1,000 insurance deductible may be waived. c. Valuable Papers and Records Special arrangements should be made for protecting valuable, irreplaceable, and confidential papers and records. Desks, file cabinets, and safes containing confidential or valuable documents must be locked whenever they are unattended, even for a short time. Consideration should be given to maintaining duplicate records, disks, tapes, or microfilms. Off-site storage should be arranged for valuable records. Such records should be kept current. d. Safe Deposit Boxes If items are to be kept in a safe deposit box, the box should be rented in the name of Stanford University and fees billed to the University (not to an individual). Notification of the box location and authorized signatures should be sent to the Risk Management Office and the Accounting Officer, Controller's Office. e. Money and Personal Property Employees should be reminded periodically not to leave cash, wallets, pocketbooks, or personal possessions of value in accessible locations. Personal automobiles should be locked. f. Works of Art, Precious Metals, and Stones Whenever works of art, precious metals (such as gold, silver, platinum, rhodium, and rhenium), or valuable stones (diamonds, opals, sapphires, etc.), whose total value is significant are acquired by purchase, donation, or loan to the University, the department is responsible for providing an adequate security and accountability system. The Police Department and the Risk Management Office are available for assistance in developing an auditable system for the receipt, inventory, storage, and accountability of the precious items. A written description of procedures should be filed in the department. Departments accepting loans or gifts of such property should send a copy of the inventory to the Risk Management Office for insurance coverage. g. Vandalism Adequate protection against theft should provide equal protection against acts of vandalism. If physical facilities are such that unauthorized access is possible, departments may ask the advice of the Stanford Police for methods of obtaining adequate protection. 3. Reports of Theft or Vandalism a. Immediate Reports to the Police Thefts, evidence of attempted theft, and acts of vandalism must be reported to the Stanford Police as soon as the discovery is made. b. Investigation of Theft or Vandalism Only the police are authorized to conduct an investigation of a theft or act of vandalism. Everyone else is cautioned to refrain from disturbing the evidence and from taking action in the matter except under the direction of the investigating officer. c. Insurance The Risk Management Office processes all claims for the replacement value or repair of University property that has been stolen, destroyed or damaged. For more information, see Guide Memo 2.4.4. 4. Theft by University Employees a. Staff A staff employee determined to have participated, as perpetrator or accomplice, in theft of University property or property for which the University is responsible is subject to discharge and legal action. b. Faculty Members of the Academic Council are governed by the Statement on Faculty Discipline, which can be found in the Faculty Handbook. 5. Use of University Property University property may not be used for personal purposes or for personal gain. See Guide Memo 8.2.1: University Events, and the Public Events Policy and Practice Manual for policy on use of University property for public events.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_227
2.2.7 Requesting Workplace Accommodations For Employees With Disabilities Formerly Known As Policy Number: 23.5 This Guide Memo outlines Stanford University's policies and procedures for employee requests for disability-related accommodations. Applicability: This policy applies to all University employees. 1. Policy Stanford University values diversity and is committed to providing equal employment opportunities to all qualified employees, including those with disabilities. The University follows all state and federal laws and regulations, including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (CFEHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). Disability is defined as any physical or mental impairment that limits one or more of an individual's major life activities (e.g., caring for oneself, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, sitting, standing). To ensure equality of access for employees with disabilities, the University will provide reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of their job and participate in University programs and activities. 2. Implementation and Responsibility a. Employees Employees are responsible for initiating requests and cooperating in the interactive process for any desired disability-related workplace accommodations. Requests by non-faculty employees should go to the supervisor or human resources manager; faculty employees should contact their Chair, departmental or school faculty affairs officer, or the ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer. b. Supervisors Supervisors are responsible for receiving requests for workplace accommodations, informing employees of the process, and referring requests to the appropriate human resources manager. Supervisors, in coordination with their local human resources manager, are responsible for initiating a discussion concerning accommodations when they have reason to believe an employee's disability precludes the employee from initiating a request. Supervisors will promptly inform the local human resources manager of all requests and accommodations. c. Human Resources Managers Human Resources Managers are responsible for evaluating the request, determining what type of documentation is necessary, and determining if the requested accommodation is appropriate and effective. To identify your human resources manager, see the human resources managers list. d. ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer The ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer provides information on the employment provisions of the ADA and employer obligations. You can also contact the Compliance Officer for information on campus accessibility, how to get technical and assistive equipment, and funding sources. You can reach the ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer at the Diversity & Access Office located in Kingscote Gardens, 419 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, (650) 725-0326, FAX (650) 723-1791, TTY (650) 723-1216. e. Chairs and Faculty Affairs Officers Chairs and Faculty Affairs Officers are responsible for receiving requests for workplace accommodations and referring requests to the ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer for handling under procedures similar to Section 3. 3. Process a. Step One - Request The employee is responsible for requesting a workplace accommodation for their disability. The request shall be made to either the employee's supervisor or the local human resources manager. Requests should be in writing and include: - Employee's name, telephone number, and address - Department - Supervisor - Limitations caused by the medical condition or disability (not the underlying medical diagnosis) - What accommodation is being requested - Brief explanation of how the requested accommodation will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of their job. b. Step Two - Discussion When received, the supervisor and/or human resources manager will meet with the employee to acknowledge the request and explain the process. The supervisor or human resources manager will also meet with the employee as necessary to discuss the request and accommodation alternatives. c. Step Three - Providing Necessary Documentation The supervisor and/or human resources manager evaluating the requested accommodation will determine what type of documentation is necessary to proceed with the process. This may vary depending on the particular circumstances and the accommodation requested. It is the employee's responsibility to provide the requested documentation supporting the request for accommodation. If the University determines it is appropriate to get a second professional opinion concerning the nature or impact of a physical or mental disability, the Department will bear the cost of the second opinion. Any request for a second opinion must be coordinated with University Human Resources--Employee & Labor Relations. The request for an accommodation will be evaluated once the employee submits all documentation to the human resources manager and/or the supervisor. d. Step Four - Evaluation Appropriate accommodations are determined following an individualized assessment of each request. The supervisor and/or human resources manager will consider the needs and requests for reasonable accommodation to determine whether the necessary equipment or services exist already in a different department or unit before investing in new equipment or additional services. Among the factors considered in determining reasonable accommodations for employees are: - Does the employee's physical or mental condition limit one or more major life activities? - How does the limitation(s) affect the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job? - Will the requested accommodation allow the employee to perform the essential job functions effectively? - Will the requested accommodation alter or remove an essential function of the job? - What impact will the requested accommodation or modification have on the department or unit? The University is not required to provide an accommodation that will eliminate an essential function of the job in question or to provide an accommodation or service that is personal in nature, such as a hearing aid or wheelchair. Furthermore, the University is not required to lower performance, production or conduct standards, or alter attendance requirements expected of all employees. e. Step Five - Notification The supervisor and/or human resources manager evaluating the request for an accommodation shall provide the employee with written notification of the determination within 15 calendar days of receiving the completed request (including the requested documentation). If the determination includes an accommodation, the notice will also include the expected implementation date. If the supervisor or the human resources manager needs additional time to assess a request or to provide an accommodation, they shall provide the employee with written notification of the status of the request and the proposed date of determination. 4. Funding If the accommodation is appropriate and reasonable, then the Department bears the initial responsibility for funding the accommodation. If the cost is beyond the Department's means, the cost should be shared by higher levels in the Department's/office's reporting line. For information on additional funding resources for disability-related accommodations, contact the Diversity & Access Office at (650) 725-0326. 5. Resolving Disagreements In the event an employee disagrees with the determination and/or proposed accommodation, they may contact the ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer at the Diversity & Access Office, Kingscote Gardens, 419 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, telephone 723-0755, FAX 723-1791, for assistance in resolving the disagreement. 6. Confidentiality and Records All University employees have a legal obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding a staff or faculty member's disability-related information. To that end, supervisors and local human resources managers shall provide information to staff and faculty only when necessary to facilitate accommodations.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_228
2.2.6 Smoke-Free Environment Formerly Known As Policy Number: 23.4 Applicability: Applies to all academic and administrative units of Stanford University, including SLAC and all campus student housing. This policy does not supersede more restrictive policies that may be in force to comply with federal, state, or local laws or ordinances. The President must approve more restrictive policies not required by law. 1. Policy It is the policy of Stanford University that all smoking, including but not limited to tobacco products and the use of electronic smoking devices, is prohibited in enclosed buildings and facilities and during indoor or outdoor events on the campus. 2. Definition “Smoke-free” refers to an environment that is free of smoke from, among other things, tobacco products and/or vapors from electronic smoking devices. 3. Guidelines a. Smoking-Prohibited Areas Specifically, smoking is prohibited in classrooms and offices, all enclosed buildings and facilities, in covered walkways, in University vehicles, during indoor or outdoor athletic events, during other University sponsored or designated indoor or outdoor events and in outdoor areas designated by signage as "smoking prohibited" areas. - Ashtrays will not be provided in any enclosed University building or facility. - "Smoking Prohibited" signs will be posted. b. Outdoor Smoking Areas Except where otherwise posted as a "smoking prohibited area," smoking is generally permitted in outdoor areas, except during organized events. Outdoor smoking in non-prohibited areas must be at least 30 feet away from doorways, open windows, covered walkways, and ventilation systems to prevent smoke from entering enclosed buildings and facilities. To accommodate faculty, staff and students who smoke, Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts and Deans may designate certain areas of existing courtyards and patios as smoking areas, and must provide ashtrays. The specific academic or administrative unit(s) will be responsible for absorbing all costs associated with providing designated smoking areas and ashtrays. 4. Enforcement This policy relies on the consideration and cooperation of smokers and non-smokers. It is the responsibility of all members of the University community to observe and follow this policy and its guidelines. a. Smoking Cessation Information Smoking cessation programs are available for faculty and staff through BeWell's Healthy Living offerings. Students may contact the Health Promotion Program (HPP) through the Student Health Center for smoking cessation information or programs. b. Repeated Violations Faculty, staff and students repeatedly violating this policy may be subject to appropriate action to correct any violation(s) and prevent future occurrences. 5. Implementation and Distribution This policy will be disseminated to all faculty, staff and students and to all new members of the University Community.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_229
2.2.4 Violence in the Workplace Formerly Known As Policy Number: 2.2.11, 23.9 This policy provides guidelines for responding to violence or threats of violence in the workplace, including all University locations. Applicability: Applies to all Stanford University employees, and to all individuals who, while not Stanford employees, provide services at Stanford. 1. Policy Stanford University strives to provide employees with a safe environment in which to work. Therefore, the University will not tolerate acts or threats of violence in the workplace as further described in this policy. In addition, all weapons, as defined by California Penal Code, are banned from university premises unless written permission is given by the Stanford Department of Public Safety. Employees who violate this policy will be subject to corrective action, including termination. Non-employee violations of this policy will be handled in accordance with applicable laws. 2. Definitions a. Workplace violence means any act of violence or threat of violence that occurs in a place of employment. Acts of workplace violence include, but are not limited to, the following: - The threat or use of physical force against an employee that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury. - An incident involving a threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, including the use of common objects as weapons, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury. - An incident involving a threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, including common objects as weapons, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury. b. A threat of violence means any verbal or written statement, including, but not limited to, texts, electronic messages, social media messages, or other online posts, or any behavioral or physical conduct, that conveys an intent, or that is reasonably perceived to convey an intent, to cause physical harm or to place someone in fear of physical harm, and that serves no legitimate purpose. Note: Harassment or stalking of a nature other than that related to threats or acts of physical violence, such as sexual harassment or sexual assault, may be covered by other university policies. c. Workplace includes all university locations and off-campus locations where faculty, staff, or student employees are engaged in university business. 3. General Roles and Responsibilities a. In general - Any person experiencing or observing actual or imminent violence should immediately call 911 or 9-911 from a university telephone. - Any person who believes a crime has been committed against them has the right to report that to the proper law enforcement agency. b. Employee Each employee: - Should report any acts or threats of violence to: - Their immediate supervisor or other manager in the applicable school or unit, or - Their local Human Resources office, or - University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations, who can be reached at (650) 721-4272 - In emergency situations, call 911 or 9-911 from a university telephone. School of Medicine Security can be reached at (650) 723-7222 (or x37222) and SLAC Site Security can be reached at (650) 926-5555 (or x5555). - Should notify their supervisor of any restraining orders against individuals that include the workplace. c. Supervisor: The immediate supervisor's responsibilities are: - To respond promptly to issues related to workplace safety. - In the event of a potential or actual incident, to inform their local Human Resources office or University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations who can be reached at (650) 721-4272 or stanfordelr@stanford.edu. School of Medicine Security can be reached at (650) 723-7222 (or 37222), and SLAC Site Security can be reached at (650) 926-5555 (or x5555). - In the event they are advised of a restraining order, contact the local Human Resources office which in turn should consult with University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations. d. Local Human Resources Office Local Human Resources offices are responsible to: - Contact University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations immediately after being made aware of a violent act or threat of violence. - Conduct investigations of situations as directed by University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations. e. University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations - Consult and advise management regarding concerns about violent and potentially violent employees or others. - In the event of an act or threat of violence, determine the investigation process and coordinate with the assigned investigator. Work with school/unit management, legal counsel, and the Department of Public Safety to determine the appropriate action to be taken. - Consult with the Threat Assessment Team as needed. - Gather and maintain University-wide information on workplace acts or threats of violence. This includes maintaining a violent incident log. f. Faculty Staff Help Center - Provide confidential counseling services to any employee desiring assistance with situations relating to anger or threats or violence in the workplace. - Provide educational and emotional support and consultation to groups and individuals who are victims, observers, or otherwise adversely affected by a violent incident or threat. - Provide consultation to management on evaluating the potential for violence by employees. g. Department of Public Safety and Site Security - The Stanford Department of Public Safety (or other applicable law enforcement agency) takes appropriate law enforcement actions. - Site Security officers (including SLAC Site Security and School of Medicine Security) notify and cooperate with all law enforcement agencies as appropriate. h. Threat Assessment Team The University's Threat Assessment Team may coordinate the assessment of any situation where there is a concern for risk of potential threat or violence, and may provide additional assessment of situations to determine if further resources and actions are needed. 4. Reporting Obligations and Procedures a. Reporting Obligations Employees are required to immediately report any acts or threats of violence as defined in this policy. - In emergency situations involving an imminent act or threat of violence, immediately call 911 or 9-911 from a university telephone. In an emergency in which 911 is called regarding an incident involving SLAC or the School of Medicine, then contact School of Medicine Security at (650) 723-7222 (or x37222) or SLAC Site Security at (650) 926-5555 (or x5555). - All acts or threats of violence must also be promptly reported to: - Your supervisor; - Your local Human Resources office; or - University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations at stanfordelr@stanford.edu or by telephone at (650) 721-4272. - Employees who have reported restraining orders against individuals that include the workplace should notify their supervisor. Supervisors who are advised of a restraining order should contact their local Human Resources office which in turn should consult with University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations. b. Procedures - The response to emergency situations that require calling 911 is led by the Department of Public Safety or applicable law enforcement agency. - University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations will assist in coordinating the needed resources, depending on the situation. - Separate from any criminal investigation that law enforcement agencies may conduct (if applicable), University Human Resources-Employee & Labor Relations or its designee takes the lead for the university in conducting an investigation into the incident and, in conjunction with school/unit management, takes appropriate action, disciplinary or otherwise. 5. Required Workplace Violence Prevention Plan Stanford University has developed a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (“Plan”) that recognizes and addresses workplace violence. The Plan includes, but is not limited to, procedures for identifying workplace violence hazards, procedures for communicating workplace violence matters, and reporting workplace violence incidents. 6. Required Workplace Violence Training In compliance with California Labor Code Section 6401.9, all employees of Stanford (non-academic staff, academic staff, faculty, casual, temporary, and student employees) and postdoctoral scholars are required to participate in training about Stanford’s Workplace Violence Prevention Plan upon being hired and on an annual basis. This training will include information regarding the Plan, how to report workplace violence incidents or concerns to Stanford or to law enforcement without fear of reprisal, and how to identify workplace violence hazards. Failure to complete required training may result in corrective action.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_230
