The K-12 “reading wars” discussions have been missing a critical point: No matter the curriculum used, too often, teachers are being asked to stick to a script and execute equal teaching, not equitable teaching. And equalteaching is illegal.
In the panicked quest to improve literacy outcomes, it’s tempting for schools and teachers to fall back on a “one-size-fits-all” scripted curriculum despite our knowledge that teaching all students the same thing, in the same way, at the same pace, can be ineffective for students with language or learning differences. Students have individual strengths and needs, and teachers should differentiate their approaches in response to the individuals in their class.
If it’s the same for everyone, it’s not targeted toward anyone.
Equal, non-differentiated instruction is illegal for our students who are classified as English learners or who require special education services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 ensures that students with special needs are appropriately served by schools. Modifications and accommodations are required based on students’ strengths and needs to meet their individualeducation plans. Equal teaching — everyone getting the same thing — is not appropriate.
Similarly, in the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the Supreme Court determined that San Francisco’s school district was required to provide equal access — not equal instruction, but equal access — to all students. For students classified as English learners, English language development support was needed to provide students access to the core curriculum. The court based its decision on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If we were to expand the intention behind the court’s decision, we would ensure that all students — regardless of home language, ZIP code, or cultural background — get equitable access to education. This means doing whatever it takes to support individual students, not giving every student the same instruction. In particular, research has shown that scripted curricula don’t work for multilingual students. So, what does? Recently, science of reading advocates and multilingual advocates — including researchers — published a joint statement identifying literacy practices that are effective for multilingual students.
How can all students be successful? While a complete solution would extend beyond the education system, here are two important and realistic steps that could move us forward:
Improved and ongoing professional learning for teachers. The better teachers get at observing, assessing, diagnosing and intervening at points of difficulty, the better they will get at modifying and differentiating instruction based on students’ needs and strengths. Identifying students’ needs before they fall behind is key. The further behind they fall, the harder it is for students to catch up. By identifying and meeting individual needs, teachers can help all students succeed. Doing so requires equitable — not equal — teaching. Ongoing professional learning is required to help teachers continually practice and improve their skills.
Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. It’s important for students to see themselves in the curriculum to develop a sense of belonging and to increase engagement. Traditionally, students who are different in any way — whether by language, (dis)ability, culture, religion, race, ethnicity, immigration status, etc. — do not see themselves represented in the curriculum. Students from historically marginalized communities may not see themselves in the characters or content they study and can feel like outsiders, as if school is intended for others, not them. Teachers who learn from and about their students and who authentically integrate students’ lived experiences into the curriculum can engage and motivate students in their classroom. When teachers use culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, it is inclusive and not generic, not scripted and not the same for all. It is equitable, not equal.
These research-based solutions are not complex, but they require districts’ focus and state funding for teachers to have access to high-quality professional learning.
The most significant factor that impacts student learning is the teacher. So, the next time someone says that students should all receive the same instruction, share with them what works for individualstudents. Remind them that teachers have a legal obligation to provide all students access to content, and differentiated, culturally responsive approaches are needed to achieve that.
●●●
Allison Briceño is an associate professor at San José State University and an OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow. Claudia Rodriguez-Mojica is an associate professor of teaching at the University of California, Davis.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
The German data company Datapulse released a report showing the vast and growing power of billionaires in the U.S. The report confirms your and my suspicions about the rigging of our economy and our politics. Surely it’s no surprise that Trump’s Cabinet is packed with billionaires. Guess who they are looking out for? Not you.
They cheered on Elon Musk’s ignominious DOGS as they slashed vital government programs. They didn’t complain when Musk closed USAID, causing the ultimate deaths of millions of children and parents because of the halt in US food, medicine and health clinics.
They are thrilled to see Trump send in the troops to halt protests against ICE tactics.
A democracy is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people. We are rapidly devolving into an autocratic regime where the rich run the show.
The Myth of “Tax Flight”: Contrary to popular narratives, the mega-rich are not fleeing high-tax states. Our data shows that California and New York, states with progressive tax codes, are home to 40% of all U.S. billionaires.
Explosive Growth: The number of U.S. billionaires has nearly tripled since 2007, growing from 329 to 877 today. This trajectory is unique to America; China’s billionaire class, by comparison, is stalling.
The Rise of the Billionaire Political Class: In the post-Citizens United era, the top 10 political donors, all billionaires, contributed over $420 million in the 2024 cycle alone, directly translating wealth into political influence.
Policy for the Few: The study analyzes the direct impact of billionaire-backed policy, such as the House’s 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” which could see billionaires gain over $390,000 in annual after-tax income while households earning under $51,000 see their incomes shrink.
Concentrated Wealth: Tech and Finance now account for nearly half of all U.S. billionaires, with tech titans alone commanding 37% of total billionaire wealth.
A teacher shows 12th grade students how to construct a small animal house.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
Ina Gutierrez lives for the opera. She has a master’s degree in classical voice as well as a decade of singing and performance under her belt.
