As the controversy over Trump’s relationship to notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein turned into a media frenzy, members of Trump’s team threw distractions into the mix. One of them came from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. She released a report calling for prosecution of high-level Obama-era officials for what she called “treasonous conspiracy” about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. She ignored a three-year investigation by a Republican-led Senate Committee, which concluded that Russia did try to influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.
Politico posted:
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for several Obama administration officials to face criminal prosecution for participating in a “treasonous conspiracy” surrounding the 2016 election on Friday afternoon, the latest example of the Trump administration targeting critics of the president.
In a newly declassified report, Gabbard on Friday alleged the officials “manipulated and withheld” key intelligence from the public related to the possibility of Russian interference in the election.
In a Friday afternoon statement, Gabbard said she would provide all related documents to the Justice Department “to deliver the accountability that President [Donald] Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.”
“No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again,” Gabbard said in the statement.
The DOJ declined to comment on Gabbard’s comments.
The ODNI’s memo names former DNI James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, among others allegedly involved in the White House’s review of possible Russian meddling in the election.
The administration has routinely targeted critics of the president and has sought to relitigate the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. The president has repeatedly criticized former intelligence officials for their efforts to probe the Kremlin’s possible attempts to interfere in American politics, with Trump accusing Comey of leading a “corrupt and vicious witch hunt” against him.
Jeff Kim, a teacher at Cambridge Virtual Academy in Anaheim Union, is teaching the first-ever Korean American ethnic studies course for high school students.
Credit: Courtesy of Jeff Kim
Jeff Kim, a world history teacher in Anaheim Union High School District, had long dreamed about how a Korean American studies course could help his students connect with their heritage. But it was the surge of hatred against Asian Americans during the pandemic that made him realize just how urgently the class was needed.
Shortly before the pandemic reached the U.S., a seventh grade student came up to him before class and expressed concern that she or her family might face anti-Asian violence because of this new virus in China. Although Kim had experienced discrimination in his own life, he wanted to reassure her and so told her that in California, a relatively liberal state, and Orange County — where 23% of students are Asian — she and her family would not face those problems.
“I just said, ‘We live here in California, I don’t see that type of violence happening to Asian Americans here,’” Kim said. “I gave her the wrong information.”
That Kim was wrong became apparent in the early days of the pandemic, during which time a surge of xenophobic rhetoric scapegoated Asian Americans as the cause of the pandemic. It was both a local and national issue. Anti-Asian hate crimes doubled in California in 2020, compared with the prior year. In Orange County, the number of hate incidents against Asian Americans jumped 1,800% in 2020, according to the annual Orange County Hate Crime Report. News of Asian American spa workers in Georgia who were killed in a shooting rampage was a turning point for Kim.
He asked himself, “What is a way I can respond with love and wisdom?”
Fast-forward to this year – the Anaheim Union High School District has launched a first-of-its-kind high school ethnic studies course focused on the experiences of Korean Americans.
For the past three years, Kim worked with district leaders in Anaheim Union High and scholars of Korean American history — many of whom are based in Southern California — to pioneer the first high school course dedicated to Korean American history. It’s a historic moment in the development of Korean American studies, which has been maturing as an academic field in recent decades.
“It’s huge,” said professor Edward Chang, the founding director of the Young Oak Kim Center for Korean American Studies at University of California Riverside. “It’s a starting point, and I’m hoping it will spread to other school districts.”
Chang is the co-author of “Korean Americans: A Concise History,” a book that covers leading figures and highlights in Korean American history in a little over 100 pages, a book he said he conceived with future K-12 students in mind, and which now serves as a textbook for Anaheim Union High’s new course.
The course debuted earlier this month as a virtual course through Anaheim Union High’s Cambridge Virtual Academy and is open to all high school students in the district.
Building the curriculum
The Korean Consulate General in Los Angeles sponsored the development of the curriculum; Kim worked with Grace Cho, a professor in Cal State Fullerton’s department of secondary education, to come up with the components of the proposed course, which consists of seven lessons adapted to California state standards, and available online.
The lessons begin with the earliest wave of 19th-century Korean immigrants and end with K-pop’s global dominance. There are lessons on the struggles and triumphs of key figures, such as war hero and humanitarian Col. Young Oak Kim and Dosan Ahn Chang Ho, the founder of the first American Koreatown.
It’s a class for everyone, said Kim. Other ethnic groups can connect with Korean stories of resilience, such as how gold medal-winning Olympic diver Sammy Lee was barred from practicing in public pools because of his race or how most Koreans were barred from immigrating to the United States before 1965.
“This class is not just about Korean Americans. It’s U.S. history, but through the eyes of Korean Americans,” said Cho. “By learning other ethnic groups’ history, you get to expand your perspectives and views.”
The course will enable students to fulfill the ethnic studies requirement that will go into effect for all California high school students in two years. But many of the first 34 students who signed up for the course simply wanted to learn more about their own cultural background.
Celine Park, a freshman at Oxford Academy, said this class is a unique opportunity for second-generation Korean Americans like her who haven’t had a way to synthesize Korean and American history in their lives.
“I wanted to meld these two together, to make these connections between the two histories and bond my own identity, while helping other second-generation Korean Americans like me,” Park said.