2.1.2 Recruiting and Hiring of Regular Staff Formerly Known As Policy Number: 22.1 This policy reviews all phases of the recruiting and hiring process and the corresponding areas of responsibility. Applicability: All regular staff of the University and SLAC (as defined in Admin Guide Memo 2.2.1: Definitions), with some limitations: - Bargaining Unit—For policies specific to employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, see agreements at Labor Relations & Collective Bargaining. - SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC)—Some procedures in this policy do not apply at SLAC. For procedures specific to SLAC, contact SLAC's Human Resources Department. - Hospital—"Hospital" refers to both Stanford Health Care (SHC) and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH). The hospitals are separate employers, each with its own policies and procedures. For more information, contact SHC or LPCH Human Resources. Purpose: - To provide policies and guidance that support recruiting and hiring a diverse and talented workforce. To accomplish this, Stanford strongly encourages hiring supervisors to develop the broadest possible applicant pool allowing the best and the brightest candidates—internal and external—to fairly compete for all open positions. Through fair and open competition and the application of equitable evaluation criteria, Stanford hires the best available candidates. - To meet University policies and practices and comply with federal and state regulations. 1. General Recruiting and Hiring Responsibilities a. University Human Resources University Human Resources is responsible for developing, monitoring, and overseeing employment policies and providing the University with support services necessary to attain staffing objectives. b. Local Human Resources Manager The local Human Resources Manager is the person responsible for administering recruiting and hiring policies for each organization. c. Hiring Supervisors Hiring supervisors are those faculty and staff designated to make staff hiring decisions. Hiring supervisors are responsible for making such decisions in accordance with the policies and procedures established by the University and set forth in this Guide Memo. Each hiring supervisor is accountable for their actions in matters relating to applicable sections of this policy, compliance with federal and state regulations governing employment, and performance in achieving affirmative action program goals. Questions on these policies that cannot be resolved at the local level should be referred to the Vice President for Human Resources. Guide to Supervisors Typical Responsibilities for University Human Resources - Conducts full-service recruiting and recruitment programs - Develops recruitment and hiring-related programs - Consults on recruitment strategies, compliance, selection and on-boarding - Administers online recruiting systems and websites - Ensures regulatory compliance; administers recruiting and hiring policies - Oversees contingent staffing, international hiring, background checks, third-party management (including executive search firms) Typical Responsibilities for Local Human Resources Managers - Represents needs of the unit to University HR - Develops programs to support local recruiting needs - Facilitates and provides consultation on the recruiting process within the local unit and between the local unit and University HR - Conducts and coordinates position searches, including selection and use of employment search firms - Implements and administers recruitment and hiring policies Typical Responsibilities for Hiring Supervisors - Makes selection and hiring decisions within the stipulated policies and parameters, including reviewing resumes, interviewing candidates, conducting reference checks, and documenting processes and decisions - Implements recruiting and staffing policies, programs and processes locally 2. Recruiting and Hiring Policies a. Equal Employment Opportunity & Affirmative Action In accordance with all applicable law, it is the policy of the University to: - Comply with all affirmative action requirements, and - Provide equal employment opportunities for all applicants and employees. Guide to Supervisors All employees in a position to make hiring decisions (“hiring supervisors”) are expected to comply with the “Equal Employment Opportunity Statement” distributed annually by the University’s Diversity & Access Office and 1.7.4 Equal Employment Opportunity, Non-Discrimination, and Affirmative Action Policy' provision on “Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy.” The University complies with Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 and its regulations. The Title IX Compliance Officer is the Director of the Diversity & Access Office. If an employee believes the University is not in compliance with Title IX and its regulations, they can contact the Title IX Coordinator at Kingscote Gardens (2nd Floor), 419 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-8231, or, call (650) 723-0755 [TTY at (650) 723-1216] or email equalopportunity@stanford.edu. b. Employment Rights and Preferences of Former and Current Regular Staff The University gives current and former regular staff certain reemployment rights and preferences described below: (1) Right to Reemployment or Return to Active Employment (a) Definition The right of a former regular staff to reemployment or return to active employment in their former University position to the extent required by law. (b) Who Qualifies Reemployment rights extend to former regular staff who: - Terminated employment to serve in the military. A department that receives an inquiry about the reemployment of a former employee returning from the Armed Services should consult with an Employee Relations Representative. - Returns from a leave of absence on or before the agreed-upon return date (e.g., military, childbirth, family, medical) when the leave was formally requested and granted in accordance with University policy. (2) Hiring Preference The University is committed to hiring the best-qualified candidate for the job. When the qualifications stated in the job listing and predetermined job-related selection criteria are used to determine each candidate's qualifications, and more than one qualified candidate competes for a job, the employment offer must be extended first to the candidate who has preference according to 2.b.3 below. (3) Order of preference Follow this order when considering substantially equal candidates: (a) First Preference: Regular staff who have been given written notice of permanent layoff or who are permanently laid off under the policies in Guide Memo 2.1.17: Layoffs. This employment preference continues for 12 consecutive months following the date of layoff. Layoff preference also applies to regular staff whose positions are being eliminated and who have been informed that they will be laid off if they do not obtain alternative employment in the same department/administrative unit. (b) Second Preference: Current regular staff who meet the qualifications for the position and for whom placement in this job would constitute a promotion, or who have successfully completed a formal training program for the specific job. (c) Third Preference: Current temporary or casual employees on the Stanford payroll applying for a position in the same workgroup reporting to the same supervisor where the employee currently works in a temporary or casual role. c. Employment of Related Persons Employment by a related person in any position (e.g., regular staff, faculty, other teaching, temporary, casual, third party, etc.) within an organizational unit can occur only with the approval of the responsible Vice Provost, Vice President (or similar level equivalent to the highest administrative person within the organizational unit), or their designee. Under no circumstances may a supervisor hire or approve any compensation action for any employee to whom the supervisor is related. An individual may not supervise, evaluate the job performance, or approve compensation for any individual with whom the supervisor is related. Even when the criteria discussed here are met, the employment of a related person in any position within the organization must have the approval of the local human resources office, in addition to the approval of the hiring manager's supervisor, including faculty supervisors. Guide to Supervisors Employment by a related person in any position (e.g., regular staff, faculty, other teaching, temporary, casual, third party, etc.) within an organizational unit can result in an actual or perceived conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged. The university recognizes that relationships may develop in the workplace. The university expects its employees to disclose relationships as appropriate, specifically in the case of direct reporting relationships and/or potential conflict of interest situations. Failure to properly disclose a relationship or family connection may lead to corrective action measures being taken. All the above requirements also apply to employing and hiring those with consensual sexual or romantic relationships. In addition, consensual sexual or romantic relationships must also be disclosed in compliance with section 4 in Guide Memo 1.7.2: Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships In the Workplace and Educational Setting. Definition of Related Person - The employee’s spouse; same-sex domestic partner; children of the employee, spouse or same-sex domestic partner; parents and parents-in-law; parent surrogate; brothers and sisters of the employee; grandparents and grandchildren of the employee; and, any other dependent family member who lived in the employee’s residence. d. Rehiring Former Regular Staff Regardless of the reason for rehire, all former staff including those who meet the reinstatement criteria set forth below, must serve a new trial period. (1) Reinstating the Hire Date: Former regular staff will have their hire date reinstated if they left the University in good standing and meet these timelines: - Former regular staff who have been laid off and are reemployed by the University within 24 months following the date of layoff will have the most recent hire date prior to layoff reinstated. - Former regular staff whose employment was terminated for reasons other than layoff will have the most recent date of hire prior to termination reinstated if reemployment occurs within 12 months following the date of termination. Reinstatement includes all the following: - Bridging of service by restoring the most recent hire date in a benefits-eligible position before termination, - Restoration of any sick leave balance at the time of termination, and - Vacation accrual rate based on the reinstated hire date. (2) Rehire After Involuntary Discharge If a regular staff member was terminated from the University for cause, supervisors must consult their local HR Office and Employee Relations Representative before rehire or reinstatement. An individual who was terminated for gross misconduct is not eligible for rehire. Guide to Supervisors For information on how rehire or reinstatement affects benefits, visit the Cardinal at Work website or contact the University HR Service Team. Hiring Hospital Employees - See Guide Memo 2.1.4: Hiring Employees from Stanford Health Care or its Predecessor Companies for information on the applicability of University employment policies and eligibility for University benefits when hiring regular staff who was previously employed by Stanford Health Care (or its predecessor companies) or Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. e. Driving-Related Job Requirements A driver’s license requirement may not be included in a job description or job posting unless the following two conditions are satisfied: - The hiring department reasonably expects driving to be one of the job functions of the position; and - The hiring department reasonably believes that satisfying the job functions of the position would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the department by using an alternative form of transportation (an “alternative form of transportation” may include, but is not limited to, walking, bicycling, carpooling, taxi, or using a ride-hailing service). f. Age as a Hiring Factor Age (except for persons under 18 who have not graduated from high school) may not be used as a factor in hiring unless it can be shown as a necessary job qualification. g. Employment of Minors Before an offer of employment is made, the hiring department must obtain a work permit for applicants under the age of 18 years who have not graduated from high school. A permit is obtained from the applicant's school district and is retained in the department file. Guide to Supervisors The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law restrict the hours and conditions of employment for minors. Because restrictions on the employment of minors can be complex, supervisors should consult with their local Human Resources Office about specific cases. General restrictions include: - Except as part of approved University programs (e.g., Take Our Children to Work Day), minors are not permitted to visit in areas where they would not be permitted to work as employees. - Minors ages 16-17: In addition to the above, prohibited from working hazardous jobs. No other restrictions. - Minors ages 14-15: In addition to all the above, during school sessions, they cannot work more than 3 hours/day, 18 hours/week. During school vacations, they cannot work more than 8 hours/day, 40 hours/week. - Minors under age 14: In addition to all the above, prohibited from most non-agricultural work. 3. Policies and Practices—Search Phase a. Job Descriptions Before a job description is entered into the HR Applicant Tracking system: (1) Hiring supervisor's responsibilities: Identify the functions of the job, define and describe the duties and responsibilities of the position, including required regulatory training, develop and document objective criteria for the selection process, and obtain the local Human Resources Office's confirmation of position level and salary range. For guidance, visit Staff Compensation on the Cardinal at Work website. Qualifications cannot unnecessarily prevent or lessen the employment opportunities for any class of applicants or potential applicants, as identified in Section 2.b. (2) Local Human Resources Office's responsibilities: Reviews the Position Summary for clarity and content, classification, certificate and license requirements, and salary range, and ensures that the job description is entered into the HR Applicant Tracking system. The job requisition is also reviewed for appropriateness of posting. All job postings must include the pay range for the position. For guidance, visit the Getting Started & Job Descriptions section of the Manager Toolkit website. Guide to Supervisors Selection Criteria - Use the job description and other relevant criteria established by the hiring supervisor (including education, experience, essential skills, abilities, and competencies) to screen applicants and aid in the selection process. b. Announcing Job Openings (1) Local Human Resources Offices All regular staff vacancies must be listed with the appropriate Human Resources office. - For SLAC, SLAC Human Resources Department. - For campus, University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy announces all openings on Stanford Careers and may use other media as appropriate. (2) Temporary Employment Non-regular staff vacancies that do not lend themselves to employment of Stanford students due to the nature of the work and work schedule, may be listed with commercial temporary employment services and/or Cardinal Temps. (3) Text of Advertisements Advertising and other notification of vacancies must be non-discriminatory and must include reference to the University's commitment to affirmative action and equal opportunity: “Stanford is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.” c. Posting Period (1) Definition A posting period is a period during which information about the job opening is made available and applications are accepted. Generally, postings should not exceed six months except where the hiring supervisor is actively seeking and reviewing applications for the position. (2) Length of Posting Period All vacant positions except those filled through an approved posting period waiver (see Section 3.d for information on waivers) are posted online for a minimum of 10 calendar days. The posting period begins when the approved online requisition updates the Applicant Tracking system. Applications are accepted through the full posting period. If a job code changes on a posted vacant position, it must be reposted online for a minimum of 10 additional calendar days. (3) Changes in Posting Period Posting periods may not be shortened or eliminated except through the waiver process (see Section 3.d). Posting periods may be extended at the hiring supervisor's discretion and applications may be accepted beyond the posting period at the supervisor's discretion. (4) Timing of Employment Offer Offers of employment may not be made until after the expiration of the posting period or an approved waiver of posting (see Section 3.d). d. Waiver of Posting All regular staff vacancies not posted for the minimum posting period must have an approved waiver of posting before an employment offer can be made. Waiver requests are reviewed and approved by University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy. (1) Approval Criteria The hiring department must document the reason for requesting the waiver. The local Human Resources office must submit the waiver request to University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy. University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy may approve the waiver request if it meets at least one of the following criteria: - The department documents critical operational need, or - There is a uniquely qualified/skilled applicant and it is unlikely a better-qualified candidate would apply, or - The department is reusing a recent (within the past six months) applicant pool for a comparable job likely to result in a similar pool. (2) Denial Criteria University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy may deny a waiver request if it is determined that the requested action would be inconsistent with the University’s waiver or affirmative action policies. e. Recruitment of Applicants (1) Definition of an Applicant Currently Stanford requires resumes for regular staff positions to be submitted through the Stanford Careers (or Jobs@SLAC) website. Consistent with this requirement, an applicant is defined as any person who meets all these criteria: - The individual submits a resume for a specific position through the Stanford Careers (or Jobs@SLAC) website, - Stanford considers the individual for employment in a particular position, - The individual's resume indicates the individual possesses the basic qualifications for the position, and - The individual at no time during the selection process prior to receiving an offer of employment removes themselves from further consideration or otherwise indicates that they are no longer interested in the position. (2) Equal Opportunity Policy With the assistance of University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy and the local Human Resources Office, departments must make every effort to recruit qualified individuals for job openings, keeping in mind the university's commitment to equal opportunity and affirmative action. (3) International Recruitment Please review Section 6, International Hiring, before recruiting or hiring outside of the United States. (4) Search Firms In general, Stanford makes limited use of the services of executive search firms or employment agencies. In the instances where it is necessary to use such services (e.g., senior-level vacancies), departments must consult with the local Human Resources Office before making any arrangement with an outside firm or agency. Guide to Supervisors The hiring supervisor is accountable for assuring that the firm or agency is fully informed regarding its responsibility for meeting the University’s institutional affirmative action and record keeping responsibilities. Consultation on search firms is available from University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy. For a checklist on how to choose a search firm that meets Stanford’s requirements to provide a widely diverse selection of applicants and the ability to track the applicant pool, go to the Cardinal at Work website. Receiving Electronic Resumes—Electronic resumes are submitted to University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy using Stanford Careers. University Human Resources: Talent Management & Workforce Strategy will send applications a written acknowledgment that their resume has been received. Electronic resumes are submitted to SLAC using Careers at SLAC. 4. Policies and Practices—Selection Phase a. Employment Application Form - All interviewed applicants must complete and sign a Stanford University application form. - Stanford does not accept incomplete application forms. - Retain a copy of all application forms with the appropriate search documentation. - The successful candidate’s application form must be retained in the personnel file (see Guide Memo 2.1.3: Personnel Files and Data). b. International Candidates Please review Section 6, International Hiring, before selecting an international candidate. c. Interviews (1) Standard Administration Hiring supervisors must ensure standard administration of the interview process, including the equivalent treatment of candidates, avoidance of discriminatory questions, and uniform interview content. (2) Accommodation At the request of a disabled candidate, accommodation during the interview process may be required. d. Testing (1) Prior Approval All testing or screening devices used in the employment process must be approved by the AVP, Recruitment & Talent Management in consultation with the Diversity & Access Office, as appropriate. Only standardized, validated test instruments may be considered. (2) Accommodations At the request of a disabled applicant, accommodation to enable testing may be required. (3) Applicability of Test When used, approved tests must directly relate to essential job functions and be given to all applicants or finalists under the same or equivalent conditions. The test must be scored, evaluated, and used as a selection factor equally for all applicants or finalists and maintained with other applications and selection materials. e. Reference Checks The hiring supervisor is required to obtain a minimum of two reference checks from previous employers, at least one of which is a current or prior supervisor. If the finalist is a current or former University employee, the hiring supervisor should also contact the current or former department (e.g., supervisor and/or Human Resources Manager). Reference checks must be part of the candidate’s evaluation and may be used as a factor in the hiring decision if the information is job-related. No offer of employment can be made before completing the hiring process, including reference checks. Guide to Supervisors The hiring supervisor must exercise caution to ensure that: - The names of those contacted for references are retained in the search documentation with any unsolicited written references provided by the candidate, - Inconsistent or negative information obtained in a reference check is corroborated, if possible, before it is used in making a hiring decision, and - Reference information used in the hiring decision is job-related and can be shown to be a predictor of job performance. Local Human Resources Offices may provide consultation. f. False and/or Misleading Statements Withdraw from consideration any applicant found to have misleading and/or false statements on the employment application or other documents. g. Review of Personnel Files Hiring supervisors have access to personnel files of current and former University employees who are finalists for the position. No offer of employment can be made before the hiring supervisor or Human Resources reviews the personnel files. Guide to Supervisors For details and assistance, contact the local Human Resources Office (see Guide Memo 2.1.3: Personnel Files and Data). 