Motivations and Deterrents for Entering the Teaching Field in a Rural State

This article reports findings from a study of the motivations of college students to choose or not choose a career as a K-12 teacher. Five hundred-seventeen college students majoring in education and non-education programs enrolled in undergraduate courses were surveyed as to their motivations for choosing/not choosing a career in K-12. If they chose teaching as a career, they were also asked what might motivate others to enter the teaching profession or if they chose a non-teaching career, they were asked what things that if changed might increase their interest in becoming a teacher. Those choosing teaching as a career did so most often because of a desire to have an impact on youth; those deciding not to enter teaching said the biggest reason was because of salaries and benefits

Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 Disruptions for California College Students

This paper documents the experience of California college students in the midst of the pandemic as their academic and home lives were disrupted. The analysis relies on a survey sent to all financial aid applicants statewide. Survey respondents include nearly 100,000 students enrolled in both two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions. Results reveal multiple stressors strained the educational experience and trajectories of many students. These stressors were not evenly distributed. In particular, students from low-income backgrounds were more likely to face increased financial stress, additional home responsibilities, and difficulty accessing the online learning environment, when compared to their higher-income peers

A foot in the door growth in participation and equity in dual enrollment in California

UAL ENROLLMENT ALLOWS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS to take college courses and earn college credits that can provide a valuable head start toward a college degree. The practice has multiple benefits for students in both systems, improving college preparation and increasing efficiency toward completion of degrees and certificates.1 Many states— including California—have capitalized on these benefits by increasing high school student access to community college courses,2 though not all students have benefited equally. This brief builds on previous Wheelhouse research by providing a closer examination of dual enrollment growth in California. We present data about which students are participating in different types of dual enrollment in the California Community Colleges (CCC)—the primary provider of dual enrollment statewide. Matching the most recently available K–12 and CCC data, we also document how participation differs across high schools and course subjects pursued. There is cause in our findings for optimism, in that one type of dual enrollment—courses taught exclusively to high school students—is growing and appears to be increasing equity in participation. However, dual enrollment opportunities remain scarce or non-existent for many students and largely depend on the high schools they attend.This work has been supported, in part, by the University of California Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives grants M21PR3278

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health