It has also inspired pride in students’ families. Yuri Yamachika, a first-year student at Oxford Academy, said that her mom, a first-generation Korean American, didn’t have many opportunities to learn about her culture beyond what her own parents shared with her.
“She was excited and proud that we have a course to learn about our own heritage,” said Yamachika. “She’s glad I took it.”
Parents are a crucial firsthand source of information in the course. Understanding that every student has an ethnic heritage is a key part of the ethnic studies discipline. Kim encouraged his students, no matter their background, to learn and reflect on their families’ stories.
“Sometimes parents haven’t had a chance to tell these stories, because there’s a language barrier or a cultural barrier,” Kim said. “But if I make it a class assignment, they’re much more inclined to ask — and parents are much more inclined to tell their story.”
That makes the course a draw to students — including those who aren’t Korean American.
When Karina Soliman interviewed her father for a class assignment, she learned about the discrimination he faced as an Egyptian in the post-9/11 era, when Arab Americans were widely stereotyped as terrorists. The senior at Savanna High School connected this to the stereotypes that other ethnic groups in the U.S. have faced. She hopes the course will help her model the importance of respecting others’ stories.
“I’ve grown more cognizant of other cultures and other people, and realizing how important that is,” Soliman said.
Students in Kim’s class will also participate in a civic project of students’ own choosing. This is a facet that has earned the notice of the California Asian American & Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus. In a letter of support, Assemblymember Evan Low and state Sen. Dave Min praised the course for “allowing students to foster collaborations and partnership with Asian American organizations.”
This new course also represents a high-water mark for scholars who have promoted Korean American studies. It was only recently that there was a critical mass of scholars interested in Korean American history, Chang said. There’s a growing interest in the field in higher education, but promoting it at the K-12 level has been a major goal of scholars.
Korean American history didn’t make it into the early drafts of the state’s ethnic studies model curriculum, but scholars pushed back, said Cho. The state’s model curriculum now includes a lesson on the L.A. civil uprising of 1992, known as Saigu or 4/29 among Korean Americans, which marked a turning point in the community’s identity.
Chang said that he looks forward to students like Kim arriving at college. He has seen students’ eyes widen as they learn about their own history. He believes college is too late for that experience.
Kim said in the early days of deciding to push forward with the curriculum, he felt like he was taking a big risk. He worried about how the course might be misunderstood, but he feels like it has paid off. Now he reminds his students of their own role in blazing a trail for the next generation of students. His students are already eager to see that continue.
Soliman has advice for teachers or administrators considering a course like this: “Don’t be afraid to put it out there, or to start a conversation for that kind of course to be created because it can greatly impact and inform a lot of students on topics that they’re not traditionally going to learn about until college.”
Achieving a college degree in prison is rare, but now a select 33 incarcerated people in California can earn their master’s degrees.
California State University, Dominguez Hills, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced a partnership Thursday to launch the state’s first master’s degree program for incarcerated people. Corrections Secretary Jeff Macomber said the partnership furthers the state’s prison system’s goal to expand “grade school to grad school” opportunities.
“These efforts are vital, as education serves as a powerful rehabilitative tool,” Macomber said.
Research shows that prison programs reduce recidivism rates and help formerly incarcerated people find jobs and improve their families’ lives once they are released.Those studies show that incarcerated people are 48% less likely to return to prison within three years than those who didn’t attend a college program in prison.
All 33 of the state’s adult prisons offer the ability for the system’s 95,600 incarcerated people to earn community college degrees; about 13.5% are enrolled in a college course. The state has been expanding its offerings of college in prisons. Eight partnerships with state universitieshave begun since 2016 to offer bachelor’s degrees to incarcerated people. About 230 are enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program for the current semester.
The new Dominguez Hills program will allow all people in all 33 prisons who have already earned a bachelor’s degree and have at least a 2.5 GPA, to earn a Master of Arts in humanities. The students will participate in two years of courses, including urban development, religion, morality and spirituality. The classes will take place over Zoom or through written correspondence.
Tuition for the program is about $10,500 and students or their families will be responsible for covering the costs. However, the corrections department said that it may provide some assistance. The university is also accepting donations to go toward incarcerated students’ tuition. Because these are post-bachelor’s degree courses, the incarcerated students do not qualify for the state’s Cal Grant or federal Pell Grant programs.
“Our mission is firmly anchored in social justice,” said Thomas Parham, president of Cal State Dominguez Hills. “This historic partnership between California State University and CDCR benefits students — and ultimately their families and communities — by distinguishing between what people did and who they are at the core of their being, and recognizing their potential, cultivating their talents and preparing them to thrive in their paths moving forward.”
Parham said it was important for the university to provide advanced learning opportunities in prisons because the campus is focused on “transforming lives.”
The 33 students in the new master’s program reside in 11 different state prisons across the state including Avenal, Chuckawalla Valley and San Quentin state prisons and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signs an executive order that charges the state’s educational and legislative leaders with creating a master plan for career education.
Credit: Office of the Governor
In recent years, the state has poured billions of dollars into a dizzying array of programs under the banner of career education. The only problem, said Gov. Gavin Newsom, is that there is no cohesion between these programs.