5. Hiring Decisions, Offers and Documentation a. Hiring Decisions Hiring decisions for regular University staff positions are based on the relative job-related qualifications of the applicants for the positions, with full consideration of the employment rights and preferences specified in Section 2.b. - The hiring supervisor is responsible for judging the relative qualifications of each applicant and for making the hiring decision, consistent with University policy and applicable governmental laws and regulations. - The local Human Resources Office is responsible for reviewing proposed hiring decisions and for ensuring compliance with regulations, laws, and/or University employment policies. - The Diversity & Access Office, if notified by an applicant or administrator regarding a particular opening, may delay a proposed hiring action for further review if it appears inconsistent with the University's Affirmative Action Program. b. Employment Offers (1) Timing of Offer Employment offers should be made after: - The expiration of the posting period (or, after approval of a waiver request), and - The employment action (including in-hire salary) has received all required approvals. (2) Conditional Offer of Employment The hiring department must issue a written conditional offer of employment to the successful candidate using an approved offer letter template. Approved templates include those for standard hires, promotions, and out-of-country hires. If a background check is required by policy, the written conditional offer of employment will inform the candidate that the offer is contingent upon successfully completing and passing a background check. Guide to Supervisors Workplace Accommodation - At the request of a candidate or applicant who has a disability, workplace accommodation may be needed. The hiring supervisor should refer to Guide Memo 2.2.7: Requesting Workplace Accommodations for Employees with Disabilities. Out-of-Country - If this is an offer of employment for the applicant to work in a primary site outside the U.S., Staffing Services will assist the local Human Resources Office with arrangements. See Section 6 for details on International Hiring. c. Background Checks Stanford policy requires the successful completion of a background check before the first day of employment. Additional background checks may be required in some job classifications (e.g., Deputy Sheriffs). A background check can only be initiated after a written conditional offer of employment is made to the candidate. Local Human Resources Offices will provide information on specific requirements. d. Criminal Records A criminal record will not automatically disqualify a candidate from employment with the university. University Human Resources/Employee & Labor Relations will conduct an individualized assessment of any criminal record revealed during the background check process. If individual circumstances warrant, a candidate with a criminal record may be disqualified from employment. e. Documentation and Record Keeping (1) Pre-Employment New, transferred, rehired, or promoted employees may not start work in the new position until all appropriate forms have been signed and processed. (2) Non-Selected Applicants - The hiring supervisor is responsible for oral or written notification to all non-selected applicants who were interviewed. - The hiring supervisor must ensure that all search summary records are completed, including an indication of all applicants' status (disposition data) in the HR Applicant Tracking system. For more information, see the Cardinal at Work website. (3) Completeness Records must include the resume and application materials of all applicants for a position, as well as documents pertaining to individuals considered for the position. (4) Patent and Copyright Agreement All employees must complete a Patent and Copyright Agreement Form (SU18) as a condition of employment. (5) Retention Time The hiring department must retain records relating to a search, selection, and employment decision for a minimum of four years following the decision. Should there be a dispute (grievance/litigation), the documents must be retained until the matter is resolved, if not resolved by the conclusion of the four-year period. (6) More Information For more information, see the Cardinal at Work website. 6. International Hiring Hiring, transfer or assignment of regular staff outside of the United States must be supported by a demonstrable University business purpose, and approved in writing by the cognizant School Dean or VP. Copies of such approvals should be forwarded to the Global HR Programs Manager in University Human Resources and the Global Business Director in Business Affairs. Employees assigned or working outside of the United States are subject to local law as well as University policy and procedures when not in conflict with local law. Guide to Supervisors Employment Options - Employment regulations in other countries may be very different than the U.S. In light of operational and regulatory complexities, careful consideration should be given to the various employment options in satisfaction of programmatic requirements, before considering an international hire, transfer or assignment. - Consult with the local HR Manager, and ask for a copy of the International Human Resources Checklist for Stanford University Human Resources Managers. - See Plan Global Activities - For additional guidance, consult Global Business Services (GBS) who can direct employees to the central oversight office - See Administrative Guide Memo 11.2.22 International Employees. Administrative Costs - Assignments outside of the United States typically involve significant additional administrative costs in light of the regulatory and operational complexity involved in such assignments. Accordingly, the supervisor hiring or assigning the employee outside of the United States is responsible for ensuring that the added administrative expense of such an assignment is covered by the applicable budget for the duration of the assignment. Work Authorization - Work authorization and immigration issues may require significant lead time, and HR managers are responsible for ensuring that appropriate documents are secured prior to foreign employment. The local Human Resources Office cannot process an assignment until the proper work authorization is obtained. All offer letters must be approved by the local Human Resources Office in consultation with the Global HR Programs Manager. Consulting Arrangements - It should be noted with caution that what may appear to be a consulting arrangement by U.S. standards, could in fact constitute an employment relationship in a foreign country, potentially triggering employment, tax, and other regulatory considerations. In general, the same policies and practices are required for international hires as detailed in the ensuing guidelines for U.S. employment. However, local country norms and requirements take precedence, and it is the responsibility of local HR managers and the supervisor to ensure that the employee is apprised of such requirements prior to the effective date of the assignment. Assignments should be of a limited in duration to address tax, expatriate status, and visa considerations. Additional guidance may be obtained from the Global HR Programs Manager at globalhrprograms@stanford.edu in University Human Resources and/or the Global Business Director in Business Affairs.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_231
2.1.14 Senior Staff Formerly Known As Policy Number: 22.13 Applicability: Applies to employees designated at level N, O, P, N11 and N 99 in the university classification system. The list of positions designated as Senior Staff is maintained by the Office of the Vice President for Human Resources. 1. Policy Statement Senior Staff employees have responsibilities and functions that require different policies and conditions governing their employment and termination. These employees are "at-will" employees and may be terminated at any time for any reason, including layoff, or no reason. Guide Memo 2.1.16: Addressing Conduct and Performance Issues, and the grievance procedure in Guide Memo 2.1.11: Grievance Policy, are not applicable to Senior Staff. Senior Staff have access to the Senior Staff Administrative Review described below. 2. Purpose This policy describes the unique employment relationship of Senior Staff to the university. It further sets forth the process for administrative review of Senior Staff involuntary terminations (including layoffs). 3. Definition Effective July 1, 2015, Senior Staff positions are designated at levels N, O, P, N11, and N99 within the university classification system. Only employees in positions designated at level N, O, P, N11, or N99 on or after July 1, 2015 are considered Senior Staff. a. TGP Eligibility Employees who were designated as Senior Staff prior to July 1, 2015, but who are designated at classification level A-M on July 1, 2015 will no longer be considered Senior Staff, but will retain the TGP coverage they had prior to July 1, 2015. b. Housing Program Eligibility University staff employed 100% time and matched to classification levels O, P and N11 are eligible for one or more housing assistance programs. Staff employees who were eligible for staff housing assistance before this date, but are not in classification levels O, P and N11, will lose their eligibility for any applicable staff housing assistance unless they are already participating in the program. For any questions about housing program eligibility or details of the programs, please contact Faculty Staff Housing at FSHousing@stanford.edu or 725-6893. 4. Termination of Senior Staff Employees a. Termination Policy Senior Staff may be terminated at any time for any reason, including layoff, or no reason upon the approval of the Dean, Vice Provost, Vice President, Provost or the President and the approval of the Vice President for Human Resources or their designee. Such termination may be subject to the administrative review as described in Section 5, but will not be subject to review under any other grievance procedure in the University. Senior Staff who are terminated by the university receive notice and severance pay as described in section 4.c, except when the President or the Vice President for Human Resources or their designee determines the termination is for gross misconduct. Senior Staff who voluntarily resign are not entitled to notice or severance pay. b. Policy on Extended Notice Senior Staff receive three months' notice. When pay is given in lieu of notice, the maximum payment period is three months. A combination of notice and pay in lieu of notice may be appropriate at the university's discretion. In such an arrangement, severance pay may be contingent on serving out a specified portion of the notice period. If the Senior Staff employee is hired into another regular benefits-eligible position at the university and the effective date of the new position is during the notice period, the balance of the notice period will not be converted to pay in lieu and severance pay under section 4.c will not be provided. c. Policy on Payment of Severance Pay Senior Staff will be paid a minimum of three months' salary and a maximum as listed in the following table, provided a General Release of All Claims and Severance Repayment Agreement is executed. Severance is not payable until the expiration of any revocation period in the General Release of All Claims and Severance Repayment Agreement. d. Policy on Continuation of Benefits Senior Staff may continue their university medical insurance and receive the university's regular contributions for three months after the date of termination, provided the employee signs the General Release of All Claims and Severance Repayment Agreement and (1) timely elects COBRA and completes the necessary medical coverage selection forms, and (2) timely pays any contributions required of the employee. Stanford Contributory Retirement Plan (SCRP) Basic contributions continue during the notice period, including any period of pay in lieu of notice. If the Senior Staff member makes employee contributions to the plan during the notice period, matching contributions will also continue. e. Policy on Repayment of Severance Pay The months following the termination date comprise the "severance repayment period." This period is equal to the number of months of severance pay received. If a Senior Staff employee is reemployed by the university before the end of the severance repayment period, that portion of the severance pay equal to the base pay they would have earned if not terminated may be retained by the employee. The balance of the severance pay is to be repaid in full at the time of reemployment, unless the employee authorizes and the university approves a reasonable schedule of repayment and payroll deduction, not to exceed one year in length, in writing on a form provided by University Human Resources - Employee & Labor Relations. f. Policy on Outplacement Services Senior Staff whose employment terminates due to permanent layoff will be eligible for three months of outplacement services to be used within six months of the date the employee receives written notification of their layoff. The outplacement services shall be provided by an outplacement agency designated by the university, in its sole discretion, and the cost for such services shall be borne by the university in an amount to be determined from time to time, with additional amounts, if any, to be paid by the department from which the employee was laid off and approved by the Vice President of Human Resources (or designee). 5. Senior Staff Administrative Review a. Purpose The Senior Staff Administrative Review is a formal guideline for review of involuntary terminations (including layoff). The Senior Staff employee may present their concern in writing to the cognizant Dean, Vice President, President, Vice Provost, or Provost within one week of the notice of termination. The Dean, Vice President, President, Vice Provost, Provost or their designee shall consider the issue, make whatever disposition they deem appropriate, and respond to the employee in writing within one week of receiving the written concern from the Senior Staff employee. The determination of the Dean, Vice President, President, Vice Provost, or Provost shall be final except in circumstances where they had direct and immediate involvement in the decision that gave rise to the concern in the first instance. In this case, an appeal may be made to the Vice President for Human Resources or their designee within one week of receiving the written response from the Dean, Vice President, President, Vice Provost, Provost or their designee. The decision of the Vice President for Human Resources, or their designee, shall be final. Copies of requests for administrative review and dispositions shall be sent to the Vice President for Human Resources.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_232
2.1.12 Staff Development Programs Formerly Known As Policy Number: 22.11 The Staff Development Program (SDP) supports employee development by providing partial or full reimbursement of the cost of courses, seminars, and workshops that enable employees to improve performance in current jobs, prepare for career development, or meet requirements of degree programs related to current performance or planned career development. The SDP consists of two parts: The Staff Training Assistance Program (STAP) for job-related or career-enhancing courses and seminars, and the Staff Tuition Reimbursement Program (STRP) providing partial to full tuition payment for individuals enrolled in a degree program. See Educational Assistance Programs for additional information. 1. Eligibility To be eligible for the Staff Development Program, an employee must meet all the following criteria: - Be a continuing regular or fixed-term staff employee (including a bargaining unit employee). See Guide Memo 2.2.1 for the definition of regular staff or fixed-term employee. - Receive no financial assistance from other sources that would duplicate SDP assistance (scholarships, grants, and departmental funds may augment but not duplicate SDP assistance). Staff Training Assistance Program (STAP) - STAP assistance funds are available to each eligible staff member on the first date of employment. - Academic Staff-Teaching: senior lecturers, lecturers, and artists-in-residence who work at least 50% time are also eligible for the Staff Training Assistance Program. - Faculty, students, temporary employees, retirees, and other non-staff University affiliates are not eligible for STAP assistance. Staff Tuition Reimbursement Program (STRP) - Available after an eligible employee has completed one year in a continuing benefits-eligible position at 50% Full Time Equivalent (FTE) or greater. - The amount provided is pro-rated if eligible staff works less than full-time, but at least 50% part-time. - Faculty, students, and other temporary workers are not eligible for STRP assistance. 2. Staff Training Assistance Program (STAP) STAP assistance may be requested for job-related training, career development, STAP-approved Healthy Living offerings through BeWell, and academic pursuit through the Stanford Continuing Studies Program. a. Job-Related Training Training must be directly related to performance requirements of the employee's current assignment, and either maintain or improve job skills; be required by law; or respond to organizational or operational need as defined by the employee's supervisor, including training required to respond to organizational or operational need as defined by the employee's supervisor or the university. STAP does not cover training to meet minimum educational requirements of the current job, or qualify the employee for a new trade or business. Training may be a formal course given for academic credit or certificate of completion by an accredited college, university, technical/vocational school or institute, special skills school, or adult education school; a seminar, workshop, or special emphasis short-duration program presented by an approved provider; or training obtained at a conference or professional organization. Online training may be allowable if it meets the requirements outlined in Section 2.a. The employee's supervisor must approve the training in advance. Questions about whether the training or the provider is eligible for STAP should be directed to the Stanford STAP administrator prior to the start of the training course or activity. (1) Release Time/Time Off with Pay for Required Training An eligible staff employee's supervisor must approve in advance the course as job-related training and approve the release time, if any, to attend the training. Such time off must be compatible with the work schedule of the department and consistent with requirements of contracts and grants regarding time worked. The department funds time off with pay for training. (2) Reimbursement Requests for reimbursement of allowable expenses through STAP must be made within 60 days of satisfactory completion of the training, with the supervisor's approval. Submitted requests will be charged against the STAP funds based on the class start date. When employees are reimbursed in advance of course completion, the employee must provide evidence of satisfactory completion to the supervisor. (See Section 5 for the procedure). b. Career Development Training Training must be related to an identified and planned training objective for career development. Such training may be a formal course given for academic credit or certificate of completion by an accredited college, university, technical/vocational school or institute, special skills school, or adult education school; or be a seminar, workshop or special emphasis short-duration program presented by an approved provider. Career development must only be for training activities that will assist the employee in qualifying for a new position or advancement within their current trade or business at Stanford. The employee's supervisor must approve in advance this training and any release time needed to attend. (1) Release Time/Time Off Without Pay An eligible staff employee may be granted a maximum of 24 hours per month of release time without pay for approved training for career development purposes if no comparable course is offered during non-work hours. Time off for eligible part-time staff should be pro-rated based on the percent time worked. Approval of time off is at the department's discretion and must be compatible with the work schedule of the department and consistent with requirements of contracts and grants regarding time worked. (2) Reimbursement Requests for reimbursement of allowable expenses through STAP must be made within 60 days of the satisfactory completion of the training with the supervisor's approval. Submitted requests will be charged against the STAP funds based on the class start date. When employees are reimbursed in advance of course completion, the employee must provide evidence of satisfactory completion to the supervisor (see Section 5 for procedure). For University IT, Healthy Living and Continuing Studies courses, the STAP allowance will be deducted from the fee when employees register for classes. 3. Staff Tuition Reimbursement Program (STRP) Eligible employees may request STRP support for courses that fulfill undergraduate or graduate degree requirements at a fully accredited college, university, technical/vocational school or institute, special skills school, or adult education school when the employee is admitted to the degree program (certificate programs excluded). Courses must be taken at, or online through, a regionally-accredited institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in order to be eligible for reimbursement. The employee's supervisor must approve the request if release time/time off (with or without pay) is requested. Covered degree programs: - Associate - Bachelor - Master - Doctoral Programs that are not covered: - Individual courses - Certifications - Graduate Certificate - Degree program entrance exams, such as SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT, MCAT - Challenge exams or credit by exam, such as CLEP, UEXCEL and DSST a. Release Time/Time Off without Pay An eligible staff employee may be granted a maximum of 24 hours per month of release time, without pay, for an approved undergraduate or graduate course, if no comparable course is offered during non-work hours. Time off for part-time regular staff should be pro-rated based on the percent time worked. Approval of time off is at the department's discretion and must be compatible with the work schedule of the department and consistent with requirements of contracts and grants regarding time worked. b. Tuition Payment Payment of tuition and covered fees through STRP will be made directly to the institution before attendance each quarter or semester. 4. Allowable Expenses An employee may not receive reimbursement under STAP and reimbursement under STRP for the same course or program. For example, you cannot use STRP for tuition and STAP for books, supplies and equipment for the same course or program. a. STAP Expenses - The current maximum STAP reimbursement is: - $800 for eligible employees not covered by the SEIU Collective Bargaining Agreement - $700 for eligible employees covered by the SEIU Collective Bargaining Agreement - $100 of STAP funds for SEIU-represented staff are reallocated for a leadership, training and educational program, known as the Apprenticeship Program. (For additional information, refer to the 2014 Collective Bargaining Agreement between SEIU Higher Education Workers Local 2007 and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Side Letter 7: Leadership, Training and Educational Fund). - Costs of tuition, registration fees, and required textbooks, CDs, e-books, or tapes are allowable for reimbursement up to a maximum determined each fiscal year. - Travel expenses, parking, lodging, meals, professional memberships, testing and exam fees, reference books, and professional subscriptions are not allowable. b. STRP Expenses - The current maximum annual STRP benefit amount is $5,250 granted to the eligible employee at the beginning of each fiscal year. Payments and reimbursements are pro-rated for part-time eligible staff working at least 50% time. - Covered fees are limited to the cost of tuition, registration fee, lab fees, course fees, and eLearning fees. - Covered expenses are limited to required books, CDs, DVDs, and other published materials, supplies, and equipment, including software. Supplies, equipment, and software that the employee may keep after the course is completed are not a covered expense. - An employee may not use STAP and STRP funds for the same course or program. 