She tapped into that lifelong passion to teach music and choir to fourth and fifth graders for two years in Kern County using emergency credentials, and she loved every minute of it but had to stop teaching once that credential ran out.
She now often works as an adjunct professor at CSU Bakersfield, where she teaches “Music in the Classroom,” a class that shows teachers how to share music with children. Gutierrez feels frustrated that she is qualified to show teachers how to teach but can’t teach actual students. She attempted to get a Career Technical Education credential for music but was told she couldn’t use it for elementary school teaching. That broke her heart.
“I would love to be teaching children music,” said Gutierrez, a 38-year-old mother of two who lives in Bakersfield. “Art is so important for children to experience, especially music. It is unique because it simultaneously builds independence and community. In a world where children are playing less outside and addicted to screens, having music in schools shouldn’t be a luxury. It’s vital in building a more compassionate, caring and happy society.”
While many arts education advocates are championing the use of the CTE credential as the state struggles to attract new staff to teach the arts in the wake of Proposition 28, the state’s historic arts mandate, there’s a big hitch for those who want to teach elementary students. It was originally designed for use at the secondary level because it is employment-oriented.
Basically, unless the class has a clear career-based element, like a fifth grade broadcasting class, candidates like Gutierrez might get rejected. Many districts will only greenlight CTE holders to teach middle school, junior high and high school. That’s why some arts education advocates are pushing for reform.
“The CTC language, unfortunately, is from the Eisenhower era when boys took shop, girls took home economics and nobody thought about ‘jobs’ or ‘careers’ until spring of their senior year in high school,” says Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “In today’s world, all of this is career-related, and it starts in elementary school.”
Given the state’s teacher shortage and the heightened need for art educators in light of Proposition 28, some are losing patience with the bureaucratic hoops aspiring arts teachers must jump through.
“It is frustrating to see good, qualified individuals being rejected from teaching due to complex bureaucracy,” said Gutierrez’s husband, Greg, who comes from a long line of teachers. “In order for California to fix the teacher shortage, this problem needs to be addressed. We need a process that is easy for potential teachers to work through.”
Bob Woods-LaDue, Gutierrez’s brother-in-law, has hit the same obstacle. He was told he had to get his music class reclassified as a technical class to be eligible to use the CTE credential.
“I can’t help but wonder how many teachers are in an uphill battle that don’t know how to advocate for themselves in the credentialing process, and getting different answers from different people,” Greg said. “It doesn’t seem like an encouraging environment based on his experience thus far and my wife’s similar experience.”
Beutner, for one, is pushing to have the system streamlined so that there are fewer roadblocks for teachers who are dedicated to bringing the arts into elementary classrooms as well as secondary ones.
“Change is hard, but it has to happen,” he said. “California schools will need to hire about 15,000 additional arts teachers to fully implement Prop. 28. Half of the teachers will be needed in elementary schools. There are nowhere near enough traditionally credentialed arts teachers to fill that need.”
Some experts warn that teaching elementary requires a different skill set than secondary. That’s one drawback in widening CTE credential usage, they say.
“I am not sure about broadening it,” said Eric Engdahl, professor emeritus at CSU East Bay and past president of the California Council on Teacher Education. “While it could be a stopgap to fill the arts teaching shortage, are the people teaching it with substantial industry experience appropriate to be teaching at an elementary level given the developmental differences in learning?”
Some working artists may need to bone up on educational best practices before entering the classroom, and Buetner suggests professional development be provided.
“A concern some may have is whether a CTE teacher, even with their content mastery, is ready to be in a classroom with third graders,” Beutner said. “A sensible approach would be to build in some guardrails, maybe a CTE teacher in elementary needs to work alongside a grade level teacher for a semester while participating in a certain set of CTE professional development courses.”
For many, teaching the arts is a dream gig, a way to enrich lives as well as stimulate higher levels of critical thinking in a generation hard hit by pandemic-related learning loss.
“Music is an amazing way to bring that joy to students, invite creativity to the classroom and build connections between students as well as teacher to student,” said Gutierrez. “It is in an environment like this that students can and will learn better. I love music for music’s sake, but music is a great tool to incorporate in teaching language arts, math, science and history.”
While the CTE program has long been associated with trades and vocations such as auto repair, plumbing, and culinary arts, it can also be a viable pathway to becoming an arts educator. Other routes include being a traditionally credentialed arts teacher or a classified staff member, although that role commands lower pay.
One of the key CTE pathways lets artists with considerable experience in their field, from dance and digital arts to jazz, use that expertise in the classroom. They must have three years of work experience directly related to each industry sector named on the credential and meet other administrative requirements.
“The CTE credential allows people who have 1,000 hours of experience in the field to come into teaching, bring all that experience, that wisdom that they’ve got,” said Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the California State Board of Education, during a recent arts ed conference at UCLA. “We hope many, many artists will come in and secure the credential.”