“Tens of billions of dollars invested in the last few years, 12 different agencies, but not a cohesive, connective tissue, not a compelling narrative that drives a vision and drives a focus forward,” Newsom said Thursday, during a news conference at River City High in West Sacramento.
Newsom took aim at that disconnection by signing an executive order calling for the state to create a master plan for career education in the next 13 months.
The governor’s executive order promises to knock down the barriers that students in California face on their journey from the K-12 system to college and ultimately a fulfilling, well-paying career.
“California will be the model of the nation in making sure that we educate all Californians to be career-ready, back in their neighborhoods where they lift their neighborhoods,” said CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia.
Newsom signed the order while flanked by a heavy-hitting lineup of state education leaders who pledged to knock down the “silos” between the institutions.
That includes the leaders of all the educational systems: Garcia, UC Chancellor Michael Drake, Community College Chancellor Sonya Christian and State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond. It also includes Assembly Education Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, and Senate Education Committee Chair Josh Newman, D-Fullerton. It also included the secretary of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, Stewart Knox.
“This is a team effort; it is a collective effort, and it is long overdue,” Newsom said.
Input for the master plan, due Oct. 1, 2024, will come, not just from education leaders, but from labor leaders, business leaders, community groups, students, parents and families, the governor said.
The order lays out the importance of building connections not just between different education agencies but also between education institutions and employers.
It lays out some specific strategic goals, such as building an online portal for any job-seeking Californian and rethinking the concept of a student transcript.
Newsom introduced the concept of a “career passport” that would look beyond grades. That means a student’s transcript would include marketable work skills and experience developed through classes as well as apprenticeships, internships or other experiences outside the classroom.
Newsom said it’s important to look at a student “broadly,” adding “I say that as someone who didn’t get very good grades.”
The plan will require public progress reports to the Legislature. The first deadline is Dec. 1 — shortly before the next legislative session — when agencies are requested to provide preliminary recommendations to the governor’s office.
The master plan describes the state’s three goals for career education. One is ensuring that ninth grade students are encouraged to explore well-paying careers and that they are guided on a pathway to that career. The second is that students have opportunities to learn real-life career skills in their education, preferably for pay. Lastly, the executive order states that students shouldn’t have to take on substantial debt or navigate complicated bureaucracies as they prepare for their careers.
The state has already made substantial investments in this arena, particularly during recent years when the state budget was flush.
“California, like most states in the nation, has workforce shortages in just about every single sector,” said State Superintendent Thurmond. “This presents the opportunity for us to use our pathway programs to propel our students into the workforce.”
The state is focused on knitting together the disparate parts of its career education strategy, but the governor noted that some of this work is already funded and happening at the regional level through its K-16 collaboratives and its California Economic Resilience Fund.
The governor’s executive order also takes aim at the way the state hires its own workers. It charged the Department of Human Resources with reviewing any position where a bachelor’s degree is a requirement and determining whether there is data to back up that job requirement. Newsom said the state has already reclassified 169 positions that previously required a degree, but this executive order charges the state with updating its existing policies to make this process official.
Republicans complained in the past that Biden was “weaponizing” and “politicizing” the Justice Department. That was not true. But it’s happening now, and Republicans don’t care. Lawyers who worked on prosecution of January 6 insurrectionists are being terminated, as are those who worked on investigations of Trump. If Trump and Bondi succeed, only Trump loyalists will still have a job in the Justice Department. James Comey’s daughter, who was a prosecutor of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, was fired from
Her job in the New York office of the Justice Department.
Stein writes:
The Trump administration is firing and pushing out employees across the Justice Department and FBI, often with no explanation or warning, creating rampant speculation and fear within the workforce over who might be terminated next, according to multiple people with knowledge of the removals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.
Some people are simply fired, delivered a notice signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi that cites the broad powers afforded to the president in the U.S. Constitution. Others, particularly at the FBI, are told they can leave or be demoted or terminated.
The removals appear more individually targeted, and are happening in smaller numbers, than the high-profile ousters of senior Justice Department and FBI officials in the early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, when he returned to the White House vowing to clean house at the federal law enforcement agency that had brought two criminal cases against him. They are unrelated to the mass reductions-in-force and reorganizations that Trump has launched at many other federal agencies, which the Supreme Court has said may move forward for now.
Multiple people familiar with the Justice Department said scores of experienced staffers are opting to voluntarily leave the government to avoid being fired at random or asked to do things that would potentially violate their legal ethics. Their departures are worsening staff shortages in major divisions and U.S. attorney offices and have created an opening for the Trump administration to further shape the Justice Department workforce, allowing officials to fill career staff vacancies with attorneys who align ideologically with the president.
“Many, many lawyers have resigned on their own power because they saw the writing on the wall,” said Max Stier, chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that pushes for a strong federal workforce. “They understood if they didn’t leave on their own volition they would be subject to firing — or if they stayed they felt they couldn’t uphold their oath in a way that was consistent with their integrity.”
The lack of explanation for the firings has fueled rumors, multiple people familiar with the situation said.