5. Reimbursement a. Timing of STAP Reimbursement Requests for reimbursement of allowable expenses through STAP must be made within 60 days of satisfactory completion of the training, with the approval of the supervisor. Submitted requests will be charged against the STAP funds based on the class start date. Refer to the STAP Frequently Asked Questions for details on the reimbursement process. b. Timing of STRP Payment Payment of tuition and covered fees will be made directly to the institution by the program administrator before attendance each quarter or semester. If the employee makes payment directly to the institution, the employee must submit the invoice to the program administrator through a Direct Bill request. The program administrator will make payment directly to the institution, and the institution will issue a credit or reimbursement to the employee. c. Departmental Reimbursement When covered costs exceed the current STAP/STRP limit, the excess cost may be partially or fully reimbursed by the employee's department. Departmental reimbursement is at the department's discretion and is determined based on available departmental funds for training. Reimbursement for work-related or career development training may be taxable if the total exceeds $5,250 in one tax year (see Section 7a), regardless of the source of university funds. Departmental reimbursements have the same tax consequences as STAP/STRP reimbursements. d. Employee Obligation When the university reimburses an employee for training costs through STAP prior to completion of the activity, the employee assumes an obligation to complete the supported training in a satisfactory manner. An employee who does not complete university-reimbursed training must repay the university the total amount of the reimbursement. e. Evidence of Satisfactory Completion Employees utilizing funds for training expenses through STAP must provide the supervisor with evidence of satisfactory completion as soon as possible—but no later than 60 days after the training activity is completed. For STRP, evidence of satisfactory completion must be provided to both the supervisor (if supervisor approval was required) and to EdAssist, the STRP administration vendor, within 60 days of the course end date. Such evidence may be an official grade card or transcript from the institution or provider of the course. Failure to submit evidence of course completion within 60 days will require the employee to repay the tuition/fee/expense amount to Stanford and could result in the denial of all future requests for tuition assistance. Refer to the STRP Guidelines for details on the Evidence of Satisfactory Completion submission process. - For undergraduate academic courses using STRP funds, a grade C or better, or pass grade in a pass/fail course is required. A grade of C- or less will not be accepted as a satisfactory grade. - For graduate academic courses, using STRP funds, a grade B or better, or pass in a pass/fail course is required. A grade of B- will not be accepted as a satisfactory grade. - If a course may be taken for either a letter grade or a pass/fail grade, the employee must take the course for a letter grade to be eligible for STRP funds for this course. f. Repayments Staff members who have utilized STRP are required to repay tuition and fees that were paid to STRP to an institution for coursework if: - Employee withdraws from a course after the tuition was paid - Employee fails to submit proof of satisfactory completion - For undergraduate course work, the employee receives a grade of C- or lower or Fail (if a Pass/Fail course) - For graduate course work, the employee receives a grade B- or lower or Fail (if a Pass/Fail course) 6. Application Process a. STAP An employee planning a training or development activity should discuss development and performance objectives with their supervisor before registering for the course or program. Decisions regarding the applicability of training and issues regarding release time should be made at this time. The employee and the supervisor should review career development plans before registration. No application form is needed. Departmental Review The supervisor should review the staff training assistance request and evidence of satisfactory completion, confirming the following: - Employee eligibility (see Section 1) - Program applicability (see Section 2 and 3) - Covered fees and expenses (see Section 4) - Course completion (see Section 5) Healthy Living offerings or Stanford Continuing Studies Program (CSP) courses are not subject to supervisor approval unless release time is required. b. STRP The employee must submit an application for each term (quarter or semester) no earlier than 90 days prior to the start of classes and no later than 30 days after the start of classes. If a supervisor's signature is required for release time/time off with pay, the employee must complete the Supervisor Approval Form. The Supervisor Approval Form can be found and printed from the Stanford My Learning Center website and must be sent to the Stanford STRP office with the employee and supervisor's signature within five business days of application submission. Failure to submit the Supervisor Approval Form will result in a denial of the application. Payment of Tuition and Covered Fees The Direct Bill option should be used to request payment of tuition and fees directly to the employee's school by following the four-step application process in My Learning Center, located on the STRP website. Expense Reimbursement The Expense Reimbursement option should be used if the employee has paid for tuition and/or allowable fees and or expenses. The employee must make the request and submit documentation as proof of payment within 60 days of the course end date. Detailed information about the application, payment, and reimbursement process can be found on the STRP website. c. Tuition & Training Programs Review The Tuition & Training Programs office monitors and periodically audits applications for conformance with standards of eligibility, applicability, and allowability as outlined in this Guide Memo. The Tuition & Training Programs office has final approval over any disputes, of application denial or denial of payment and reimbursements for approved applications. A decision by the Tuition & Training Programs office concerning approval or disapproval of applications, payments, or reimbursements is not subject to review under any grievance procedure. Appeal of a decision by the Tuition & Training Programs office may be made in writing to the Director of Tuition & Training Programs in University Human Resources. 7. Termination of Employment a. New Applications No applications will be accepted after employment with the university or SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory ends. b. Expense Reimbursement If employment with the university or SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory ends before a request for reimbursement of covered expenses has been submitted, an employee may submit a manual request for reimbursement if the reason for termination is for any of the following reasons: - Layoff - Layoff to Retirement - Retirement - Military Service - Transfer from the University to SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory - Transfer from SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory to the university If employment with the university or SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory ended for any other reason, an employee will not be eligible to request or receive reimbursement for expenses after the date employment ended. However, if an application was submitted and approved, and tuition and fees were paid directly to the employee’s school prior to the date employment ended for any reason, their will not be required to repay that amount. 8. Tax Implications SDP is intended to provide benefits that are, to the extent possible, excluded from taxation under federal and state laws. Accordingly, this Guide Memo constitutes a separate written plan for the exclusive benefit of employees under sections 127 and 132(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations, to provide such employees with educational assistance. a. General Rule In general, an employee may exclude up to $5,250 received for graduate or undergraduate education under STRP and up to $800 received under STAP from their gross income each tax year for allowable tuition and covered fees and expenses. b. Tax Year Employees should note that STRP provides reimbursements of up to $5,250 for each Stanford fiscal year. Because Stanford's fiscal year runs from September 1 through August 31, an employee could be eligible to receive reimbursements in excess of $5,250 for the employee's tax year. c. Other Situations Amounts paid to an employee in excess of $5,250 may also be excluded if they are payments for certain job-related training, when such training maintains or improves the skills of an employee. However, if the training is necessary for the employee to meet the minimum educational requirements for employment, or if the training will qualify the employee for a new trade or business, the payments will not qualify for this additional exclusion. d. Getting Help Employees should consult their personal tax advisor with any questions. 9. Status and Duration of Staff Development Program a. Administration SDP is administered by the university. The university has the discretionary authority to determine all matters with respect to SDP, including, without limitation, eligibility issues, benefit amounts, evidentiary matters, and tax treatment. Its decisions shall be final and binding on all persons. b. Amendment and Termination The university reserves the right to modify SDP in any respect, or to discontinue SDP, at any time.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_233
5.2.4 Surplus Property Sales Formerly Known As Policy Number: 56 This Guide Memo covers sale of surplus University property. 1. Authority to Transact Sales a. Surplus Property Sales Office The mission of the Surplus Property Sales office (SPS) is to sell University property for the best possible price while ensuring responsible handling of excess assets and contributing to campus-wide sustainability initiatives. The Board of Trustees has authorized only SPS to perform this function (Resolution Number 3 September 13, 1983). Therefore, the only entity authorized to sell tangible personal property (hereafter referred to as "property") to non-Stanford entities is SPS. For the purpose of this document "property" is defined as capital and non-capital movable assets including, but not limited to, equipment and accessories, furniture, vehicles, or supplies. Specialized sales may include significant involvement by departments, including the identification of a potential buyer. In such cases, the sale must be pre-approved and processed by SPS. The check from the buyer is to be made payable to Stanford University Surplus Sales, and include sales tax, where applicable. All payments must be deposited by Surplus Property Sales. b. University Departments Departments may not give, sell or donate property to individuals, including Stanford employees and students, or to non-Stanford entities, including non-profits. If a department arranges a buyer to purchase property, the sale amount must be approved by SPS. All sale transactions must go through SPS. Departments may transfer property to other departments, either for no charge or for credit to departmental accounts. The property must be used for University business purposes. The ReUse website is available to facilitate viewing and posting items available for interdepartmental transfer. The transferring and receiving departments must notify the Department Property Administrator (DPA) and Property Programs Manager (PPM) of a transfer to ensure asset records reflect the change. Refer to the Property Management Manual for transfer procedures. 2. Sales Tax a. Transfer Between University Departments Because title to the item remains in the University, there is no sales tax incurred. b. External Sales Sales tax will be applied, as required, to all external transactions. 3. Basic Sale Policies a. Disposition Requests The Department Property Administrator (DPA) initiates an excess request upon notification of excess property. Surplus Sales will determine optimum disposition method for the assets, including potential sale. For specific information refer to Section 4.2, Disposition and Transfers in the Property Management Office (PMO) Property Management Manual. b. Sales Terms and Conditions Established terms and conditions apply to all sale transactions. Full description of these is available in Section 4.3, Surplus Property Sales, in the Property Management Manual. c. Sales Commission As a self-funded department, SPS retains a percentage of all sales based on the SPS Fee Structure, for purposes of offsetting operating expenses. The SPS Fee Structure is reviewed and approved annually as part of the University's budget process. Refer to Section 4.3, Surplus Property Sales, in the Property Management Manual for additional details. d. Sales Expense Any expenses related to the sale of an item will be deducted from the proceeds of the sale or charged to the department if no sale occurs. Sales expenses may include, but are not limited to: appraisal, advertising, brokerage, or auction fees; diagnostic, registration, smog and repair costs; moving, handling, transportation, and disposal expenses. e. Proceeds The proceeds from sales of any University-owned property belong to the University. Sales revenues are distributed in accordance with the approved SPS fee structure. f. Delivery Buyers are responsible for timely packaging, removal and transport of the items they buy. g. Sale Records The buyer may not take possession until payment has been received by SPS. Records of all sale transactions are retained by SPS per University Policy as stated in Guide Memo 3.1.5: Retention of Financial Records. h. Equipment Inventory Update Property records are updated by PMO as appropriate, to reflect the final disposition transaction. i. Non-Marketable Property Items that are broken, inoperable or otherwise deemed unsellable will be disposed or recycled per University policies via the prescribed excess process by Surplus Sales. For equipment items there is no additional cost to departments for this service. For furniture items, such items may be disposed of by departments at their cost with prior approval from PMO. j. Right of Refusal Surplus Sales may refuse items that are deemed to be in non-marketable condition. Delivery will be diverted to PSSI for disposal at the originating department's expense. 4. Sales Requiring Particular Caution a. Property owned or funded by Federal or other Sponsors Authorization from the Sponsor may be required prior to disposal or sale. The DPA must work closely with the Property Management Office in handling such transactions. Contact your Property Service Representative (PSR) for further instructions. b. Donated Equipment Internal Revenue Service requirements may restrict or prohibit sale of donated equipment. See Guide Memo 4.2.3: Records of Donated Equipment, for more information. c. Hazardous Equipment 1. Contamination Risk Prior to release from the department, property must be decontaminated per Environmental Health & Safety guidelines. A list of items that must be sanitized is available at the Environmental Health & Safety website. Items that require sanitization must have a letter confirming sanitization attached to the unit prior to being picked up or delivered to SPS. 2. Injury Potential For property with the potential to cause injury, SPS and the department will discuss whether the property should remain with the department pending final disposition, so that only people familiar with the equipment will handle it. d. Software and Sensitive Data Before delivery to SPS, departments must take steps to permanently remove University proprietary information from any computer or computer peripheral device. See Secure Computing for a complete description of University policy regarding data sanitization. Special care should be taken with licensed application software to ensure that the terms of the licensing agreement regarding sale or transfer have been observed.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_234
5.3 Purchasing Goods and Services Main content start - Last Updated September 21, 2012 This Guide Memo provides an overview of the procurement process. University departments are encouraged to contact Procurement early in the acquisition process. Procurement buyers and Contracts Specialists can help develop technical specifications and - Last Updated September 21, 2012 This Guide Memo contains policies on Blanket Purchase Orders. - Last Updated April 17, 2025 his policy applies to expenditures from all university funding sources. For detailed procedures and resources, refer to the Purchasing Card (PCard) overview on Fingate. This policy aligns with Administrative Guide Memo 1.1.1: Code of Conduct, Guide - Last Updated September 21, 2012 This Guide Memo describes policies on making purchases from the Stanford Bookstore or directly from publishers. - Last Updated March 15, 2013 This Guide Memo describes or references procedures for authorizing payment for services to the University by individuals who are not University employees. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) currently applies the applicable policies contained	common_crawl_stanford.edu_235
5.3.3 Purchasing Cards Formerly Known As Policy Number: 54.5 This policy applies to expenditures from all university funding sources. For detailed procedures and resources, refer to the Purchasing Card (PCard) overview on Fingate. This policy aligns with Administrative Guide Memo 1.1.1: Code of Conduct, Guide Memo 5.1.1: Procurement Policies, and applicable federal regulations. Applicability: This policy is applicable to direct purchases of: - Business expenses, such as meals and entertainment expenses - Purchases to be owned by the university 1. Purpose Purchasing Cards (PCards) are university-liability credit cards issued to active and authorized employees to facilitate the purchase of eligible goods and services totaling $4,999 or less. The university offers a number of purchasing methods, such as iProcurement, which should be considered for overall impact on time-savings and the university’s ability to reduce costs and manage risk, compliance, and regulations. Using a PCard to purchase items should be limited to instances where there is substantial benefit, such as to support a more immediate business need or for purchasing categories, like business meals, that cannot be facilitated in iProcurement. There are two types of PCards with specific uses: - Individual PCard: Issued to and used only by a specific purchaser. - Department PCard: Issued to a department and assigned to a custodian who can authorize others within the department to use it. 2. Roles and Responsibilities For overarching roles and responsibilities in procurement activities, refer to Guide Memo 5.1.1: Procurement Policies. Specific roles and responsibilities related to PCards include: - Purchaser: - The Individual PCard Cardholder or the Department PCard Custodian is responsible for all purchases made on the card, follows related policies, and provides applicable receipts and documentation. - To be issued a PCard, the individual completes the application process, which includes designating a guarantee account (PTA) and a transaction verifier, completing training, and obtaining appropriate approvals. - Verifier: - The cardholder or another individual who is responsible for properly documenting and recording transactions in a timely manner, including disputing or reporting any potentially fraudulent transactions. Documentation must be attached, along with a business purpose and account (PTA) information. - Transactions verified later than 60 days after expenses are incurred (the credit card posted date) are treated as taxable income to the cardholder in accordance with the IRS Accountable Plan. If a PCard transaction remains unverified, the transaction will be force cleared to the specified guarantee account (PTA). Repeated failure to verify and approve PCard transactions may result in card suspension. - Approver: PCard transaction approvers are granted appropriate approval authority for the PTA to which the PCard transaction is being charged. The approver may not report to the individual who made the purchase or be the beneficiary on whose behalf the purchase was made. - School/unit management: Managers and financial approvers must monitor PCard usage, ensuring timely processing and compliance with policies. - Central administration and oversight: - Financial Management Services (FMS) oversees transaction compliance and may suspend cards for non-compliance. - PCard transactions are subject to additional review by the Office of the Chief Risk Officer (Internal Audit and/or Ethics and Compliance) as well as external auditors. Misuse PCard charges that are found to solely benefit the individual and/or are deemed excessive or fraudulent will be subject to further review and assessment by the appropriate office as outlined in Guide Memo 3.5.1: Financial Irregularities. Consequences of substantiated financial irregularities are addressed in Guide Memo 1.1.1: Code of Conduct. 3. Permissible and Non-Permissible Purchases See Fingate for an expanded list of categories of permissible and non permissible purchases: - Permissible Purchases: Common items, such as office supplies, postage and mailing supplies, periodic dues and memberships to professional organizations, and business meals where no travel is involved. - Non-Permissible Purchases: Items with specific compliance requirements such as hazardous chemicals, and moving, storage, and leasing expenses must utilize other purchasing methods. 4. Exceptions Exception requests to the PCard policy must first be approved by the appropriate VP/Dean’s office or designee.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_236
10.2.2 Graduate Student Hourly Employment This Guide Memo outlines policies and procedures for employment of matriculated Stanford graduate students in positions other than assistantships. For employment of graduate students in research and teaching assistantships, see Guide Memo 10.2.1. For employment of matriculated undergraduate students, see Guide Memo 10.1.1. Applicability: Applies to the employment of matriculated graduate students in positions other than assistantships. This policy does not apply to non-matriculated graduate students (e.g., Visiting Student Researchers). 1. Definitions and Distinctions - Student hourly employment. Stanford University uses student hourly employment to hire Stanford students into jobs that are specifically earmarked for matriculated students. Student workers are supervised in their work, are hired through the PeopleSoft HR system, and must record and approve their work hours. Compensation is established on an hourly basis, and the amount of pay is based on the actual number of hours worked in each pay period. These job assignments are incidental to the student’s course of study with reasonable limitations placed during the academic quarter on the nature of the work assignment and the number of hours of employment. All Stanford University student employment is hourly, with the exception of assistantships, which are limited to graduate students (see Admin Guide 10.2.1). Hourly employment should never be used to pay a graduate student for work that is appropriately treated as an assistantship. - Graduate student. This policy applies to students who are enrolled in a graduate degree program (any degree except the BA, BS, or BAS). For purposes of student employment, students enrolled in both undergraduate and graduate degree programs as coterminal students are considered undergraduate students while assessed undergraduate tuition and graduate students while assessed graduate tuition. - The Graduate Financial Support (GFS) system is the online application used to enter all research and teaching assistantship appointments, fellowships, and other stipend payments for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. It is not used to process hourly employment. - Job Classification Codes (JCC) are used to categorize all jobs at Stanford. Students should be hired into the appropriate student JCC for the job for which they are employed. Use of the appropriate JCC ensures that the correct expenditure type and fringe benefit rate are applied as wages are paid. Distinctions from Hourly Employment: - Graduate Student Assistantships are a form of student employment, earning a compensation package including both salary and tuition allowance (TAL) for the performance of research or teaching services to the University as part of the student's academic and professional training and development, see Guide Memo 10.2.1. Hourly employment is not a substitute for an assistantship appointment. - Honorarium is a stipend payment to recognize a student for an accomplishment or a one-time event or project, such as a recruitment weekend. Honoraria are not used as compensation for employment. Graduate student honorarium payments are processed as stipends in the GFS system. - Student Residence Roles are held by a core group of students that are responsible for managing the various programmatic components of life in their on campus residence. A nominal stipend to defray living expenses is offered in conjunction with many of these roles. These payments are processed as stipends in the GFS system. International students should consult with Bechtel International Center about the impact of this effort on restrictions related to on-campus employment. - Off-Campus Internships and Off-Campus Employment are not covered by this policy. In both cases, students are encouraged to be mindful that their primary obligation is to their academic program. International students must also adhere to visa requirements and should consult with Bechtel International Center before engaging in any off-campus employment or unpaid opportunity. - Contingent (Casual or Temporary) Employment is used to hire an individual for a part-time or temporary staff position. Contingent employment must be used for hourly employment assignments for non-matriculated students, such as Visiting Student Researchers, and for matriculated students when on a