One big upside to the CTE credential is that, unlike teaching artists who need a credentialed teacher to remain in the classroom while they teach, CTE teachers can fly solo. That frees the classroom teacher up, creating time to work one-on-one with students, email parents back and meet with colleagues.
“When CTE teachers are teaching a course, then the regular classroom teacher can be doing other things,” said Darling-Hammond. “Our staff are stretched very thin. So we want to use this as a win-win for students and for staff in all of our schools.”
The greater accessibility of the CTE route, its fewer barriers to entry, may also invite a more diverse range of teachers than more traditional pathways, experts say.
“Let’s roll up our sleeves and bring the CTE standards into the 21st century,” said Beutner. “The alternative is millions of students in elementary schools across California will not have the chance to participate in arts and music.”
Teacher apprentice Ja’net Williams helps with a math lesson in a first grade class at Delta Elementary Charter School in Clarksburg, near Sacramento.
Credit: Diana Lambert / EdSource
Top Takeaways
California leaders dismiss the criticism and methodology of the rankings.
And yet, graduate credentialing programs cram a lot in a year.
Many teachers may struggle with the demands of California’s new math framework.
In its “State of the States” report on math instruction published last week, the National Council on Teacher Quality sharply criticized California and many of its teacher certification programs for ineffectively preparing new elementary teachers to teach math and for failing to support and guide them once they reach the classroom.
“Far too many elementary teacher prep programs fail to dedicate enough instructional time to building aspiring teachers’ math knowledge — leaving teachers unprepared and students underserved,” the council said in its evaluation of California’s 87 programs that prepare elementary school teachers. “The analysis shows California programs perform among the lowest in the country.”
The report’s call for more teacher math training and ongoing support coincides with the state’s adoption this summer of materials and textbooks for a new math framework that math professionals universally agree will be a heavy lift for incoming and veteran teachers to master. It will challenge elementary teachers with a poor grasp of the underpinnings behind the math they’ll be teaching.
Kyndall Brown, executive director of the California Mathematics Project based at UCLA, agrees. “It’s not just about knowing the content, it’s about helping students learn the content, which are two completely different things,” he said.
And that raises a question: Does a one-year-plus-summer graduate program, which most prospective teachers take, cram too much in a short time to realistically meet the needs to teach elementary school math?
California joined two dozen states whose math preparation programs were rated as “weak.” Only one state got a “strong” rating.Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2025 State of the States report
Failing grades
The council graded every teacher prep program nationwide from A to F, based on how many instructional hours they required prospective teachers to take in major content areas of math and in instructional methods and strategies.
Three out of four California programs got an F, with some programs — California State University, Sacramento, and California State University, Monterey Bay — requiring no instructional hours for algebraic thinking, geometry, and probability, and many offering one-quarter of the 135 instructional hours needed for an A.
But there was a dichotomy: All the Fs were given to one-year graduate school programs offering a multi-subject credential to teach elementary school, historically the way most new teachers in California get their teaching credential.
On the other hand, many of the colleges and universities offering a teaching credential and a bachelor’s degree through an Integrated Undergraduate Teacher Credentialing Program got an A, because they included enough time to go into math instruction and content in more depth. For example, California State University, Long Beach’s 226 instructional hours, apportioned through all of the content areas and methods courses, earned an A-plus.
The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs
California State University
Most of the universities that offer both undergraduate and graduate programs — California State University, Bakersfield; San Jose State University; California State University, Chico; California State University, Northridge, to name a few — had the same split: A for their undergraduate programs, F for their graduate credentialing programs.
Most California teacher preparation programs have received bad grades in the dozen years that the council has issued evaluations. The state’s higher education institutions, in turn, have defended their programs and denounced the council for basing the quality of a program on analyses of program websites and syllabi.
California State University, whose campuses train the majority of teachers, and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which accredits and oversees teacher prep programs, issued similar denunciations last week.
“The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs,” the CSU wrote in a statement. The council “relies on a narrow and flawed methodology, heavily dependent on document reviews, rather than on dialogue with program faculty, students and employers or a systematic review of meaningful program outcomes.”
The credentialing commission, in a more diplomatic response, agreed. The report “reflects a methodology that differs from California’s approach to educator preparation,” it said. “While informative, it does not fully capture the structure of California’s clinically rich, performance-based system.”
Heather Peske, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality for the past three years, dismissed the criticism as “a really weak critique.”
“You can look at a syllabus and see what’s being taught in that class much in the same way that if you go to a restaurant and look at the menu to see what’s being served,” she said. “Our reviews are certainly a very solid starting place to know to what extent teacher preparation programs are well preparing future teachers to be effective in teaching.”
It’s not just a problem in California.
“When we compare the mathematics instructional hours between the undergrad and the graduate programs, often on the same campus, we saw on average that undergrads get 133 hours compared to just 52 hours at the graduate level. In both cases, it is not meeting the recommended and research-based 150 hours,” Peske said.