One Justice Department lawyer was suspected of being fired because he used “he/him” pronouns in his email signature. People interviewed say they believe another attorney was ousted because of a message he put on social media. Others told to leave may not mesh with or may be disliked by Trump’s political appointees, the people said. And some are suspected of speaking to the media without authorization.
“Notice of Removal from Federal Service,” the subject line in the email from Bondi to one employee read. It continued: “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, you are removed from federal service effective immediately.”
Suspended Chico State biology professor David Stachura “made a credible threat of violence” against two colleagues who cooperated in an investigation that found he had a sexual affair with a student, a judge found in a tentative ruling released Friday that orders him to stay off campus for three years.
Protection of “the entire Chico State community is warranted given the nature of the threats and the events that have transpired,” Judge Virginia Gingery wrote in a 13-page decision that, when made final, will grant the university a workplace violence restraining order against Stachura, who witnesses said threatened a mass shooting on campus.
In addition to professors Emily Fleming and Kristen Gorman, Gingery also extended protection to biology lecturer Betsey Tamietti, graduate student Jackelin Villalobos and members of Fleming’s and Tamietti’s families. The judge also banned Stachura from owning firearms for three years.
Stachura’s arguments against the order were “unavailing,” Gingery wrote, including his claims that Chico State sought the order based only in reaction to news stories about the threats.
The restraining order is “warranted, necessary and justified based on (Stachura’s)” conduct the judge wrote.
Orders first identified as tentative such as the one Gingery released Friday are all but certain to be made final under California court rules. The Butte County Superior Court’s website did not list a hearing date Friday where that would happen.
Stachuara’s lawyer, Kasra Parsad, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did Chico State officials.
Parsad told the judge during a hearing in July that if the restraining order were granted it would likely destroy Stachura’s academic career. He is an expert in fish biology, specializing in zebrafish and stem-cell research.
The ruling comes following a two-part hearing that began in April as part of the fallout of revelations made public last year that Stachura had a prohibited sexual affair with a student in 2020 and allegedly threatened to kill the professors who cooperated in a university investigation of the matter.
EdSource reported on Dec. 8 that the investigation found that Stachura and the student had sex in his office that could be heard through the walls. Stachura agreed to a settlement of the matter that included suspension without pay for a third of the 2021 spring semester. He has repeatedly denied the 2020 affair but has admitted he is currently romantically involved with the now-former student.
The revelations roiled the 13,000-student campus in the northern Sierra foothills, resulting in several mass meetings and calls for Stachura’s removal. Provost Debra Larson, who signed off on the settlement in the sex case, resigned within days. The school also revoked an “outstanding professor” award it gave Stachura for the 2020-21 academic year.
But it was the gun threats — at a time when the country is plagued with mass shootings in schools and elsewhere — that caused both students and faculty to express deep fears.
As the sex investigation unfolded in 2020, Stachura allegedly told his estranged wife, Miranda King, that he’d bought weapons and ammunition — including hollow-point bullets, with the intention of killing Fleming and Gorman.
King revealed the alleged threats in an application for a domestic violence restraining order in the midst of a deeply contentious divorce. King’s lawyer alerted Fleming and Gorman.
A biology lecturer, Tamietti, revealed that Stachura allegedly spoke to her about committing gun violence in the biology department. At a Dec. 12 campuswide meeting, Tamietti quoted Stachura as telling her, “If I wanted you guys dead, you’d be dead. I am a doer. If I do go on a shooting spree, maybe I’ll pass your office. I am not sure.”
Stachura, in both the divorce case and the current case, has claimed he told King that he had a nightmare about killing his colleagues and had no intention of acting violently. He has repeatedly said Tamietti is lying because he ended a friendship with her when she didn’t support him after King revealed the alleged threats.
Stachura sued both King and Tamietti for libel. But the case against Tamietti was dismissed when another judge ruled in June that her statement at the meeting was a matter of public interest. Court records show Stachura dropped his suit against King last month. Their divorce case remains ongoing.
Gorman, Fleming, Tamietti and Villalobos all testified of a deep fear of Stachura.
Stachura testified twice. Much of his testimony centered on Tamietti, with whom he said he had “a really weird relationship.”
He testified that after the date she claimed he threatened a shooting in the biology department in November 2021, she continued to email and text him even after he sent her “a dear John email” ending their friendship. Her contacts with him, he claimed, showed the threat was fabricated.
But Tamietti testified in July that she felt safer by staying in communication with Stachura, a point Deputy Attorney General Shanna McDaniel reiterated in her closing statement.
Stachura’s lawyer said the women named in the restraining order are “afraid of (Stachura) based on some article. I don’t believe that for the last three years, they have been terrified of him.”
Parsad also told Gingery that a three-year order restraining him from stepping foot on campus would ruin Stachura’s career. “He has worked very hard in his career, and I don’t think any university would hire him (with a workplace violence restraining order) on his record.”
It was not immediately clear Friday what action the university will now take. Court records show it opened another investigation of Stachura in March that focuses, in part, on whether he was dishonest during the investigation of his affair with the then-student.
Gingery seemed to key on Stachura’s repeated denials of the affair as undermining his credibility. She noted that in testimony, he had even claimed the investigation of the affair “came back negative” despite the fact that an investigator found the affair occurred and Stachura entered into a settlement with the university that resulted in his pay being temporarily reduced as discipline.