Leave of Absence. Contingent employment is not normally used for enrolled, matriculated Stanford students, but must be used for any student working more than 36 hours per week. 2. Limits on Hours of Employment Graduate students are expected to limit their hours of employment, so that they may devote sufficient attention to their studies. Therefore, graduate students are expected to coordinate the number of hours of employment with their academic obligations, including course load, number of registered units, and the academic expectations of their program. Additionally, they are expected to coordinate hourly employment with the other forms of financial support that they are receiving. Academic departments/programs, offices employing students, and funding sources may also impose employment limitations. Limits on hourly employment and related enrollment limitations for graduate students are summarized in Table 1. a. Limit on Hours There are formal limits on the number of hours a student may be employed when also financially supported by assistantships or fellowships. During Autumn, Winter and Spring quarters, enrolled graduate students are limited to 28 hours of student employment, combining hourly employment and assistantship appointments. (International students are subject to additional limitations, see below.) For example, graduate students appointed to 50% (20 hours/week) assistantships may not be employed more than an additional eight hours a week; those additional hours cannot be in other assistantship positions. Graduate students with full fellowship funding are limited to additional employment of 8 hours/week hourly employment or a 25% assistantship, but not both. The source of the fellowship or the student’s academic department/program may impose stricter limits. During Summer quarter, enrolled graduate students are limited to 36 hours of student employment, combining hourly employment and assistantship appointments. (International students may be subject to additional limitations, see below.) For example, students on 50% time (20 hours/week) assistantships may not be employed more than an additional 16 hours a week; those additional hours can combine either assistantships or hourly employment. In summer, students who are employed more than 8 hours with a 50% assistantship are expected to reduce the number of units of enrollment commensurate with a larger percentage appointment. (This is shown in the TAL table for Summer Quarter.) Graduate students with full fellowship funding are limited to additional employment of 16 hours/week hourly employment or a 50% assistantship, but not both. The source of the fellowship or the student’s academic department/program may impose stricter limits. b. Additional Limits on Hours During break periods when school is officially not in session, the University does not limit the number of hours graduate students may be employed. For on campus employment, University guidelines on overtime pay apply. Note that graduate student research and teaching assistantships are made for a full quarter and hours associated with assistantships include these break periods. Policy related to assistantships is located in Administrative Guide 10.2.1: Graduate Student Assistantships. International students must contact Bechtel International Center for information about off-campus employment authorization (see Bechtel International Center’s website under “Employment”). Thanksgiving Break: Restrictions on student work hours do not apply during Thanksgiving recess, beginning the day after classes end (as detailed on the official university academic calendar) and continuing through the day before classes resume. Between Quarter Breaks: Restrictions on student work hours do not apply beginning the day after the University final exam period ends (as detailed on the official university academic calendar) and continuing through the day before classes begin the following quarter. For example: students’ employment hours are not limited between the Saturday after Autumn quarter final exams, through the Sunday before Winter classes begin. Summer Quarter: Summer quarter employment rules vary depending upon student enrollment and visa status. Refer to the information and chart below for additional information. Individual university holidays, e.g., President’s Day and Memorial Day, do not constitute a break. Although university policy does not restrict employment hours during these break periods, individual academic programs may define more restrictive policies. Students must check with their academic program for any restrictions. c. Additional Limits on Hours for International Students on F-1 or J-1 Visas International students on F-1 or J-1 visas are subject to both university policies on employment and visa regulations that limit employment; in all cases, the more restrictive limitation will apply. International students are eligible for on-campus employment if they are maintaining F-1 or J-1 status (J-1 students must obtain work authorization from Bechtel International Center for both on-campus and off-campus employment). During the academic year (Autumn, Winter and Spring quarters), enrolled students on F-1or J-1 visas are limited to a total of 20 hours of employment per week (except during break periods), including both hourly jobs and assistantship appointment(s), and including any off-campus employment that they may have been authorized to perform. During Summer quarter, most international students are subject to the general University policies for summer graduate student employment, and their F-1 or J-1 visa does not further restrict their hours of employment. However, any graduate student who is required to enroll full time in summer quarter in order to maintain legal visa status—such as newly admitted students who will start their program in the summer, or those students returning from a leave of absence in the summer—may not work more than a combined total of 20 hours per week. During University defined break periods as defined in section 2b above, neither the University or federal regulations limit the number of hours international graduate students may be employed, provided they are eligible and intend to register for the next academic quarter. Further information regarding employment limits for students on F-1 or J-1 visas is available from the Bechtel International Center. Table 1: Maximum Number of Hours of Hourly Employment Permitted per Week Funding source or the student’s academic department/program may impose stricter limits. Footnotes describe the related limitations on enrollment. - Students with a 50% assistantship are limited to 10 units, TGR, or graduation quarter enrollment. - In summer, students are expected to reduce enrollment below full-time status if they accept an assistantship of more than 50%, or they accept a combination of assistantship and hourly work that total more than 28 hours per week. - More than 36 hours requires hiring as a Contingent (Casual or Temporary) employee through Human Resources and non-enrollment. Enrolled students cannot work more than 36 hours. - Some international students are required to enroll full-time due to Visa requirements and immigration law (see Enrollment Requirements on the Bechtel International Center website). Students should consult with Bechtel International Center regarding their individual enrollment requirements. The percentage of the assistantship appointment determines the amount of Tuition Allowance (TAL) that is provided and the expectations for the number of units of enrollment. This is shown in the TAL table. 3. Hiring, Paying and Supervising Students a. Hiring The supervisor notifies the human resources administrator to make the appropriate system entry. The students should be hired into the appropriate Job Classification Code (JCC). The student must be hired into PeopleSoft HR before beginning work. Students who are hired during Summer quarter, but who are not enrolled, must be hired as Student Hourly Employees using the appropriate Summer Student JCC. This step is required even if the student is continuing a work assignment that started during the academic year. Before hiring a graduate student for hourly employment, a graduate student assistantship, or any other type of appointment through Human Resources the hiring department should contact the student’s academic home department/program to review the appointment (see the GFS School contact list). The hourly appointment must be reviewed for appropriateness taking into account: - The student’s academic obligations, including course load, number of registered units, and other expectations - Other forms of financial support that the student is receiving, including fellowships and assistantships. Funding sources may impose limits on hourly employment - Any limits that the student’s home academic department/program imposes (e.g., program may limit hourly student employment) - Limitations placed on international students Students who receive a university award that includes funding to hire graduate students to complete hourly work (e.g., coding, transcription, or other effort associated with academic projects) are subject to these policies. In such cases, the department should manage the funding and hire the student hourly employee. b. Wage rates There is no suggested wage scale for hourly employment for graduate students. When setting the hourly wage rate for a graduate student, the following may be taken into consideration: - The tasks required of the student, including the level of independence, judgment and expertise; - The student’s experience in similar work assignments; - Wage rate paid to other graduate students in department for comparable work. c. Payment Departments pay student workers from their own sources of funding. Hourly student workers must record actual hours worked in Axess Timecard each pay period. Each month has two pay periods: The first day of the month through the 15th and the 16th through the last day of the month. Paychecks are issued on the workday that falls on or immediately prior to the seventh calendar day after the end of each pay period. d. Supervision One person should be named as the student’s immediate supervisor and should be directly accountable for overseeing the student’s work and approving the hours worked in Axess. e. Work Schedules and Requirements A student is expected to work the agreed hours, be punctual, and satisfy all reasonable requirements of the employer with regard to performance and behavior. Most on-campus employers build in some flexibility in hours given students’ exam schedules, but that is not always possible and students are expected to carry through if they have agreed to be at work. f. Sick Time Sick time provides a mechanism to pay graduate student hourly employees when they are unable to perform their work responsibilities due to illness or for other related reasons as detailed below. All Stanford student hourly employees receive sick time benefits. Arrangements for any variations in work hours, including time off for illness or related uses of sick time, should be made individually with the student hourly employee’s supervisor. To the extent possible, student hourly employees are encouraged to make arrangements outside of their working hours and supervisors are encouraged to offer flexibility in work hours. For information about the accrual and use of sick time for student hourly employees, see Administrative Guide Memo 10.3.1: Sick Time for Student Hourly Employees. g. Job Listing Stanford departments wishing to hire graduate students may use the system administered by BEAM (Bridging Education, Ambition and Meaningful Work) to list their job openings. Departments should log onto Handshake to post a job. Departments may also use their own means of locating student employees. h. Non-Discrimination Non-discrimination policies applicable to regular staff, as stated in Guide Memo 2.1.2, section 2.a., also apply to student employees.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_237
Coterm Degree Conferral Main content start Degree Conferral Considerations Coterms may apply for undergraduate degree conferral once undergraduate degree requirements are complete. Graduate degree conferral can only be at the same time or after undergraduate degree conferral. Coterms may opt to have the undergraduate degree conferred at the end of any quarter with an active registration status. General considerations and questions students should ask themselves when considering degree conferral: - Do you need your undergraduate degree for the purposes of job opportunities? Fellowships? - Will you be taking a leave? Could a leave impact your plans to return to Stanford? - All Stanford students need an active registration status to apply to graduate. - Students that wish to graduate when they do not have an active enrollment may apply for “grad quarter.” - NOTE: Coterms with an active undergraduate program qualify for this option ONLY if they are conferring BOTH degrees. - If you feel uncertain about your plans and/or are going to take a leave of absence, you may want to have your undergraduate degree conferred while you have an active enrollment status. - Coterms have 3 years from the matriculation quarter to complete the graduate degree, with some flexibility depending on your department’s policies. - Athletes should always check with their UAD for Student-Athletes about whether degree conferral affects eligibility. - International students should check visa implications. Are you considering any of the limited part-time graduate student options? - Coterms with open undergraduate degrees are NOT allowed to apply for graduate special tuition statuses. In other words, there may be special tuition opportunities in a final quarter for students with conferred undergraduate degrees. - Any students planning to apply to the part-time graduate student option through the honors cooperative program must plan to have the undergraduate degree conferredbefore they can begin in addition to the other admission requirements of that program. Considerations for leaving the undergraduate degree open for one or more quarters: - Flexibility if there is a scheduling issue. - VPUE Undergraduate Research funds require undergraduate status. - Study abroad program may require undergraduate status. - Student may not transfer units after degree conferral.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_238
Explore Coterminal Degrees Is a Master's Degree Right for You? The coterminal degree program at Stanford allows you to begin work on a master’s degree while you are finishing your bachelor’s degree. The graduate degree does not have to be from the same department or school as your undergraduate major. The degrees can be combined in a way that adds coherence and depth to your educational program or enhances your professional or personal interests. Review the registrar’s list of coterm departments Graduate School and Other Options Pursuing coterminal admission to a master's degree is one of many options available to you for achieving depth, breadth and advanced study in your education. Choosing a graduate program typically requires research. As you consider your big picture future, also consider how, and if, pursuing a graduate program fits into your vision. There are many reasons one might choose to pursue graduate study via coterminal admission: - Exploring in depth an entirely new field, or continuing to explore one’s undergraduate major field to an even greater degree - Expand your cohort of graduate student peers while enjoying the continuity of your home campus - Gaining a head start on the professional degree required for a career in your desired field - Preparing for other post-baccalaureate studies (such as PhD programs), medical, law, or business school, or for work in certain professional fields Also, make sure to weigh the benefits of other opportunities, which can be in addition to, or instead of, the coterm option, as they may align better with your overarching academic goals. These options include the following: - Honors: Pursuing advanced work in your major through additional course work or completing an honors thesis or senior project. - Comparing Majors Options: Completing a double-major, secondary major, or a minor to experience breadth through a field related to your major. - Participating in research, overseas or off-campus study, public service endeavors, leadership opportunities to deepen your education through non-classroom experiences. Comparing Stanford Coterms and Master’s Degrees Elsewhere Benefits of pursuing your master’s degree through the Stanford Coterm Program include the following: - You can start pursuing your graduate degree while still working towards your undergraduate degree. - You can build on already established relationships with departments and faculty at Stanford. - You don’t have to relocate and acclimate to another campus and community. Benefits to pursuing a master’s degree at another institution include: - You have the opportunity to work closely with a different group of faculty in your field. - You get a more diversified educational experience. - You might be able to enroll in a program where the master’s degree directly feeds into a PhD program. Need Help with Your Future Goals? A graduate program may be a clear way to support your future goals, however you may be uncertain, or undecided on your future personal and/or professional goals. Whether or not you're ready to seek employment, researching things like job market outlooks for various fields might be helpful. It may also be helpful to evaluate your knowledge base and skills given your undergraduate education and experience. How might graduate study add to, or refine, those skills given the job market and/or any of your goals? What do you want out of a graduate program? There are many people and resources on campus and beyond that can help you explore these and many other questions. BEAM Bridging Education, Ambition, and Meaningful Work A great resource for students well BEFORE seeking employment. Some of BEAM's many offerings include: - Career coaches - Informal meetups with students/alumni/employers, industry specialists - Assessments - Life design classes and programming - Design your Stanford, Designing Your Life, and Designing the Professional the TREE tool - helps you list your career interests and design specific goals to explore and pursue those interests Informational Interviews - While BEAM can help connect you to people in various industries, you may already be connected to people on or off campus with experience in areas that are of interest to you. Ask them questions about their work, what they wish they had known when they were students, etc. Most people are happy to talk about their perspectives and experiences. - Don't forget about your Academic Advisors and faculty advisors. If your advisor has a background different from the areas of interest, they may still be able to help you make meaningful connections and/or link you to relevant opportunities. If you are considering medical school, law school, or business school, see the pre-professional advisors in Sweet Hall. Faculty, Staff, and Other Students Faculty are going to be the experts about the learning outcomes of a program. Program staff can also be very knowledgeable and are often willing to connect you to current coterms in those programs. Stanford Alumni Database Want to passively gather information before talking to people? Here you can see what graduates of various programs did after graduation. Tip - remember to filter by graduation timeframe so you aren't looking at information that is very old or irrelevant. If you wish to connect with someone, you may want to try to find them on LinkedIn, other professional networks, or see if they have listed and email address in case they don't check their alumni database messages regularly. CAPS Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and any other vehicle for self-reflection. Self-reflection can be challenging, especially when you are BUSY. CAPS could help you think through your values and goals for life beyond Stanford. What are your expectations for your life? How will certain career paths fit into that life? Will your work be an extension of your identity? How much professional life/personal life overlap is ideal for you? Planning for when you finish your undergraduate career can be understandably difficult and/or anxiety inducing. Sometimes addressing that difficulty directly can help you keep it from derailing your research. Opportunities Abound There are endless opportunities to consider how your want to spend your time at Stanford and down the road. You have probably been overwhelmed by all of the speakers, visitors, programs, activities, and events you can choose to attend or participate in. Consider those options with a forward thinking lens. Read the newsletters you get in your email. Are there any classes that can give you information or provide ways to explore other areas of interest? How will your activities potentially give you meaningful information or experience when it comes to your time beyond your baccalaureate degree? Consider your professional network Your network can include other students, staff, faculty, people in the community, etc. List connections you've made so far via internships, volunteering, doing research, etc. BALANCE IS KEY Do not worry so much about post-graduation that you are unable to enjoy your time as an undergraduate. However, putting off exploring your options too long may limit them or leave you in a time crunch. Consider building a timelime of when you would like to explore some of the relevant bullets above, in addition to other avenues that may come your way.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_239