Part of the problem is that graduate programs usually don’t have enough time to instill future teachers with the content knowledge that they need.
Heather Peske
Whether or not examining website data is a good methodology, the disparities in hours devoted to math preparation between undergraduate and graduate programs raise an important issue.
True jacks of all trades, elementary teachers must become proficient in many content areas — social studies, English language arts, English language development for English learners, and science, as well as math. Add to that proficiency in emerging technologies, classroom management, skills for teaching students with disabilities, and student mental health: How can they adequately cover math, especially?
“Part of the problem is that graduate programs usually don’t have enough time to instill future teachers with the content knowledge that they need,” Peske said. “California programs have to reckon with this idea that they’re sending a bunch of teachers into classrooms who have not demonstrated that they are ready to teach kids math.”
Brown said, “There’s no way that in a one-year credential program that they’re going to get the math that they need to be able to teach the content that they’re responsible for teaching.”
That was Anthony Caston’s experience. Before starting his career as a sixth-grade teacher at Foulks Ranch Elementary School in Elk Grove three years ago, Caston took courses for his credential in graduate programs at Sacramento State and the University of the Pacific. There wasn’t enough time to learn all he needed to teach the subject, he said. A few classes were useful, but didn’t get much beyond the third- or fourth-grade curriculum, he said.
“I had to take myself back to school, reteach myself everything, and then come up with some teaching strategies,” Caston said.
Fortunately for him, veteran teachers at his school helped him learn more about Common Core math and how to teach it.
The math content Brown refers togoes beyond knowing how to invert fractions or calculate the area of a triangle; it involves a conceptual understanding of essential math topics, Peske said. Only a deeper conceptual grasp will enable teachers to diagnose and explain students’ errors and misunderstandings, Peske said, and to overcome the math phobia that surveys show many teachers have.
Ma Bernadette Salgarino, the president of the California Mathematics Council and a math trainer in the Santa Clara County Office of Education, acknowledges that many math teachers have not been taught the concepts behind the progression of the state’s math standards. “It is not clear to them,” she said. “They’re still teaching to a regurgitation of procedures, copy and paste. These are the steps, and this is what you will do.”
Although a longtime critic of the council, Linda Darling-Hammond, who chaired California’s credentialing commission before becoming the current president of the State Board of Education, acknowledges that the report raises a legitimate issue.
“Time is an important question,” she said. “It is true that having more time well spent — the ‘well spent’ matters — could make a difference for lots of people in learning lots of subjects, including math.”
Darling-Hammond faults the study, however, for not factoring in California’s broader approach to teacher preparation, including requiring that teaching candidates pass a performance assessment in math and underwriting teacher residency programs, in which teachers work side by side with an effective teacher for a full year while taking courses in a graduate program.
“You could end up becoming a pretty spectacular math teacher in a shorter amount of time than if you’re just studying things in an undergraduate program disconnected from student teaching,” she said.
Weak state policies
The report also grades every state’s policies on math instruction, from preparing teachers to coaching them after they’re in the classroom. California and two dozen states are rated “weak,” ahead of seven “unacceptable” states (Montana, Arizona, Nebraska, Missouri, Alaska, Vermont and Maine) while behind 17 “moderate” states, including Texas and Florida, and a sole “strong” state, Alabama.
The council bases the rating on the implementation of five policy “levers” to ensure “rigorous standards-aligned math instruction.” However, California’s actions are more nuanced than perhaps its “unacceptable” ratings on three and “strong” ratings on two would indicate.
For example, the council dinged the state for not requiring that all teachers in a prep program pass a math licensure test. California does require elementary credential candidates to pass the California Subject Examinations for Teachers, or CSET, a basic skills test, before they can teach students. But the math portion is combined with science, and students can avoid the test by supplying proof they have taken undergraduate math courses.
At the same time, many superintendents and math teachers may be doing a double-take for a “strong” rating for providing professional learning and ongoing support for teachers to sustain effective math instruction.
Going back to the adoption of the Common Core, the state has not funded statewide teacher training in math standards. In the past five years, the state has spent $500 million to train literacy coaches in the state’s poorest schools, but nothing of that magnitude for math coaches.
The Legislature approved $20 million for the California Mathematics Project for training in the new math framework, which was passed in 2023, and $50 million in 2022-23 for instruction in grades fourth to 12th in science, math and computer science training to train coaches and teacher leaders — amounts that would be impressive for smaller states, but not to fund training most math teachers in California. (You can find a listing of organizations offering training and resources on the math framework here.)
In keeping with local control, Gov. Gavin Newsom has appropriated more than $10 billion in education block grants, including the Student Support and Professional Development Discretionary Block Grant,and the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, but those are discretionary; districts have wide latitude to spend money however they want on any subject.
Tucked into a section on Literacy Instruction in Newsom’s May budget revision (see Page 19) is the mention that a $545 million grant for materials instruction will include a new opportunity to support math coaches, too. The release of the final state budget for 2025-26 later this month will reveal whether that money survives.