Michael Weber of the Chico Enterprise-Record contributed to this story.
A UC Berkeley labor economist this week offered a California answer to the persistent question of whether more money matters for K-12 education.
Rucker Johnson, who researched the state’s decade-old school finance overhaul known as the Local Control Funding Formula, concluded it does matter, especially for the highest needs students targeted for help by the equity-based funding.
“The findings provide compelling evidence that school spending matters and providing additional resources to support high-need students pays dividends,” wrote Johnson, a professor of public policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.
The improvements were consistent across grades, subjects, and performance metrics, the research found. Johnson calculated that a $1,000 increase in per-student funding, sustained for three consecutive years in the highest-poverty districts, produced roughly a full grade-level increase in math and reading achievement for students in grades three through eight and 11, relative to what the average student achieved in the years preceding the formula’s passage in 2013.
It’s a big deal for students who started third grade a year behind in math to be at grade level by the end of fifth grade, he said.
Graphic note: Third graders’ test scores in math improved as they progressed through fifth grade while receiving increased funding from the Local Control Funding Formula. The vertical scale measures growth in math beyond a standard year of achievement (1.0 is a full extra year of additional growth, whether catching up to grade level or accelerating beyond it). The horizontal scale measures the percentage of high-needs students in a district, which determines how much bonus funding a district receives. The dotted line in the middle marks 55% of high-needs students, the point at which districts gradually begin receiving an extra dose of concentration funding. The blue line shows average academic growth for districts with 55% or fewer high-needs students. The red line shows the impact of districts’ concentration funding on academic growth. The dots signify groups of districts above and below average.
Johnson’s research focused from 2013-14, when the funding formula was introduced, through 2018-19, when the full funding targets were achieved. What mattered, he said, was not just the amount of the increase but the number of years in a row students benefited.
The Covid pandemic of 2020, with more than a year in remote learning for many districts, has wiped out most of the academic gains during this period, particularly among low-income Black and Hispanic students — despite record federal and state funding.
Did equity-based funding cause the improvement?
The Legislature included a number of major policy and accountability initiatives, along with providing more money, in the funding formula law. It required that districts and charter schools spell out how they planned to spend on high-needs students in a Local Control and Accountability Plan or LCAP and then measure the impact. The law defined high-needs students as English learners, homeless and foster youths, and low-income students — those qualifying for free or reduced school meals and other income-based government benefits.
The locally controlled funding formula introduced the color-coded California School Dashboard, which ranks districts’ performance on multiple measures in an effort to pressure districts to reduce suspensions and chronic absences and raise high-school graduation rates. In 2015, the State Board of Education ended the high school exit exam and switched to the Smarter Balanced tests to measure the newly adopted Common Core standards.
Johnson, however, wrote that new money, not new policies, caused the widespread gains in student performance “based on compelling evidence.” Another prominent researcher, however, said that the claim is overstated.
Johnson said he was able to isolate the impact of additional funding in two ways. The new funding formula’s distinct design, with concentrated funding for highest-needs districts, showed disproportionate gains in achievement. He could find no similar pattern of achievement in the decade preceding the new formula. Julien Lafortune, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, who also has studied the funding formula, agreed that is a fair conclusion.
Johnson also compared the achievement of districts funded by the Local Control Funding Formula with basic aid districts – the 100-some districts that received no funding under the Local Control Funding Formula because their funding from property taxes exceeded what they would have received from the state. Because there were no similar effects in student achievement among the basic aid districts that he found with Local Control Funding Formula districts during its rollout, Johnson concluded more funding must be the cause.
That comparison is problematic because the majority of basic aid districts are small, wealthy residential communities with few low-income families. They include Palo Alto, Saratoga, Santa Clara and San Mateo Union High School District in the Bay Area, and Santa Barbara, Newport Mesa, and San Dieguito Union High School District in Southern California. Graduation rates and test scores generally were already above average in those districts, and suspension rates were already lower than in high-poverty districts.
“The correlation of LCFF funding with poverty is at the extreme with the basic aid districts,” said Eric Hanushek, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, who has written extensively on education financing. Johnson “makes an admirable attempt to parse the impact of LCFF funding, but this is an exceedingly difficult task. He cannot convincingly separate pure spending changes from the host of other changes in California schools at that time.”
The study did not cite the number of districts that received $1,000 per student in additional funding, sustained over three years, and, therefore, how many students should have gained approximately a year in academic growth. A graph showing yearly Local Control Funding Formula funding increases during this period indicated that many districts benefited by at least that amount. Some districts with the largest numbers of high-needs students received more than $2,000 more per student over the three years.
Funding for the Local Control Funding Formula increased annually after its adoption in 2013. Districts with more than 55% high-needs students received increased amounts of funding, called concentration grants.
But Johnson said the exact number of students whose math and reading scores grew the equivalent of a grade was not calculated because of the methodology and parameters he used. The research was more precise than looking at the unfiltered year-over-year results of all students. It eliminated students who transferred schools during the period and took into account parental socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Its specific parameters compared:
Students from the same school across cohorts evaluated at the same grade.