Requests for Exceptions to Academic Policy In certain circumstances, a student may submit a request for exception to university policy. Requests may relate to Academic Progress decisions, or to general academic policies or their deadlines. Requests must demonstrate relevant and compelling circumstances, and include supporting documentation. Your first step is to talk to your Undergraduate Advising Director (UAD) about your situation. University policies (such as those regarding course enrollment, unit totals, and grading options) are established by the Faculty Senate and its Committees. The review of undergraduate requests for exception is conducted via VPUE and the office of Academic Advising to protect the integrity of these policies and the undergraduate academic experience. Requests submitted to VPUE are carefully reviewed, considered, and evaluated by committee on a case-by-case basis. Decisions about requests will be made in accordance with the standards and principles of university policies, along with considerations of fairness and equity for all students. For more information on Stanford's academic policies, please refer to the Stanford Bulletin. Preparation Before you make an appointment with your UAD, please consider and be prepared to talk about the following: - What is prompting your request? - Have you fully explored alternative solutions to your situation? - Have you experienced any significant extenuating circumstances that may warrant an exception to policy? Your UAD can help you determine whether your situation is appropriate for a request for exception, what your options are, and what next steps to take. Process - Schedule an appointment and meet with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation. This may be your assigned Undergraduate Advising Director (UAD) in your neighborhood, your UAD for Student-Athletes, or another UAD from the Sweet Hall office. - Your UAD will consider your specific situation and speak to you about whether or not the request for exceptions process is applicable to your particular circumstances. Keep in mind that your UAD may also need to consult with colleagues to determine whether submission of a request for exception would be appropriate. - Depending on the outcome of the above: - If your UAD lets you know that submission of a request is not appropriate, your UAD will discuss any available alternative paths to addressing your concern and moving forward without an exception. - If your UAD lets you know that submission of a request is appropriate, they will give you a form for a request for exception. Proceed as below. - Complete the form, and write a personal statement describing the exceptional circumstances that you are facing. Please see the writing prompts for your particular type of request below, and provide any specific information required (e.g. your first or last date of participation in the course). Your explanation should provide a clear, full, and chronological timeline of events. - Depending on the request, you may need to provide additional documentation and/or written support from an instructor or other university official. Talk to your UAD to understand what other university offices are relevant to your situation, what documentation you should include, and what written statements you should get from them to endorse your request. Compile any relevant documentation and attach it to your request. - Submit your request, paying attention to the specific deadlines for each request below. Requests received after the relevant indicated deadline may not be considered. - Investigation and deliberation of submitted requests may take up to 3 weeks, depending on the type of request and whether any further information is needed. Please keep an eye on your inbox in case we need to contact you about additional documentation or follow-up steps. We appreciate your patience during this time. You will be notified of the final decision on your request via email. - If your request is not approved, we urge you to speak with your UAD to discuss alternative plans for moving forward without an exception. Note that UADs cannot reverse decisions, but they can help support you in light of the decision and plan your next steps. Requests and Forms Administered by the Office of Academic Advising* In this section: Request to Exceed Max Units • Second Repeat of a Course • Late Study Lists • Late Add of a Course • Late Change of Units For a Course • Late Withdraw From a Course • Late Section Change • Math Switches • Request to Return and Register • Reconsideration of Academic Suspension *NOTE: You must be logged in using your Stanford SUNet ID to access these forms. Request to Exceed Maximum Units (Undergraduate and Coterminal Students) - This is a request to enroll in more than 20 academic units before the Final Study List deadline. For more information on maximum enrollment, see the Stanford Bulletin: Full-Time Status. - Note that the Request to Exceed Maximum Units eForm can only be accessed starting on the first day of the relevant quarter. - If you are an undergraduate student, you must be enrolled in all other desired courses within the 20 unit limit at the time of submission. If you are a coterminal student in the undergraduate billing group, you will still need to submit a request for exception to exceed 20 units even if Axess allows the enrollment without permission. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and whether or not it is advisable to take more than 20 units this quarter. - If your request is appropriate, write a personal statement describing all the courses you plan to take this quarter, how each course fits into your academic plans, how and why you feel prepared to manage this work load, and what contingency plan you have in case the work proves to be too much. Your advisor may request revisions to your statement or a follow-up meeting. - Fill out the required eForm on Axess - To find the eForm, log in to Axess, go to the "My Academics" dropdown menu, and navigate to “Student eForms.” Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for "Request for Exception to Exceed Maximum Units (Undergraduates)" or “Request for Exception to Exceed Maximum Units (Coterm).” Please note that the eForm will open on the first day of the quarter. - Submit the required eForm with personal statement and any relevant supporting documentation via Axess by the Final Study List deadline. - If your request is approved, you will be notified via email. Please take any requested additional steps in a timely manner. - For more guidance on the request to exceed max units, see our Advising Student Handbook. Repeat a course a second time - This is a request to retake a course for a third time after having previously completed it twice and where the second grade was either NP or NC. For more information, see the Stanford Bulletin: Repeated Courses. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and whether or not it is advisable to retake this course at this time. - If your request is appropriate, fill out the required form here: Request for Exception to Change Course Enrollment [PDF Fillable] - You must write a personal statement describing why you want to repeat the course a second time, and what your plan is to ensure academic success. - You also will need a statement from the course instructor, which can be an email sent from their Stanford email address. The instructor must endorse your decision to repeat the course for a second time. - If you received a passing final grade the second time you completed the course (i.e. a grade other than an NP or an NC), you may only request to take the course for a third time if the course is required for your major and you have not met the minimum grade threshold set by your major department. In this case, you must also must provide a statement from your major department, which can be an email statement sent by your department's Student Services Officer, Director of Undergraduate Studies, your major advisor, etc. The department statement must verify that this course is a requirement for your major and that your current course grade is insufficient. - Submit the required form, personal statement, instructor statement, department statement (if necessary), and any other relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by the Final Study List deadline. Submit a study list after the published deadline - This is a request to enroll in courses (i.e. submit a study list) in cases where the Final Study List deadline has already passed but for some reason you are not currently enrolled in any courses for the quarter, although you have been attending and participating in courses since before the Final Study List deadline. For more information on enrollment policies, see the Stanford Bulletin: Study Lists. - Clear any obligations to the University (e.g. financial holds or other enrollment holds). Your request will not be processed until all obligations are resolved. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and why you were unable to enroll in courses by the Final Study List deadline. - If your request is appropriate, fill out the required form(s) here: Request for Exception to Change Course Enrollment [PDF Fillable]. You must fill out one form for each course you wish to add. - You must write a personal statement describing the exceptional circumstances that prevented you from enrolling in courses by the Final Study List deadline. You should also clearly state the date you first began attending and participating in each course you wish to enroll in. - You will also need a statement from the instructor of each course you wish to enroll in, which can be an email sent from their Stanford email address. For each course, your instructor must confirm your first date of course participation, and state that they endorse your joining their course after the Final Study List deadline. - Resolve any enrollment holds and submit the required forms, personal statement, instructor statements, and any relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor as soon as possible, and no later than 12 pm on the Friday of Week 5 of the quarter. Requests submitted after this deadline may not be reviewed. - A $200 late study list fee will be assessed if the request is approved. Add a course after the published deadline - This is a request to enroll after the Final Study List deadline in a course that you have been attending and participating in since before the Final Study List deadline. For more information on enrollment policies, see the Stanford Bulletin: Study Lists. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and why you were unable to enroll in your desired course by the Final Study List deadline. - If your request is appropriate, fill out the required form here: Request for Exception to Change Course Enrollment [PDF Fillable]. - You must write a personal statement describing the exceptional circumstances that prevented you from enrolling in the course by the Final Study List deadline. You should also clearly state the date you first began attending and participating in the course. - You will also need a statement from the course instructor, which can be an email sent from their Stanford email address. Your instructor must confirm your first date of course participation, and state that they endorse your joining their course after the Final Study List deadline. - Submit the required form, personal statement, instructor statement, and any relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by end of week 4. If this deadline has passed, please schedule an appointment with your Academic Advisor as soon as possible for guidance. Change number of units in a variable unit course (e.g. 3-5 units) after the published deadline - This is a request to change your unit enrollment in a variable unit course after the Final Study List deadline in cases where you have already been doing the work load expected for that desired unit enrollment since before the Final Study List deadline. For more information on enrollment policies, see the Stanford Bulletin: Study Lists. - Note that decisions about unit selection for variable unit courses are expected to be finalized by the Final Study List deadline. A student changing their mind or realizing after the Final Study List deadline that a different unit selection and workload would be more desirable is not a compelling reason for consideration of a request. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and why you were unable to enroll in the correct number of units for your course by the Final Study List deadline. - If your request is appropriate, fill out the required form here: Request for Exception to Change Course Enrollment [PDF Fillable]. - You must also write a personal statement describing the exceptional circumstances that prevented you from enrolling in the correct number of units by the Final Study List deadline, and give a compelling reason why it is necessary for you to receive the revised number of units. You should also explain the difference in workload between the different unit versions, and clearly describe the workload you have been engaged in thus far. You must attach a course syllabus to your request. - You will also need a statement from the course instructor, which can be an email sent from their Stanford email address. In addition to endorsing the change, your instructor's statement must detail the work load appropriate to the unit level requested, and verify your participation in the course at this level. - If you are seeking the unit change in order to use the course towards your declared major, you must also provide a statement from your major department confirming what impact the unit change would have on your progress in the major. This can be an email statement sent by a representative from your major department (e.g. Student Services Officer, Director of Undergraduate Studies, or major advisor). - Submit the required form, personal statement, instructor statement, and any other relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by the end of week 4. If this deadline has passed, please schedule an appointment with your Academic Advisor as soon as possible for guidance. Withdraw from a course after the published deadline - This is a request to withdraw from a course after the course withdrawal deadline in cases where you stopped attending and participating in the course before the course withdrawal deadline. For more information on enrollment policies, see the Stanford Bulletin: Study Lists. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and why you were unable to withdraw from your course by the Course Withdrawal deadline. - If your request is appropriate, fill out the required form here: Request for Exception to Change Course Enrollment [PDF Fillable]. - You must write a personal statement describing the exceptional circumstances that prevented you from withdrawing from the course by the deadline. You should also clearly state the date you stopped attending and participating in the course. - You will also need a statement from the course instructor, which can be an email sent from their Stanford email address. Your instructor must confirm your last date of course participation, and that they endorse your withdrawal from the course after the course withdrawal deadline. - Submit the required form, personal statement, and any relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by the last day of classes. If this deadline has passed, please schedule an appointment with your Academic Advisor as soon as possible for guidance. Change the section component of a course after the published deadline - This is a request to change the section component of a course you are enrolled in after the Final Study List deadline in cases where you enrolled in the wrong section and have been attending and participating in a different section since before the Final Study List deadline (e.g. you enrolled in a research course but under a section with the wrong research mentor). For more information on enrollment policies, see the Stanford Bulletin: Study Lists. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and the circumstances that prevented you from enrolling in the correct section component of your course by the Final Study List Deadline. - If your request is appropriate, fill out the required form here: Request for Exception to Change Course Enrollment [PDF Fillable]. - You must write a personal statement describing the exceptional circumstances that prevented you from enrolling in the correct section component of your course by the deadline. You should also clearly state the date you stopped attending and participating in the incorrect course section (if at all), and the date you began attending and participating in the correct course section. - You will also need two instructor statements: one from the old (incorrect) section instructor, and one from the new (correct) section instructor. These statements can be emails sent from their Stanford email addresses. The old section instructor must confirm your last date of section participation (or that you never participated), and that they endorse your dropping their section after the Final Study List deadline. The new section instructor must confirm your first date of section participation, and that they endorse your joining their section after the Final Study List deadline. - Submit the required form, personal statement, two instructor statements, and any other relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by the end of week 4. If this deadline has passed, please schedule an appointment with your Academic Advisor as soon as possible for guidance. Math Switches - This is a request only for students currently enrolled in MATH 61 CM/DM. Eligible students may seek more information about this request by reaching out to their MATH 61 CM/DM instructor. - Fill out the required form here: Request to Change Course Enrollment: Math Switch [PDF Fillable] Request to Return and Register (Undergraduate and Coterminal Students) - This is a request for reinstatement at Stanford if you are on a discontinued status: for example, if you are returning from a completed academic suspension, or if you were previously unenrolled but never requested an official leave of absence, or if your leave of absence expired and you did not renew it. For more information on reinstatement, see the Stanford Bulletin: Reinstatement. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to begin discussing your situation and your plans to return to Stanford. We recommend meeting with an advisor about 8-12 weeks before your intended quarter of return. If you have been away for more than 5 years, we recommend connecting with an advisor at least 2 quarters in advance of your intended quarter of return. Students may choose to meet with an academic advisor they have worked with previously, or they may reach out to the UAD for Academic Support Programs. - Clear any obligations to the University (e.g. financial holds or other enrollment holds). Your request will not be processed until all obligations are resolved. - After consultation with your advisor, please select and fill out the appropriate form from the two options below: - Request to Return and Register in Undergraduate Study for undergraduate students [PDF Fillable] - Coterm Request for Reinstatement for coterminal degree students [PDF Fillable] - You must write a personal statement detailing any past challenges you faced during your previous time at Stanford; what changes you might make or support resources you might seek out in order to give you the best possible chance of success upon your return; your plans for resolving any missing, Incomplete, or unreported grades on your transcript; your tentative course plans for your immediate quarter of return; and your longer term academic plans. - If you are an international student, discuss your return with a representative from the Bechtel International Center and obtain their signature on this form. - If you have declared a major, you should submit an academic plan signed by a representative from your department that lists your remaining major requirements, or confirms that you have finished all your major requirements. This can be in the form of a signed program sheet, or an email statement sent by a representative from your major department. If you haven’t declared a major, you should discuss your situation with your Academic Advisor and list the courses you plan to take for your intended quarter of return. - If you are a coterminal degree student, contact your graduate program department to discuss your plans for return and timeline for degree completion. Obtain their signature on this form and have them either indicate their decision on your reinstatement, or confirm that you are not seeking graduate reinstatement at this time. - Submit the required form, personal statement, academic plan, and any other relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by Week 5 of the quarter prior to your intended return (e.g. submit by Week 5 of Autumn quarter for a Winter quarter return). Your advisor may request revisions to your submission or a follow-up meeting. - We strongly recommend that you submit any suggested revisions before the Term Withdrawal deadline of the quarter prior to your intended return (usually in Week 7). See the academic calendar for Term Withdrawal dates. - Keep in mind that both Financial Aid and Housing have their own separate application processes with their own deadlines, and that you will not be able to apply for these services until after your Request to Return and Register has been approved and fully processed. - If you have been away more than 5 years, please allow at least 12 weeks to process your return. - If you have missed the recommended submission deadline for your finalized request (i.e. the Term Withdrawal deadline of the prior quarter), or if your circumstances are especially complex, please speak to your Academic Advisor as soon as possible for guidance. - See Returning to Stanford for further details. Reconsideration of Academic Suspension - This is a request for students who have been placed on an academic suspension status who believe they have new and compelling information to present that may warrant a reconsideration of their status. For more information on reconsiderations of academic suspension, see the Stanford Bulletin: Undergraduate Academic Progress. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and any previously undisclosed extenuating circumstances that you feel warrant a reconsideration of your academic suspension. - After consultation with your advisor, fill out the required form here: Request Reconsideration of an Academic Suspension [PDF Fillable] - You must write a personal statement detailing any previously undisclosed significant extenuating circumstances that prevented you from fulfilling your academic requirements, your future academic plans for the following quarter as well as for the longer term, and what changes you will make or support resources you will seek out in order to ensure your immediate academic success if allowed to re-enroll. - If you have declared a major, you should submit an academic plan signed by a representative from your department that lists your remaining major requirements and when you plan to complete them. This can also be an email statement sent by a representative from your major department. If you haven’t declared a major, you should discuss your situation with your Academic Advisor and list the courses you plan to take for the quarter if allowed to re-enroll. - Submit the required form, personal statement, academic plan, and any other relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by date indicated in the academic suspension letter. - Requests after the deadline will not be considered. Questions? For questions about any of the requests above, or about enrollment situations not listed above, make an appointment with your Academic Advisor to discuss your circumstances and review what options may be available to you. Forms Administered by Other University Offices In this section: Reduced Course Load • Leave of Absence (LOA) • LOA From Discontinued Status • Early Return from LOA Enroll in a minimum of 8 units (if registered with the Office of Accessible Education) – Reduced Course Load - This is a request for students registered with the Office of Accessible Education (OAE) to authorize enrollment in a minimum of 8 units rather than 12 units for disability reasons. This request is administered by OAE. For more information, please visit OAE’s website. - Register with the Office of Accessible Education (OAE) to determine eligibility. - Once registered, login to OAE \| CONNECT and click on the “Academic Request Forms” gear to access and submit the Request for Reduced Course Load. - International students must also meet with a Bechtel International Center advisor. - Submit your request no later than the course withdrawal deadline of the current quarter. Keep in mind that the timing of your request may result in different consequences (for example, for your transcript, academic progress, tuition, visa status, and financial aid). Please contact the relevant university offices for questions about their policies. - Notes: You MUST be enrolled with OAE to submit this request. Retroactive requests will not be considered. - While a signature from an Academic Advisor is not required, we recommend that you meet with your Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and how you may want to adjust your course load moving forward. Request or Extend a Leave of Absence (LOA) - This is a request to take a break from enrollment at Stanford either before or after a quarter begins. You may request or extend a Leave for anywhere from one quarter to four quarters at a time. You may request no more than eight total quarters of Leave throughout your undergraduate career. This request is administered by the office of the University Registrar. For more information on Leaves of Absence, see the Stanford Bulletin: Voluntary Leaves of Absence for Undergraduate Students and the Stanford Bulletin: Voluntary Leaves of Absence for Coterminal Students. - Fill out the required eForm on Axess - To find the eForm, log in to Axess, go to the "My Academics" dropdown menu, and navigate to “Student eForms.” Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for "Leave of Absence for Undergraduates" or “Leave of Absence for Coterm.” - Contact an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and get their endorsement on your eForm. - The Dean of Students office will also review your situation and may reach out to you regarding any support that may be helpful to your specific circumstances. - If you are an international student, you must also contact a Bechtel International Center advisor and get their endorsement on the eForm. - If you are a coterminal student, you must also contact your graduate major department and obtain a departmental endorsement on the eForm. - Keep in mind that the timing of your Leave of Absence may result in different consequences (for example, for your transcript, academic progress, tuition, visa status, insurance, housing, and financial aid). Please contact the relevant university offices for questions about their policies. - If you are extending your Leave of Absence, you must submit the eForm before the Final Study List deadline of your original intended quarter of return. - For more guidance on the Leave of Absence request, see our Advising Student Handbook. Request an LOA after being discontinued - This is a request to change your status from “discontinued” to an official Leave of Absence if you were discontinued this current quarter due to non-enrollment or an expired LOA. This request is administered by the office of the University Registrar. For more information, see Student Services: Forms and Processes. - NOTE: Students who were discontinued in a previous quarter must instead submit a Request to Return and Register (see above). - If eligible, fill out the required eForm on Axess. - To find the eForm, visit https://eforms.stanford.edu. Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for "Leave of Absence for Discontinued Undergraduates" or “Leave of Absence for Discontinued Coterms.” - Contact an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and get their endorsement on your eForm. - The Dean of Students Office will also review your situation and may reach out to you regarding any support that may be helpful to your specific circumstances. - If you are an international student, you must also contact a Bechtel International Center advisor and get their endorsement on the eForm. - If you are a coterminal student, you must also contact your graduate major department and obtain a departmental endorsement on the eForm. - Deadline: Term Withdrawal deadline of the effective quarter (either the return quarter originally indicated on your LOA form, or your first quarter of non-enrollment if you did not file an LOA). The Term Withdrawal deadline is usually in Week 7 of the quarter, but see the academic calendar for details. - For more guidance on the Leave of Absence request, see our Advising Student Handbook. Request an early return from an active LOA - This is a request to return from an active Leave of Absence in a quarter earlier than you initially intended (as stated on your original LOA eForm). This request is administered by the office of the University Registrar. For more information, see Student Services: Forms and Processes. - Fill out the required eForm on Axess - To find the eForm, log in to Axess, go to the "My Academics" dropdown menu, and navigate to “Student eForms.” Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for the "Early Return from Leave of Absence (UG Students)" or the “Early Return from Leave of Absence (Coterm Students) eForm. - Contact an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and get their endorsement on your eForm. - If you are an international student, you must also contact a Bechtel International Center advisor and get their endorsement on the eForm. - Deadline: Final Study List Deadline of the effective quarter - Keep in mind that if your request is approved, you may still need to apply for housing and for financial aid through separate processes, and that those applications have their own deadlines. If your circumstances are especially complex, please speak to your Academic Advisor for guidance on the timing of your submission. Additional Registrar Forms This is not an exhaustive list. Some of the more common additional undergraduate forms administered by the Registrar include: - Part-Time Enrollment Petition for Undergraduate Students (Terminal Quarter Only) - Application to Graduate - Graduation Quarter - Last Units Out of Residence - Permit to Attend for Services Only For a full list of forms, please visit the Student Services: Forms and Processes page.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_240