Brown calls for hiring more math specialists for schools and for three-week summer intensive math leadership institutes like the one he attended in 1994. It hasn’t been held since the money ran dry in the early 2000s.
EdSource reporter Diana Lambert contributed to this article.
When Trump named Ed Martin as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, those who know his record (and are not faithful Trumpers) were appalled. He had actively defended the January 6 insurrection and had a long record as a Putin apologist, among other things. A strange choice for a very important role in law enforcement. Fortunately, the Republicans who are a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination.
Ed Martin is a major actor in Trump’s attempted regime change to authoritarianism. His particular role is to transform the law into a tool to intimidate Americans. After a stint as interim US Attorney for DC which was marked by unprecedented weaponization of the position, Martin will now continue his work for Trump as the official “weaponization czar.”
This is a new position within the Justice Department, designed by the Trump administration, to punish people who have committed no crimes. Martin was originally placed on the “weaponization working group” seemingly ex officio when he was a US Attorney; he will now continue as its chairman. On Martin’s account, his assignment will be to publicly single out Americans who have not been found guilty of anything, or for that matter even indicted. He says there will be “no limit to the targets.”
Martin’s authoritarian past and loyalties are a matter of public record. He helped build an alternative reality around Trump’s Big Lie and coup attempt, treating the January 6th criminals as heroes deserving of financial support and pardons. As interim US attorney, he described himself as President Trump’s lawyer, and abused his position to send letters to people who displeased the president in some way. He threatened journalists, universities and scientists.
Martin, to use the historical term, is taking an ostentatious part in the ongoing attempt at what the Nazis called a Gleichschaltung of institutions: of dropping the distinction between the law and the leader, and of attempting to force everyone in public life into line with the leader’s latest statements. The reference is not accidental. Martin is on the far right, and an advocate of great replacement theory: the spurious idea that a conspiracy seeks to replace white Americans with immigrants. He had a very supportive relationshipwith a known American Nazi.
The czars, lest we forget, were Russian autocrats. The title “weaponization czar” reminds us that much of happening in the United States under Trump happened first in the home of the czars. In the Russian Federation today, the law is weaponized. Prosecutions follow the whims of Putin and his regime, and that the law will be invoked against them according to the political (and financial) interests of those who hold power. Russian media is full of accusations made by Russian officials that people are criminals or wrongdoers, even before they have been tried or subjected to any judicial procedure.
It is important that we understand that Russian-style authoritarianism is a real possibility in the world, one which Martin not only advocates but represents. Russia is not a comparison for Martin. It is a central part of his career. He has no actual qualifications to serve in the Department of Justice. His role has to do instead with making the law something that it is not supposed to be: a way to protect the powerful and punish the innocent who offend them. He auditioned for this role as a propagandist for Russia’s regime.
The title “weaponization czar” is appropriate because Martin’s most interesting achievements thus far are, in fact, in the service of Russia. He has done more visible work for the Russian state television than for any other institution. Martin, in other words, has already been part of one weaponized legal system for some time. His American career as “weaponization czar” is a natural second step of his Russian career as apologist for both Russian and American weaponizers and authoritarians.
Between 2016 and 2024, Martin was a star of both RT and Sputnik, which are propaganda arms of the Russian state. Putin himself has made this completely clear. One of the central missions of RT and Sputnik is to weaken the standing and power of the United States. Anyone who goes on RT or Sputnik, as Martin did more than a hundred times, knows what he is doing. For eight years, on any issue of the day, Martin was there to spread mendacious propaganda about Americans and to defend Putin and Trump. His Russian work surpassed any media exposure in the United States.
Julia Davis, who does the important work of contextualizing Russian propaganda television available for a global viewership, has made Martin’s appearances visible. With her permission, I am sharing her work in the following paragraph. It provides samples, with video links back to his appearances, of how Ed Martin spreads untruth in the service of Russian and American authoritarians. If you want to take the time to judge more of his appearances than the ones I cite below, here (again thanks to Julia Davis) is a longer compilationof Martin’s appearances on Russian propaganda television.
Trump as American president can do, says Martin on Russian propaganda television, whatever he wants. Martin proposes that we should live in the alternative reality provided by the Russian propaganda he serves, since American media cannot be trusted. He instructs us that American elections are rigged and that the January 6th criminals are political prisoners. (Note that Martin was thereby on Russian propaganda television forecasting his own role in seeking pardons for these people and raising money for them.) Martin denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections, although this was quite blatant — and indeed continuous, right down to the uncontested reports that Russians called in bomb scares to predominantly Democratic precincts in 2024. Martin also quite clear on the American role in the world, which is that the US should serve Putin and his wars. Echoing Russian claims at the time, Martin claimed that US intelligence was wrong about the coming full-scale US invasion of Ukraine, when is in fact it was entirely correct. In his view, the NATOalliance is unnecessary. The United States should be Russia’s ally.