Students from the same school and same kindergarten cohort across successive grades.
Student achievement growth among students from the same cohort and same grade across districts.
Local Control Funding Formula reconsidered
Gov. Jerry Brown, who championed the funding overhaul, made it clear he wanted the funding formula to roll out without interference from the Legislature and would veto any modifications to the law as long as he was in office. Gov. Gavin Newsom has proven more receptive to changes out of recognition that the law has flaws and its implementation has been uneven. Districts receiving the same funding per student have shown wide variations in student performance. That’s because, Lafortune noted, the Legislature sets the rules on funding, but districts decide how to spend it.
Last year, Pivot Learning, a national nonprofit that works with school districts on improving classroom instruction, created aDistrict Readiness Index that measures conditions like family and community engagement, principal retention, and work environment, which can determine districts’ success with programs and investments. In 2019, the Learning Policy Institute, the Palo Alto-based research and education policy nonprofit that published Johnson’s research, producedCalifornia’s Positive Outliers: Districts Beating the Odds. It identified districts that excelled and why.
Advocacy nonprofits like Public Advocates argued for a decade that the Local Control Accountability Plan rules and Local Control Funding Formula law did not require districts to be transparent enough on how they spent money for high-needs students, who make up about 60% of California students. Newsom includedone important transparency change in the 2021 state budget, prohibiting districts from transferring unspent funding for high-needs students to the general fund.
Recognizing that Covid intensified the disparities facing high-poverty areas, Newsom increased funding for districts with the greatest concentrations of high-needs students from 50% of base funding to 66%. Acknowledging the Local Control Funding Formula’s district-centric approach has not narrowed the achievement gap, Newsom created an“equity multiplier” in this year’s budget. It includes an additional $300 million in ongoing money for the high-poverty schools and requires that districts create mini-Local Control Accountability Plans with goals and actions to improve the lowest-performing schools. Until now, the formula allocated funding only by districts.
Lafortune said that Johnson’s research is an important contribution to the effort to evaluate the formula.
“I don’t think school finance formula should exist in stone because the conditions that are affecting schools are changing,” he said. “But now that we have evidence that funding targeted in high-concentration districts on average seems to be making a difference, the question becomes how to equitably deploy the funding everywhere.”
How the funding formula works
Gov. Jerry Brown and Michael Kirst, his longtime education adviser and state board president, said the Local Control Funding Formula made equitable funding a priority. On top of base funding per student, the formula gives districts and charter schools an additional 20% for each high-needs student.
The Legislature then gave an added boost to those districts with high proportions of those students, called concentration grants, based on research that high-poverty neighborhoods compounded challenges that children experience.
The concentration funding kicked in gradually once high-needs students made up 55% of a district’s enrollment. The differential could be significant. While districts with 40% high-needs students received an additional 8% funding, those with 85% high-needs students, like Los Angeles Unified, received 32% funding above the base.
In the decade preceding the new formula, California consistently ranked in the bottom of the states in per-student funding, adjusted for regional costs, according to the report. In 2011, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, it ranked last. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed California’s socioeconomic achievement gaps were among the largest in the nation, the report said.
Faced with Brown’s threat to cut education funding severely without additional revenue, voters in 2012 passed a temporary sales tax and income tax on the top 1% of wage earners. Base funding per student rose from under $6,000 in 2013-14 to more than $8,000 in 2018-19, adjusted by grade span. Districts like Paramount Unified in Los Angeles County, with 95% high-needs students, received nearly $12,000 per student in local control funding.
Johnson found sizable improvement in other performance measures besides higher math and reading scores in high-concentration districts.
LCFF concentration funding increased the likelihood that students would graduate from high school by 8.2 percentage points for students exposed to a $1,000 increase in the average per-pupil spending experienced from grades nine to 12.
By a 9.8 percentage-point increase in math and 14.7 percentage-point increase in reading, students were more likely to meet college readiness standards, as measured by the 11th-grade Smarter Balanced tests.
By a 5 to 6 percentage-point reduction for boys and 3 percentage-point reduction for girls, Local Control Funding Formula-induced increases in school spending led to significant reductions in annual suspensions and expulsions across third to 10th grades. Suspensions for Black students in 10th grade were cut by 8 percentage points in schools benefiting from $1,000 in Local Control Funding Formula increases for three consecutive years.
Lafortune said Johnson’s research was consistent with his own findings comparing the academic growth of districts receiving the most local control funding — those with more than 80% high-needs students — with districts with fewer than 30% high-needs students. Another report will be published next month.
“I’m happy to see there’s actually some good research out using student-level data with evidence in answer to the top-level question, Is (the formula) moving the needle? Yes, for those high-concentration districts,” he said.
An EdSource examination of growth in Smarter Balanced scores for the years of Johnson’s study shows slow but steady progress for both low-income and non-low-income students. Both groups of students grew by an average of slightly more than 1 percentage point annually in math and slightly less than 2 percentage points in English language arts. After five years, the achievement gap remained nearly identical, about 30 percentage points apart.
“Yes, we do care about the gaps, but our idea of equity is not to bring the children that are performing really well to the levels that are not excellent,” said Johnson. The overall gains are evidence that more money matters for all students, he said, adding that the aggregate averages don’t reflect his research of districts receiving the biggest dose of funding.