Returning to Stanford All students wishing to enroll in any given quarter(s) must have an active student status with the University. Depending on your situation, students returning to Stanford may need to take specific steps for reinstatement. The following information offers clarification of university academic policies related to leaves of absence and reinstatement. For a comprehensive review of leave and reinstatement policies, please refer to the following pages: - Stanford Bulletin: Voluntary Leaves of Absence for Undergraduate Students - Stanford Bulletin: Voluntary Leaves of Absence for Coterminal Students - Stanford Bulletin: Reinstatement NOTE: Students who have received a suspension from the Office of Community Standards (OCS) should work directly with that office rather than with Academic Advising. On this page: Returning from Leave of Absence (LOA) as scheduled • Returning early from LOA • Extending an LOA • Requesting an LOA after discontinuation • Request to Return and Register Returning as scheduled from an active Leave of Absence (LOA) If you are returning on schedule from an active Leave of Absence (i.e. on the date indicated on your original Leave of Absence form), there are no special steps you need to take for reinstatement. Your student record will be reactivated for the quarter of return that you indicated on your LOA form. Make sure to check if you have any enrollment holds on your account, and to contact the appropriate office about resolving these holds. We strongly recommend meeting with an Academic Advisor to plan for your scheduled return. We also urge you to check in with your academic department about major requirements and any changes to the program while you were away. Finally, be sure to apply for housing and financial aid (if applicable), as these are separate processes with their own deadlines. First steps and timeline for all other return scenarios For all other return scenarios, you will need to take specific steps for reinstatement. If you need to file a Request to Return and Register in Undergraduate Study, please note the detailed list of steps on the form and read through it carefully. To facilitate your return, any necessary forms should be filed 8-12 weeks prior to the beginning of the quarter of intended enrollment. If you have been away more than 5 years, please allow at least 12 weeks to process your return. In general, returning students must meet with an Academic Advisor, clear any obligations to the University (financial, housing, etc) and submit any necessary forms. Students may choose to meet with an academic advisor they have worked with previously, or they may reach out to the UAD for Academic Support Programs. You may find more details about particular return scenarios below. Return Scenarios Returning early from an active Leave of Absence (LOA) - This is a request to return from an active Leave of Absence in a quarter earlier than you initially intended (as stated on your original LOA eForm). This request is administered by the office of the University Registrar. For more information, see Student Services: Forms and Processes. - Fill out the required eForm on Axess - To find the eForm, log in to Axess, go to the "My Academics" dropdown menu, and navigate to “Student eForms.” Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for the "Early Return from Leave of Absence (UG Students)" or the “Early Return from Leave of Absence (Coterm Students) eForm. - Contact an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and get their endorsement on your eForm. - If you are an international student, you must also contact a Bechtel International Center advisor and get their endorsement on the eForm. - Deadline: Final Study List Deadline of the effective quarter - Keep in mind that if your request is approved, you may still need to apply for housing and for financial aid through separate processes, and that those applications have their own deadlines. If your circumstances are especially complex, please speak to your Academic Advisor for guidance on the timing of your submission. Extending the return date of an active LOA to a later quarter - This is a request to extend a Leave of Absence for anywhere from one quarter to four quarters at a time. You may request no more than eight total quarters of Leave throughout your undergraduate career. This request is administered by the office of the University Registrar. For more information on Leaves of Absence, see the Stanford Bulletin: Voluntary Leaves of Absence for Undergraduate Students and the Stanford Bulletin: Voluntary Leaves of Absence for Coterminal Students. - Fill out the required eForm on Axess - To find the eForm, log in to Axess, go to the "My Academics" dropdown menu, and navigate to “Student eForms.” Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for "Leave of Absence for Undergraduates" or “Leave of Absence for Coterm.” - Contact an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and get their endorsement on your eForm. - The Dean of Students office will also review your situation and may reach out to you regarding any support that may be helpful to your specific circumstances. - If you are an international student, you must also contact a Bechtel International Center advisor and get their endorsement on the eForm. - If you are a coterminal student, you must also contact your graduate major department and obtain a departmental endorsement on the eForm. - If you are extending your Leave of Absence, you must submit the eForm before the Final Study List deadline of your original intended quarter of return. - For more guidance on extending a Leave of Absence request, see our Advising Student Handbook. Requesting an LOA after being discontinued - This is a request to change your status from “discontinued” to an official Leave of Absence if you were discontinued this current quarter due to non-enrollment or an expired LOA. This request is administered by the office of the University Registrar. For more information, see Student Services: Forms and Processes. - NOTE: Students who were discontinued in a previous quarter must instead submit a Request to Return and Register (see below). - If eligible, fill out the required eForm on Axess. - To find the eForm, visit https://eforms.stanford.edu. Click on “Browse Available Forms” and search for "Leave of Absence for Discontinued Undergraduates" or “Leave of Absence for Discontinued Coterms.” - Contact an Academic Advisor to discuss your situation and get their endorsement on your eForm. - The Dean of Students Office will also review your situation and may reach out to you regarding any support that may be helpful to your specific circumstances. - If you are an international student, you must also contact a Bechtel International Center advisor and get their endorsement on the eForm. - If you are a coterminal student, you must also contact your graduate major department and obtain a departmental endorsement on the eForm. - Deadline: Term Withdrawal deadline for the effective quarter (either the return quarter originally indicated on your LOA form, or your first quarter of non-enrollment if you did not file an LOA). The Term Withdrawal deadline is usually in Week 7 of the quarter, but see the academic calendar for details. - For more guidance on the Leave of Absence request, see our Advising Student Handbook. Request to Return and Register (Undergraduate and Coterminal Students) - This is a request for reinstatement at Stanford if you are on a discontinued status: for example, if you are returning from a completed academic suspension, or if you were previously unenrolled but never requested an official leave of absence, or if your leave of absence expired and you did not renew it. For more information on reinstatement, see the Stanford Bulletin: Reinstatement. - Connect with an Academic Advisor to begin discussing your situation and your plans to return to Stanford. We recommend meeting with an advisor about 8-12 weeks before your intended quarter of return. If you have been away for more than 5 years, we recommend connecting with an advisor at least 2 quarters in advance of your intended quarter of return. Students may choose to meet with an academic advisor they have worked with previously, or they may reach out to the UAD for Academic Support Programs. - Clear any obligations to the University (e.g. financial holds or other enrollment holds). Your request will not be processed until all obligations are resolved. - After consultation with your advisor, please select and fill out the appropriate form from the two options below: - Request to Return and Register in Undergraduate Study for undergraduate students [PDF Fillable] - Coterm Request for Reinstatement for coterminal degree students [PDF Fillable] - You must write a personal statement detailing any past challenges you faced during your previous time at Stanford; what changes you might make or support resources you might seek out in order to give you the best possible chance of success upon your return; your plans for resolving any missing, Incomplete, or unreported grades on your transcript; your tentative course plans for your immediate quarter of return; and your longer term academic plans. - If you are an international student, discuss your return with a representative from the Bechtel International Center and obtain their signature on this form. - If you have declared a major, you should submit an academic plan signed by a representative from your department that lists your remaining major requirements, or confirms that you have finished all your major requirements. This can be in the form of a signed program sheet, or an email statement sent by a representative from your major department. If you haven’t declared a major, you should discuss your situation with your Academic Advisor and list the courses you plan to take for your intended quarter of return. - If you are a coterminal degree student, contact your graduate program department to discuss your plans for return and timeline for degree completion. Obtain their signature on this form and have them either indicate their decision on your reinstatement, or confirm that you are not seeking graduate reinstatement at this time. - Submit the required form, personal statement, academic plan, and any other relevant supporting documentation to your Academic Advisor by Week 5 of the quarter prior to your intended return (e.g. submit by Week 5 of Autumn quarter for a Winter quarter return). Your advisor may request revisions to your submission or a follow-up meeting. - We strongly recommend that you submit any suggested revisions before the Term Withdrawal deadline of the quarter prior to your intended return (usually in Week 7). See the academic calendar for Term Withdrawal dates. - Keep in mind that both Financial Aid and Housing have their own separate application processes with their own deadlines, and that you will not be able to apply for these services until after your Request to Return and Register has been approved and fully processed. - If you have been away more than 5 years, please allow at least 12 weeks to process your return. - If you have missed the recommended submission deadline for your finalized request (i.e. the Term Withdrawal deadline of the prior quarter), or if your circumstances are especially complex, please speak to your Academic Advisor as soon as possible for guidance. Considerations and Resources - Apply for Housing by the appropriate deadline - Apply for Financial Aid by the appropriate deadline - Explore health insurance options through the Vaden Health Center - Apply for Transfer Credit if applicable - Consider registering with the Office of Accessible Education (OAE) if you are facing health or mental health challenges - Connect with the Bechtel International Center if you are an international student - Check in with your (prospective) Major department or program regarding requirements for graduation - Check your General Education requirements - Check whether you still need to complete your PWR or your COLLEGE (formerly Thinking Matters) requirements, or your IHUM requirements if you matriculated prior to 2012. Additional Information Housing In general, students admitted as frosh are eligible for 12 total quarters of housing across their Stanford undergraduate career, whereas students admitted as transfers are eligible for 9 quarters of housing. Please see the R&DE Housing website for more information on housing eligibility and application deadlines. Financial Aid The priority filing date for financial aid is April 30 prior to the year you intend to return. See the Financial Aid Office web site for application requirements. If you are unable to meet the priority filing date, we highly recommend that you complete your application at least 8 weeks prior to the beginning of the quarter of intended enrollment. Review the special instructions for late applicants here. Health Insurance Returning students will be auto-enrolled in Cardinal Care. Note that the cost of health insurance will post to a student's account unless Cardinal Care is waived in a timely manner. For information on waiving Cardinal care, please visit Vaden's website.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_241
Advising Resources Toolkit These advising tools are intended to help frame your reflections throughout your time at Stanford, guide your strategic thinking if you face challenges or difficulty, facilitate your academic planning and intellectual development, and support you as you consider post-undergraduate education. They may be used cooperatively during an advising conversation or you may use them on your own, to help you prepare for a conversation with your Academic Advisor. Stanford offers a wealth of opportunities to grow and challenge yourself, both in and outside the classroom. The office of Academic Advising is dedicated to introducing you to the full richness of undergraduate study at Stanford, and to supporting you in your academic and intellectual pursuits. Your relationship with your Advisor(s) is an ongoing conversation and partnership that is ideally characterized by mutual respect, engagement, and responsiveness. You can get the most out of advising if you: - Bring your questions, ideas, and reflections about what is working for you (and what isn’t) to your meetings, understanding that participation is a critical part of the advising conversation. - Be open and honest about your background, specific academic or other goals you may have, as well as special needs or circumstances that may affect your experience. - Be respectful of their time (and know that they will be respectful of yours). Keep your appointments, or notify your advisor in a timely fashion if you need to cancel or reschedule for any reason. - Try to remain open to possibilities they suggest, but understand that you are the author of your own education. Reflection Throughout Your Time at Stanford These resources provide structure for you to pause and reflect on your Stanford experience. Talking through these prompts with your Academic Advisor—or working through them prior to an advising conversation—may help you contextualize your experiences, make plans, and set goals for yourself. It can also help you appreciate how far you have already come, and to take inventory of all you’re learning along the way. - The First Year - The Second Year - The Third Year - The Fourth Year - Wellness, Well-Being and Academics - Words of Wisdom: Reflection Facing Challenges or Difficulty Throughout your time at Stanford, you will challenge yourself academically, intellectually, or personally. As you do so, working with your Academic Advisor to develop strategies for facing difficulty, even disappointment, can help you navigate this natural part of the learning process. These resources may help frame those conversations and reflect on how you might use the insight and guidance provided. - Academic Difficulty & Personal Challenge - Academic Notice - Academic Skills & Improvement - Difficult Conversations - Finishing an Incomplete - Words of Wisdom: Challenges Academic Planning and Intellectual Development Intellectual development and identity may be forged in the making (and revision) of your academic plans. These tools are designed to help you connect seemingly disparate experiences, relationships, plans, and decisions with your education as a whole. Your Academic Advisor can help you by asking questions about what motivates you, what concerns you, what inspires you, and what thriving at Stanford means for you. - Engaging with Faculty - First Advising Conversation - Intellectual Identity - Leaving and Returning to Stanford - Words of Wisdom: Academic Planning and Intellectual Development Post-undergraduate Considerations Becoming a lifelong learner can mean many different things, including formal study that continues beyond your time at Stanford. Stanford has a team of Academic Advisors who specialize in pre-professional advising and who have expertise in the process of preparing and applying for medical school, law school, business school, or graduate school. These resources are provided to help you prepare for advising conversations about post-undergraduate study.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_242
What Academic Deadlines Should I Be Aware of? There are three important quarterly enrollment deadlines you will always want to be aware of: the Preliminary Study List Deadline, the Final Study List Deadline, and the Change of Grading Basis and Withdrawal Deadline. Resources for Tracking Deadlines For the specific dates and additional deadlines, always consult the Academic Calendar. Deadlines are always at 5 p.m. Pacific Time of the given day. Also, pay attention to your email: the The Student Services Center (SCC) usually sends reminders of these major deadlines. Major Deadlines Preliminary Study List Deadline First Day of Classes is the Preliminary Study List Deadline. You need to be enrolled in at least 12 units by 5 p.m. on the first day of classes (or at the appropriate amount of units as defined by your approved Office of Accessible Education Reduced Course Load), or there will be a $200 fee. These 12 units can change after the first day. Final Study List Deadline Friday of Week 3 is the Final Study List Deadline and Change of Unit Deadline. By 5 p.m. on Friday of Week 3, be sure that you have checked Axess and that you are enrolled in the classes you want to be in, that you are taking the right number of units, that you are in the correct section, and that you aren’t enrolled in anything you decided not to take. A lot of changes can happen in the first three weeks—by Friday of Week 3, make sure that the computer reflects what you are actually doing. All students need to be enrolled in 12 units unless they have already filed paperwork to allow fewer units. Change of Grading Basis and Withdrawal Deadline Friday of Week 8 is the Change of Grading Basis and Withdrawal Deadline. As you see how the quarter goes and evaluate the upcoming workload in the last few weeks of the term, you may start thinking about withdrawing from a class, or changing the grading basis from Letter Graded to Credit/No Credit. This is a complicated decision with a number of factors, and you should be sure to talk it over with an Academic Advisor, such as your Undergraduate Advising Director or Undergraduate Advising Director for Student Athletes, before making any changes, so that you will know all the ramifications of such a change (there is a lot of misinformation out there about these questions). Summer Quarter Note Be aware! In most academic years, Summer Quarter is generally 8 weeks (instead of 10 weeks) long, and therefore the enrollment deadlines are compressed. In Summer Quarter, the Final Study List Deadline is generally around the end of Week 2 of the quarter, and the Change of Grading Basis and Course Withdrawal Deadlines are generally around the end of Week 6 of the quarter.. Pay special attention to the Academic Calendar in Summer Quarter, especially since many classes are offered on non-standard schedules.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_243