There was a time, not so very long ago, when long service to hostile foreign propaganda networks would have been disqualifying for positions in the federal government. Now, as the head of RT boasts, it seems to be a qualification. Since Trump wants loyalists to him rather than to the United States, willingness to serve foreign countries, at least corrupt dictatorships, would be a useful filter. Repeating Russian propaganda tropes could hardly be offensive to Trump; he does this all the time. Taking part in Putin’s propaganda system would be naturally understood as the right kind of apprenticeship for work on Trump’s own regime change. We know that Trump chooses his people by treating their television appearances as auditions. So why not Russian television appearances? All the better.
No surprisingly, Martin says that his key assignment as weaponization czar will be to punish those who investigated Trump’s very real connections to Russia. This country has paid a huge price for not recognizing Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election for what it was: highly consequential and quite possibly decisive in the moment, and a sign of the coming age of oligarchical cooperation via digital tools to build right-wing regimes. That age is now upon us. There is, unmistakably, something very strange about the Trump’s submissiveness to Russia: appointing its media darlings (the list includes Tulsi Gabbard, who is of all things director of national intelligence); exempting it from tariffs when everyone else was targeted, refusing to pressure Putin to end a war when that is the obvious policy, sending as his envoy to Moscow a man who simply repeats Russian claims and uses Russian translations. Too many of us have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the fear that Trump will use the word “hoax” when we point to the Russian elements of our present reality: such as, for example, that our “weaponization czar” apprenticed in the role in the service of Russia. With our weaponization of the law and our czars, we have a Russia problem.
Working with Russian institutions will not hurt Martin with Trump’s followers, who have been trained to see Russia not as an actual country with interests but as part of a “hoax,” a conspiracy against Trump. This is the sad convenience of “America First”: it really means “America Only”: no matter how things get, we get to be first, since no other countries exist in our minds. If other countries are meaningless, then MAGA people can rest assured that there is nothing like the complicity of international oligarchs, or the guild of international fascists, or the plans of countries like Russia to destroy the United States from within. If other countries do not matter, then it never seems right to ask: just why is it that Russian propaganda and Trumpian rhetoric so often overlap, to the point that training on one is preparation for mouthing the other? But there are, of course, Republicans who have a notion of the interests of the United States, and of the rule of law. For them, Martin’s services to Russia should matter.
The Russia connection is perhaps most important to opponents of Trump. Speaking of Martin’s connections to Russia is not a way of sloughing off responsibility to another country for our own failings. It is, instead, a way to take responsibility. So long as we see Trump and his loyalists as purely American characters, our American exceptionalism tempts us to normalize what they do. We ask ourselves, over and over again, if this is “really” an attempt to end democracy. But if we take seriously the connections of someone like Martin with a hostile foreign authoritarian power engaged in a genocidal war, we get a sense of where things could be headed. Russia is a real country and, for us, a real possibility. When we recognize that the attempt to make America authoritarian is part of a tawdry global trend, with general patterns that we can recognize, we can better see where we are, and get to work.
The Los Angeles Unified school board did not discuss the bonds for settling sexual abuse claims before members authorized them on June 3.
Credit: Livestream recordings of LAUSD board meetings
The article was updated on June 18 to include LAUSD’s previously undisclosed information revising total costs of the bonds it authorized to settle sexual abuse claims against it.
Top Takeaways
School trustees authorize bonds without comment or public explanation.
The total cost of $500 million in bonds could reach $765 million.
Other districts also face massive costs in response to a 2019 state law.
The Los Angeles Unified School District board has quietly authorized issuing a half-billion dollars in bonds to settle decades-old sexual abuse cases involving former students.
And that will likely not be enough to settle all the claims the nation’s second-largest school district is facing under 2019 legislation that allows victims of abuse by school employees to seek damages for incidents dating back decades.
Since Jan. 1, 2020, LAUSD has received approximately 370 child abuse claims under Assembly Bill 218, of which 81 cases have been settled or dismissed, according to data that LAUSD released this week. The district stated it is currently defending against more than 275 claims; approximately 76 allege abuses dating back to the 1940s through 1970s, while 45 to 50 claims allege abuses in the 1980s.
Board members approved the expenditure on June 3 without comment or a public presentation, agreeing to borrow up to $500 million through judgment obligation bonds. Unlike bonds for school construction, they did not require voter approval. The claims are not covered by insurance carriers.
The scant information in the meeting agenda estimated the total cost of the bonds, including principal and interest, at $899 million. It assumed a now outdated 6.10% interest rate, documents show (see Page 3).
On Monday, the district lowered its estimate. It said it would initially issue $303 million in 15-year bonds, instead of 20-year bonds, at the current interest rate of 5.6%. At that rate, the total cost of $500 million in bonds would be $765 million.
“The board has been talking about judgment obligation bonds for, I would say, about a year and a half,” board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said in an interview. Spreading out the payments means “the district’s current students aren’t punished by depleting resources,” she said.