Lafortune said that the overall averages also reflect that low-income students are spread throughout the state. A fifth — about 800,000 students — attend wealthy districts that get no concentration funding. More than 40% of non-low-income students attend districts that receive concentration funding, he said.
The New York Times reported this afternoon that the Trump administration has put the Environmental Protection Agency into reverse gear. Its leader, Lee Zeldin, was previously a Congressman representing the East End of Long Island, one of the most ecologically fragile places in the U.S.
The Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday that it would eliminate its scientific research arm and begin firing hundreds of chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, after denying for months that it intended to do so.
The move underscores how the Trump administration is forging ahead with efforts to slash the federal work force and dismantle federal agencies after the Supreme Court allowed these plans to proceed while legal challenges unfold. Government scientists have been particular targets of the administration’s large-scale layoffs.
The decision to dismantle the E.P.A.’s Office of Research and Development had been widely expected since March, when a leaked document that called for eliminating the office was first reported by The New York Times. But until Friday, the Trump administration maintained that no final decisions had been made.
The E.P.A.’s science office provides the independent research that underpins nearly all of the agency’s policies and regulations. It has analyzed the risks of hazardous chemicals, the impact of wildfire smoke on public health and the contamination of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Its research has often justified stricter environmental rules, prompting pushback from chemical manufacturers and other industries.
Santa Maria, California. Sol Messeguer who works with Fighting Back Santa Maria, a non-profit agency that provides services to homeless youth and families in Santa Maria.
Credit: Iris Schneider/EdSource
This fall my son lost a classmate to the stigma of being unhoused. The family lost their home during the pandemic when a neighbor’s apartment caught fire, leaving their unit uninhabitable. However, what pushed my son’s classmate out of his seventh grade class and into another school were the taunts from his classmates for wearing the same clothes and coming to school without being showered.
My son’s school did attempt to address this situation. For example, when teachers heard students saying mean things, they would ask the offending student to repeat the comment. The students would not repeat taunts. This approach was meant to signal that this type of language is not OK. However, it fails to address the harm caused by the comments or to support the classmate. Addressing bullying in this fashion doesn’t prevent similar comments in the future. Furthermore, bystanders who witness the bullying also fear being bullied.
Not surprisingly, the entire class was aware of the bullying, yet most remained silent. My son’s classmate understood the students bullying him had their own anxieties and frustrations. He understood them because of his own experiences with instability, feeling stuck and isolation. He understood that his classmates who were unkind to him did not have words to express their frustrations in constructive ways; instead, they looked for someone “weak to pick on.” (His words. Not mine). I was surprised by his awareness and understanding of human behavior, particularly his compassion for those who bullied him and those who remained silent. Unfortunately, hostility toward students without a home is not unique to one school or school district. It is part of the general hostility toward such people.
In May, a public meeting about the 7th Avenue Village (a Homekey project in Los Angeles County’s Hacienda Heights designed to get 142 people off the streets and into a home) had to be shut down when it got out of hand. At recent school board meetings, some have voiced opposition to the project such as this comment: “Protect our kids, our residences, our community, and our businesses.” Interestingly, the commenter seems to be requesting the Hacienda La Puente school board to protect “us” (housed people) from “them” (the unhoused).
Another commenter quoted a school board guiding principle emphasizing building a “safe environment” for the student. He urged board members to “think about students first, not other issues, (not the) homeless issue.” There seems to be a lack of recognition that there are students without housing attending our schools and living in our communities.
It is difficult for students to learn when they do not feel psychologically, physically or emotionally safe. Housed and unhoused students are dealing with a lot and need to express their feelings, fears and frustrations about things they don’t have any control over.
Here are some things districts must do to create learning environments to support all students:
All students, housed and unhoused alike, as well as parents, guardians and caregivers, need to be taught to deal with anxiety and frustrations and how to stand with those who are being bullied.
Districts must invest in training for school site leaders, teachers and families to adopt practices such as restorative justice circles, bystander training and ally programs. Districts need to improve communication about the services available for students who are homeless. A student’s situation can change, leaving them unhoused and unaware of services such as laundry or shower facilities that may be available. Schools should consider waiving fees for students who are homeless so they can participate in after-school activities. (Students’ attendance improves when they feel a connection to the school).
School board members need to acknowledge that the district is part of a larger community dealing with a growing homeless population because of a lack of affordable housing. The board should direct the superintendent to create systemic change and to demonstrate to the community their commitment to supporting the learning of all students.
As parents, we chose this school because of the dual immersion program. We want our kids to grow up to be global citizens, to be able “to meet the challenges and opportunities of a changing world.” One of the skills we expect of our kids is to be able to advocate for what is right, including speaking up against bullying.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Thanks to a new program, thousands of students across the central San Joaquin Valley will receive college and career prep throughout their entire high school career and a guarantee that, once they graduate, they’ll have a spot at Fresno State, one of the California State University campuses.
Through Fresno State’s Bulldog Bound Program, students at more than 20 school districts, including the state’s third-largest, Fresno Unified, will get a guaranteed spot at the university, if students meet the minimum graduation requirements, as well as guidance each year of high school.