Can I get Credit for AP, IB, or Transfer Courses? Students often approach advisors to find out whether they can get credit for work done prior to matriculation. This includes advanced placement exams, international baccalaureate programs, and coursework completed at previous institutions. While advisors can help students explore this topic, it is ultimately the Registrar’s Office that decides whether to award AP, IB, and Transfer credit. We offer some general guidelines here, but please check the Student Services pages below for the most up-to-date and accurate information. - Stanford Bulletin: Undergraduate Test Credit - Stanford Bulletin: Undergraduate Transfer Credit - Student Services: Test & Transfer Credit - Student Services: External Test Credit General Guidelines for AP Credit - Stanford awards credit for certain AP exams, but not all of them. Check the External Test Credit Equivalency Charts to see whether you can get credit for your AP exam, and what score you need in order to get credit. - For certain AP language exams, a score of 4 will fulfill your Undergraduate Language Requirement, but will not award you any units of credit. A score of 5 will both fulfill the language requirement and earn you 10 units of credit. See the AP Credit Chart above for more details. - If you take a Stanford class that duplicates the same material as an AP exam, you will earn units for the Stanford class but lose some or all of your AP units in that subject. Be sure to check the list of duplicating courses on the AP Credit Chart. - To request AP credit, contact the College Board to have your scores sent to Stanford. For incoming frosh, if your scores do not appear on your transcript by late September, submit a Service Now Ticket to alert the Registrar of your issue. - Check out this Student Services page on How Do I Add AP Credit to My Record? for more information about AP exam credit, including important updates on how the College Board delivers scores and how this might affect you. General Guidelines for IB Credit - Stanford awards credit only for certain higher level (HL) IB exams with a score of 5 or higher. Check External Test Credit Equivalency Charts to see whether you can get credit for your IB exam. - A score of 5 or higher on the accepted IB language exams will also fulfill your Undergraduate Language Requirement. - If you take a Stanford class that duplicates the same material as your IB exam, you will earn units for the Stanford class but lose some or all of your IB units in that subject. Be sure to check the list of duplicating courses on the IB Credit Chart. - To request IB credit, contact the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) to request that your IB scores be sent to Stanford. General Guidelines for International Advanced Placement Exams - Stanford awards credit for certain international advanced placement exams such as the Caribbean Advanced Placement Exam (CAPE), the General Certification of Education 'A' Levels, the German Abitur, the French Baccalaureate, the National Pan-Hellenic Exam, and the Singapore A Levels. - Only exams in certain subjects may receive credit. See the External Test Credit Equivalency Charts to see whether you can get credit for your exam. - If you take a Stanford class that duplicates the same material as your international advanced placement exam, you will earn units for the Stanford class but lose some or all of your international advanced placement exam units in that subject. - To request international advanced placement exam credit, bring your original exam certificate to the Student Services Center, 2nd Floor, Tresidder Union. General Guidelines for Transfer Credit - In general, you may receive transfer credit for outside courses that have a substantial content overlap with a matching Stanford course. - You will need to fill out a transfer credit request eForm on Axess, identify a matching Stanford course, and include a course description or a course syllabus from the outside institution. You will also need to provide Stanford with an official college transcript from the outside institution. - To find the transfer credit eForm, log in to Axess, click on the Student tab, and choose “Student eForms” from the Quick Links menu. Click on the “Available Forms” and search for the "Request for Transfer Credit Evaluation" eForm. - If you would like to receive credit for college-level coursework that appears on your high school transcript, you must have a high school official (e.g., guidance counselor, registrar, principal, etc.) email degreeprogress@stanford.edu to identify these courses and confirm that they were not used towards any of your high school graduation requirements. - Receiving transfer credit for a course does not guarantee that it can be used to fulfill your major requirements. Be sure to check in with your major department to see what their policy is on transfer credit and major requirements. (Try contacting the department's Student Services Officer to start.) - Check out these Registrar pages below for more detailed information about the transfer credit process and instructions on how to submit a transfer credit request. Transfer Credit Overview and Procedure Transfer Credit Policies Additional Considerations Keep in mind that you are only allowed to count a maximum of 45 total units of AP, IB, and Transfer Credit towards the 180 units you need for graduation. (If you are a transfer student, your AP, IB, and Transfer Credit maximum is 90 units.) If you have more than the maximum number of AP, IB, and Transfer Credit units to report, consult with your Academic Advisor about how best to proceed, especially if you are trying to use some of these transfer units to fulfill major requirements. If you are trying to use AP, IB, or Transfer Credit to fulfill a major requirement, getting the Registrar to approve your transfer units is a necessary first step, but it's not enough! In most cases you will also have to request your department's permission to use these transfer units to fulfill your major requirements. This may involve a separate petition process with its own paperwork-- check in with your department's Student Services Officer for details. Got Questions? The Registrar's Office assists students through the Student Services Center, which is on the second floor of Tresidder Union. If you have questions about AP, IB, or transfer credit, you may visit the Student Services Center in person, or file a Service Now ticket to reach them electronically.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_244
Does Stanford have an attendance policy? While Stanford has no single universal course attendance policy, the university does have an in-person residency requirement, and individual departments and instructors have the right to set specific attendance policies for their own courses. Undergraduate Academic Residency Please note that undergraduate students are expected to maintain in-person academic residency while enrolled in courses at Stanford University. Students are not required to live on campus beyond their first year of study, but must live close enough to campus to attend classes in-person on a regular basis. For more information, see the Stanford Bulletin: Undergraduate Academic Residency. Attendance and Absences Generally speaking, you are expected to attend all class meetings for your courses. Review your course syllabus to find out specific attendance expectations for each individual course. It’s usually at the instructor’s discretion to decide whether or not to offer you any allowance or exception for your absence. In addition, some departments and programs have specific attendance policies that instructors must abide by. For example, in foreign language classes attendance at every class is mandatory, and unexcused absences may result in a final grade penalty. Too many absences might even make it impossible to pass the course at all. Note that, in general, participating in student groups, club events, or athletic teams (including varsity) does not guarantee you an exception to attendance policies, assignment deadlines, exam dates, or other course requirements. Illness, Injuries, and Personal Difficulties If you are unable to attend classes due to illness, injury, or some other significant personal situation, please contact your instructors directly to alert them to the situation. While we understand that reaching out to faculty can be intimidating, it’s important to keep the lines of communication open. Read our tips on emailing faculty if you’re unsure of how to start. Depending on how long you are absent, you may have to ask your instructor for academic allowances or exceptions (e.g., extensions of due dates, excused absences). Note: The term "accommodations" is reserved for modifications made by request of the Office of Accessible Education in relation to a student's recognized disability. It is at the discretion of the instructor to deem what allowances, if any, are appropriate. Having said that, it is always worth asking for allowances. You never know what is and isn’t possible until you ask. Plus, asking for allowances helps keep your instructor aware of your circumstances. When granted by the instructor, allowances can provide you with the flexibility to address your life circumstances while maintaining a diligent approach to your academic responsibilities. Unexpected Emergencies We understand that emergency situations can happen without warning. If you must leave campus immediately for a personal, health, or family crisis, please reach out to your Academic Advisor or your Resident Director as soon as you can. In certain types of emergencies, Academic Advising or Residential Education can notify faculty of your sudden absence. We encourage you to contact your instructors as soon as you are able to discuss plans for making up any missed work. Travel and Absences Sometimes your travel plans may conflict with an upcoming course meeting. Please note that travel does not normally excuse you from class or from your course requirements. We strongly encourage you to discuss your travel schedule with your instructor ahead of time, preferably before the Final Study List deadline. It’s important that you understand in advance what the consequences are for any missed meetings, and how to make up any work that you will miss. Absences for Varsity Athletes If you are a student-athlete, we recommend that you approach your instructors as soon as you know your team schedule, ideally at the start of each quarter. Talk to your instructors early on about any upcoming absences or potential conflicts with scheduled class exams. As noted above, travel related to varsity athletics competition does not normally excuse you from class or from your course requirements. The only exception is athletic championships, which are approved as exceptions by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy. Keep in mind that it is up to your instructor to determine what academic allowances for athletic commitments are appropriate. Talking to your instructor about allowances before the Final Study List deadline can help you decide whether this class is a good fit for your commitments and priorities this quarter. Contact your Undergraduate Advising Director for Student-Athletes if you have any questions or concerns. Your Advisors Can Help When your life circumstances make it particularly difficult for you to focus on your classes, it’s time to talk to an Academic Advisor. We can help you weigh whether it’s best to drop or withdraw from a course, change your grading basis, arrange an Incomplete, or take a Leave of Absence. It’s especially important to consult with an Academic Advisor if your personal circumstances mean that you may not meet the requirements for satisfactory academic progress. We’re here to support you and can provide you with important information on next steps. Depending on your situation, your Academic Advisor may also refer you to campus resources such as the Vaden Health Center, Counseling and Psychological Services, the Office of Accessible Education, and the Resident Directors.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_245
How Do I Start To Build A Schedule? To start building a schedule, it’s helpful to think about each class as part of a strong foundation. You want your foundation to both support future work and incorporate breadth so that the structure you build feels more like a comfortable house than a grain silo. Consider your long range plans, and allow yourself opportunities to explore. In this way, you will develop a personally coherent, meaningful education out of the diverse courses that Stanford offers. Tips For Building Your Schedule - Figure out what fields, topics, approaches and faculty appeal to you personally. Don't rely solely on the experience of others. Is there a field of study that you currently think you might be interested in? An area that intrigues you? Consider taking classes to test that hypothesis. Taking a class in an interesting field can be a good way to find (or eliminate) a major path. - Explore unfamiliar subjects. Not sure what a particular field is all about? Simply curious? Try taking a class or, at least, shopping a class in that area. Many of Stanford’s fields will be entirely new to you, but there's no need to restrict yourself to areas you've already experienced. Check out Frosh-Friendly Courses to find a good gateway course into an area you're interested in. You can learn about the options that are out there and perhaps fulfill a Ways requirement along the way. - Understand that some paths (engineering in particular, but also the sciences and pre-med) will have a series of requirements that need to be addressed in a certain order. Use the Stanford Bulletin and the Engineering Handbook to see what those requirements are, and to incorporate them into your plans. Consider your current plans for a major or career path. Are there any classes that you need to take this quarter in order to make regular progress toward that goal? If so, make sure to take those classes. - Recognize that there may be multiple pathways to the destination you have in mind. For example, you can choose many different majors and still go to medical school, and it may be possible to fulfill certain pre-med requirements in a later year, or even after you graduate from Stanford. - Balance your workload. A mix of essays, exams, and projects is generally more sustainable than taking a full slate of classes that all demand the same sort of work. Too much of a good thing is still too much. Cognitive shifting between types of studying/working often shows a better result than focusing in on one kind of learning. Including some variety in your schedule may allow you to do more without burning out. - Have some fun with it! Pretty sure that this field is not going to be your major but are simply interested? Want to take a class with a friend or roommate? Just want to be the kind of person who knows about this sort of thing? Seeking to fulfill a Ways requirement or simply vary your schedule? Taking a class for fun can be a good way to curate your future self, complete requirements, network with your peers, or keep a personal passion alive. - Talk to your Academic Advisor about your interests and the courses you've found so far. They may have tips and suggestions you haven't thought of! Want more advice on picking classes and building a schedule? Check out our guide to Choosing Courses! You can also watch an Academic Advising Program on Four Year Planning - it start with how a good one quarter plan can set the stage for longer term planning! (Recorded November 2024, Stanford Affiliates only) See Also Return to the Advising Student Handbook	common_crawl_stanford.edu_246
Can I Change My COLLEGE or PWR Course? Generally speaking, students cannot make changes to their COLLEGE and PWR enrollments on Axess. Students must instead contact the COLLEGE and PWR offices with a compelling reason in order to request a change. While you can always request a change, there's no guarantee that your request will be granted. Whether or not changing your assignment is possible will depend on when you are making the request, whether there is space available, what kind of a change you are seeking, and what your circumstances are. Advisors can help students explore whether an enrollment change makes sense. But it is ultimately the COLLEGE and PWR offices that decide whether such changes will be approved. Please check each program’s pages below for the most up-to-date and accurate information. COLLEGE and ESF Resources PWR Resources - Information on PWR Courses and Enrollment - Request a change to your PWR section - Request a change to your PWR quarter If your question isn't answered on the pages above, you may also email the COLLEGE or PWR offices to make your inquiry.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_247
Understanding the Course Catalog Confused by the different numbers and letters you’ll find at the end of a course name? Not sure how you can tell whether a class is a lecture, seminar, or activity course? Your Academic Advisors are here with the answers! What Do the Course Numbers Mean? Stanford does not have a standardized course numbering system. This means that each department is free to number its courses in its own way. One common (though not universal) numbering guideline you will see across many departments is as follows: 1-99: introductory level courses for all students 100-199: courses primarily for undergraduate majors and minors 200-299: courses for advanced undergraduates and beginning graduate students 300 and above: courses for graduate students Again, this numbering is not a universal rule. And even when departments do follow these numbering guidelines, they are not necessarily set in stone. For example, you can often take a 100-level course intended for majors even if it's outside of your field, though you should expect it to be a bit more advanced than an introductory course. If you're unsure if a course is the right level for you, start off by reading its description carefully in ExploreCourses or Navigate Classes. If you're still not certain, we recommend you check in with the course instructor, the department's Student Services Officer (SSO), or your Academic Advisor. What Do the Letters After Course Numbers Mean? You've likely noticed that many courses end with a letter. Maybe you have heard of (or taken) CS106A or English 9CE. But what do those letters mean? The short answer is that it varies. Different departments use these letter to signify different things. There are a few standard guidelines that you will see across many departments: N: frosh IntroSem course Q: sophomore IntroSem course SC: Sophomore College program course AX: Arts Intensive program course SI: Student-Initiated course The use of other letters depends on the department. Be sure to read the full course description in ExploreCourses or Navigate Classes for guidance, and click the blue Schedule link to see if there is more information in the Notes. Here are some common approaches (note that "A" is used differently in each one): - Letters frequently signal that courses are a variation on the same basic content, such as with Engr40, Engr40A, Engr40M; HumBio120 or HumBio120A; Math61CM or Math61DM. - "A-B-C" will sometimes refer to a sequence of courses, but not always--you can usually tell from the course descriptions and prerequisites. - "A" may also be used to denote a 1-unit auxiliary course or a course with an additional auxiliary component, such as the CS103A or Math51A, although there are many different ways auxiliary courses are presented. - An "A" in a PWR course might even stand in for the instructor's initials. See if the courses in your department show a pattern, or consult the department SSO, your Academic Advisor, or your Major Advisor. How do I know if a class is a lecture, seminar, activity, or practicum? All courses have a 3-letter component code listed in the course catalog. This component code tells you what kind of class the course is intended to be. You can find this component code by looking up the course on ExploreCourses and clicking on the blue Schedule link, or by looking under the course title in Navigate Classes. Here are some common examples: LEC: lecture courses DIS: discussion section component of a lecture course LBS: lab section component of a lecture course SEM: seminar courses PRC: practicum courses COL: colloquium courses ACT: activity courses Lecture courses are often larger courses focused on (not surprisingly) the instructor giving a lecture. Discussion sections are often smaller groups where students can talk about and practice the concepts taught in lecture. Seminar courses are usually smaller classes with an emphasis on classroom discussion. Practicum courses usually focus on the practice and application of your skills: music lesson courses for voice, piano, guitar, etc. are all practicums, for example. Colloquium courses often have rotating guest speakers each week to talk about different topics. Note that if a course has multiple components (e.g. a lecture and a discussion section, or a lecture and a lab), you must usually sign up for each component. Check the Notes in ExploreCourses or Navigate Classes for details. Activity courses are a special category worth paying attention to, for reasons explained below. Which classes are activity units? All courses with the component code ACT are activity classes, sometimes called "activity units" or ACT units. All Student-Initiated courses (with SI after the course number, eg Anthro 13SI) are ACT units. Athletic and Physical Education courses are generally activity units. Activity units are always only graded Satisfactory/No Credit. Many activity courses are offered for 1 or 2 units, making them easy to fit into your schedule. But not all small unit courses are activity units. Check the component code on ExploreCourses or Navigate Classes! Course marked SEM (seminar), PRC (practicum), WKS (workshop), and so forth are NOT activity units. Wellness and Outdoor courses are usually activity units, but not always. Most music and dance practice courses are NOT activity units (one exception being DANCE 46: Social Dance I, which is an activity unit). When do activity units matter? Only 8 completed activity units may count toward the 180 total units needed for graduation (Undergraduate Degree Requirements). The detailed version of your Unofficial Transcript has an addendum at the bottom showing how many activity units you’ve attempted and earned, so you can check your total there. However, that doesn't mean you can only ever take 8 activity units. You can take as many activity units as you like -- just be aware that only 8 of them will count in your total units towards graduation. No matter how many you've taken and completed in the past, activity units will always count toward the 12 units required to be a full-time student. Even if you've taken more than 8 activity units total, you might still take more activity units in future quarters to qualify as a full-time student, even with the awareness that any activity units beyond the first 8 will not count toward your graduation total.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_248
What is a directed reading and how do I arrange one? The chance to work with Stanford faculty in an area of mutual interest is one of the greatest privileges of your Stanford career. Sometimes you can find that ideal Introsem from the perfect professor, but other times the class you've been dreaming of doesn't appear in Explore Courses. A directed reading may be the answer for you... Students may register for directed reading units (also called independent study, individual study, or directed study, depending on the department) under the supervision of a faculty member. Like any other class, an independent study has an instructor and a course number. Unlike other classes, however, an independent study is “independent” because you and the faculty member decide on the topic, course materials, and course expectations together. Exploring Beyond ExploreCourses Generally students pursue directed readings on a special topic of interest for which there is no formal course in the Stanford curriculum. Students make arrangements individually with the faculty member and the department in which credit will be granted. You might, for example, reach out to a faculty member who is a specialist in a certain topic because you want to learn about the topic, but a class is not currently being offered. You might connect with a professor in English to develop an independent study on the works of Mary Shelley, or a professor in Biology for an intensive class on stem cell research. Maybe both if you're thinking about putting together a creature. If the instructor is willing, together you will determine how many units the course will be and which grading basis is appropriate. The two of you will also decide what kind of assignments you will have, and how often you will meet. And, at the end of the quarter, you will receive a grade for your work. Setting up your Independent Study Most departments have a course number for Student Research or Independent Study. In English it might be English 198 or English 398. In History it might be HISTORY 299S. In many departments 199 is the course number. However, you should be sure to talk to your instructor about the correct course number to enroll in. Generally speaking, departments have one independent study course with a different section for each instructor. When you enroll on Axess, be sure to sign up for the correct section, and for the amount of units and the grading basis that you and the instructor have agreed upon. What if your PI / Professor / Instructor does not know the correct course number for your independent study? That likely means that they do not yet have a course set up. The instructor should consult with their department’s Student Services Officer in order to create an independent study course (if the department doesn't already have one) or to be registered as the instructor for a section of an existing independent study course. It is strongly recommended that the student and faculty member compose a directed reading syllabus at the start of the quarter. This includes readings, assignments to be completed, units earned and arrangements for frequency and type of communication between the student and faculty member. Note that directed readings do not satisfy Ways or GERs, and various other departmental restrictions may apply.	common_crawl_stanford.edu_249

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.