No public hearings were held. Board members were briefed about the matter in small groups, she said. “We also had several conversations in closed sessions, as we typically do with legal cases.” She did not disclose the number of claims made against the district or how many were settled.
The district administration will likely ask the board to approve more borrowing next year to settle additional claims, Ortiz Franklin said.
The district is far from alone in facing massive payouts to victims who have filed claims under the legislation, Assembly Bill 218, which experts say is impacting local public agencies throughout the state.
Los Angeles County alone is facing $4 billion in settlements involving formerly incarcerated juveniles and foster youth.
By taking on long-term debt to deal with the AB 218 cases, LAUSD is “lessening any potential impacts to (its) core education programs in the near term,” by spreading out the settlement costs, supporting documents provided to board members stated. Nonetheless, issuing $500 million in bonds would reduce spending on students by tens of millions of dollars annually from the district’s general fund during the years it takes to pay off the bonds.
In a statement this week that pointed to potential costs that could “bankrupt entire school systems,” LAUSD urged state leaders and advocates to work with districts “to ensure we can meet our moral obligation to survivors while still protecting the essential right to a free, high-quality public education for all students.”
“Los Angeles Unified unequivocally believes that survivors of sexual abuse deserve to be heard, supported, and empowered to pursue justice on their own terms. AB 218 has enabled victims of childhood sexual assault to seek justice with less legal limitations,” it stated.
“However, we must also acknowledge the very real and unintended consequences” on school districts that “may face lawsuits from decades past, even when current leadership, policies, and practices have changed dramatically,” it continued.
AB 218, brought by then-Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, rolled back the statute of limitations for abuse claims involving public employees like teachers to “22 years from the date the plaintiff” becomes an adult “or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after” reaching adulthood was caused by sexual assault. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill on Oct. 13, 2019.
Messages left at Gonzalez’s office were not returned.
Legislative records show that proponents of AB 218 argued that sexual assault scandals involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts showed that victims of child sexual abuse sometimes took years to come forward, often after the statute of limitations to seek damages had expired.
“Victims who are ready to come forward today deserve an opportunity to expose their perpetrators and those who covered up the abuse,” members of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Victim Policy Institute told lawmakers, records show.
Opponents of the bill, including the California Association of School Business Officials and other groups, expressed concerns about cost.
“It will be impossible for employers to effectively defend against these claims when evidence is likely gone, witnesses have moved or passed away, and there has been a turnover of staff,” a summary of opponents’ concerns in legislative archives stated. “With these barriers, schools will be unable to adequately respond to these claims. This failure will result in diversion of funding intended to educate students and serve communities to financing increased legal costs, whether or not the claim is valid.”
A Senate staff analysis warned of “unknown, potentially major out-year costs to local entities and school districts to the extent litigation is successfully brought outside the current statute of limitations and/or the entities are liable for damages.” The bill was unanimously passed by both the Senate and the Assembly.
Last week, in an interview, an advocate for taxpayers was critical of the debts the legislation created for school districts and other agencies.
“These bonds are going to hang around the necks of school districts for decades,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “There has to be a statute of limitations,” he said. “Witnesses are probably gone. All cases have to be time-barred at some point. This is bad policy.”
School districts across the state are facing similar claims allowed by AB 218 and facing crises of how to pay for settlements, according to a January report by the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, or FCMAT. As the matter evolves, there is no firm number of the number of claims so far brought against districts, “but the best estimate is $2 billion to $3 billion.”
“A comprehensive analysis of claims is not available,” the report states. “But what we can conclude is that the impact is significant.”
FCMAT concluded that “the goal should be to completely eliminate childhood sexual assault in public schools” and to “increase mandated training to build awareness of, and reporting options for, childhood sexual assault.”
Other recommendations, such as creating a victim compensation fund to eliminate claims brought against individual public agencies, have received little support in the Legislature and were opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the FCMAT’s chief executive officer, Michael Fine, said in an interview.
The claims and settlements, Fine said, continue to pile up. “The data changes daily.”
The first time I met Micah, a Black elementary school student, I was struck by his cherubic face, bright eyes and nonstop knock-knock jokes that had me laughing out loud. He was warm and polite. His grandmother — his guardian — sat close by during the visit, gently encouraging his respectful tone. She described him as responsible and kind, and everything I saw affirmed that.
So, I was puzzled — then troubled — by his school’s mental health referral. Teachers had described Micah as a “behavior challenge” and asked for help managing his “defiance.” His school records even falsely claimed his mother was a “cocaine addict.” None of it matched the child in front of me.
As I got to know him, the real story came out: Micah had just watched his father collapse and die after he tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate him. My heart sank as my evaluation revealed that his grief had been misread as misconduct, his pain distorted through the lens of pathology. Frustrated by repeated suspensions and missed learning, his grandmother eventually transferred him to another school.