“We know that Bulldog Bound will completely change how we see and truly live what it is to have a college-bound culture in our (school) system,” said Misty Her, Fresno Unified deputy superintendent, during the Aug. 23 board meeting discussing the program.
“This says to all of our students that we believe in you, that we will cultivate and build your greatest potential, and that as soon as you enter our system, college is already an option for you.”
Jeremy Ward, assistant superintendent for college and career readiness for Fresno Unified, said that while guaranteed admission to Fresno State is the chief “promise” of the program, all students will receive support, resources and tools to be successful Fresno State Bulldogs.
All students — starting in the ninth grade and every year until they graduate — will reap the benefits of the program.
“I believe that Bulldog Bound is going to prepare (students) not just for the requirements for getting into college but into careers,” said Phong Yang, interim associate vice president for strategic enrollment at Fresno State.
The university started the program to ensure students in the Central Valley have a “clear, tangible path” to a college degree.
Throughout much of the Central Valley, less than 25% of adults age 25 or older earned a bachelor’s degree, according to 2020 education and labor statistics. Specifically, 22% in Fresno County hold a bachelor’s degree; 15% have a bachelor’s degree in Kings, Madera and Tulare counties; and 14% earned a bachelor’s degree in Merced County. In comparison, statewide, 35% of adults hold a bachelor’s degree.
The Bulldog Bound program, many believe, can change that by promoting a college-going culture in the region.
“The vision behind Bulldog Bound is that every student gets the same treatment, no matter where you go, no matter where you come from,” Yang said. “You’re going to have the same opportunity.”
The university, Fresno Unified and other school districts launched the initiative in May, but this is the first semester for the program. Here’s what it means for students and families.
What districts are participating?
Fresno State’s partnering school districts are located in Fresno, Madera, Kings and Tulare counties and include: Caruthers Unified, Central Unified, Chawanakee Unified, Clovis Unified, Cutler-Orosi Unified, Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified, Fowler Unified, Fresno Unified, Gustine Unified, Kerman Unified, Kings Canyon Unified, Kingsburg Unified, Los Banos Unified, Madera Unified, Mendota Unified, Parlier Unified, Porterville Unified, Sanger Unified, Tulare Joint Union High School District, University High School and Visalia Unified.
What can all students, grades 9-12, expect?
High school counselors and Fresno State ambassadors (current students) will lead workshops about the program and the opportunities it will provide. Although the workshops start in ninth grade, the lessons continue throughout students’ high school careers.
Are there any other benefits for ninth graders?
Students will receive a Fresno State ID card and email address. Although the cards will be a different color from the college student ID cards, the cards grant high schoolers access to:
On- campus privileges, such as library use.
Student admission rates at sporting events and for food or other items.
In 10th grade?
Studentscan:
Participate in campus tours.
Explore the majors they can study at Fresno State.
Learn in-person and on-campus during a summer experience at the end of their 10th grade year. During the summer experience, students can take college-prep lessons, learn even more about majors and become familiar with the campus.
In 11th grade?
While continuing to learn from workshops and admission prep, 11th grade students receive:
Conditional admission.
Dual enrollment opportunities.
Summer experience opportunities.
In 12th grade?
As high school seniors in the program, students receive on-the-spot acceptance once they submit their application if they’ve met the graduation requirements.
“That means they’re in,” Ward said. “There’s no waiting, no wondering. They’re a part of the Fresno State Bulldog family.”
Families will also receive early financial aid estimates to plan for the costs of attending.
What do students learn?
Workshops and lessons, which happen each school year, include topics on:
The Bulldog Bound program and how to be involved.
Financial literacy, starting in 10th grade.
Applying for college, starting in 11th grade.
Scholarship opportunities, starting in 12th grade.
Building “college knowledge,” as Ward described it.
The program opens the door for Fresno State to engage with and educate students on college and career readiness, many say.
Oftentimes, first-time students are unsure of what career they want to pursue, said Yang, Fresno State’s interim associate vice president for strategic enrollment. With Bulldog Bound, Fresno State will have the opportunity to engage students about their interests early in high school and inform them of the right classes they should take to pursue those interests.
Other than the workshops, admissions prep and campus tours, students will learn about college life from current students. Fresno State uses a team of student ambassadors, many of whom are from the local Fresno area, according to Yang.
“That is, by far, one of the most effective ways for students to see their potential in going to college because they see individuals like themselves coming from the neighborhood, coming back and sharing their experiences,” he said.
What do students need to do?
Students sign a Fresno State agreement in ninth grade. In Fresno Unified, students are automatically a part of the program, but families can choose to opt out.
What are the graduation requirements to obtain guaranteed admission?
Students must meet the minimum California State University A-G course requirements. Once in the 12th grade, they apply for and are granted admission to Fresno State.
What could be the impact?
Not only does the program guarantee admission, but it also provides “knowledge for (even) a ninth grade student to know, to plan, to prepare” for that acceptance and admission, Ward said.
Claudia Cazares, a Fresno Unified board member, said, “I think it’s opening the eyes of many of our students who hadn’t considered that as an option.”