As a child psychiatrist, I’ve seen how often Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous children, like Micah, are unfairly mislabeled and misunderstood. One diagnosis keeps showing up in ways that harm these children: oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) — a common childhood behavioral disorder characterized by anger, defiance and vindictiveness.
Too often, ODD becomes a “bad kid” label, punishing racially minoritized children for behaviors rooted in trauma, racism or structural inequities, rather than addressing the hardships they face.
Oppositional defiant disorder is overdiagnosed in Black, Hispanic and Indigenous children because of biased behavior assessments. Adultification bias leads Black children to be seen as older, stronger and less innocent than they are. Anger bias results in Black students being perceived as angry even when they’re not.
This overdiagnosis often ignores what’s really going on. Anger or irritability can be signs of anxiety or depression, while defiance can be an adaptive response to trauma or discrimination. Gender-nonconforming students of color are at special risk of being labeled defiant when they are simply resisting mistreatment or bullying.
But instead of getting support, these kids are too often punished and criminalized.
Since racially minoritized children already face higher rates of suspension, expulsion and police involvement, an improper diagnosis reinforces exclusion, pushing them out of school and into the justice system.
An ODD diagnosis doesn’t explain a child’s behavior. It blames them for it.
In 2013, California began to ban suspension for willful defiance, eventually in all grades K-12. This measure reduced overall suspensions, but racial disparities in discipline remain stark. Black and Indigenous students are suspended earlier and more often, with Black students with disabilities most affected in middle school.
Disciplinary codes that remain — like “disruption,” “defiance” and “profanity” — are vague and subjective, leaving room for racial bias. In one California school district, Black students with disabilities accounted for three-quarters of all suspensions for these offenses.
While students can’t be suspended from school for willful defiance anymore, teachers can still suspend students from class for it. An oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis can still justify exclusion — through special education placements, psychiatric referrals, or other punitive measures — serving as a backdoor for exclusionary discipline.
There is no denying thateducators face enormous challenges in classroom management, and that they often don’t have the best tools and resources to help. Restorative justice and trauma-informed approaches, for instance, can be difficult to implement because of limited staffing and administrative support. But it’s also true that questioning the “bad kid” label with ODD or defiance can lead to more just outcomes.
How? Here are four things educators and other adults can do:
Recognize bias in discipline and mental health diagnoses A Black student questioning authority may be labeled defiant, while a white student is called assertive for the same behavior. Bias training and reflective practice are key to addressing these misperceptions. While California has introduced implicit bias training as part of teacher professional development, none of these initiatives specifically address diagnostic bias.
Contextualize student behavior Before labeling a child oppositional, ask:
Are they facing hunger, housing instability or bullying?
Are they reacting to discrimination or past trauma?
Building strong relationships with students and families helps uncover the full story.
Support, don’t punish Because they address the root causes of distress, behavioral interventions that teach emotional regulation and restorative practices that repair relationships can be more effective than exclusion.
Be skeptical of mental health referrals Referrals don’t guarantee unbiased care. Psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists aren’t required to account for racism or the school-to-prison pipeline when diagnosing oppositional defiant disorder. California’s medical and behavioral health boards don’t mandate an antiracist approach, meaning students are often assessed without consideration of systemic factors.
ODD’s overdiagnosis among Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students reflects a deeper problem, where certain children’s emotions are pathologized and punished, while the emotions of others receive understanding and support.
By questioning bias and shifting from labels to solutions, schools can ensure every child gets the support they need to thrive.
For Micah, the Black elementary school student grieving his father’s death, the solution wasn’t medication or behavior interventions. It was removing the ODD label and validating his grandmother’s sense that the school was mistreating him. What helped was switching schools and witnessing his grandmother go to bat for him. These actions gave him what he truly needed: love, support and a sense of belonging.
There are no bad kids. There are only systems that fail them. Let’s lift them up, not push them out.
•••
Dr. Rupinder K. Legha is a double board-certified psychiatrist based in Los Angeles who specializes in child, adolescent and adult mental health.
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 commentary guidelines and contact us.
Preschool children learn to express themselves through painting.
Credit: Courtesy of Daniel Mendoza
Amid a national reckoning over learning loss and chronic absenteeism deepened by the pandemic, arts education may be one of the keys to boosting children’s engagement in school, research suggests. Like sports, the arts can spark the kind of excitement that makes students, and their families, look forward to coming to school.
Devotees of the arts have long argued that art transforms us, but in recent years, neuroscience has shown just how beneficial arts education can be for children. Music, for instance, can buttress the architecture of the growing brain. Theater classes teach empathy, history and literacy all by putting on a show. Creativity, storytelling and the spirit of play ignite learning, effortlessly building the memory and concentration that academic rigor demands.
Low-income children often see the biggest gains. That’s why making arts education accessible to all is the thrust of Proposition 28, the state’s historic arts mandate, which voters approved in 2022. Spearheaded by former Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner, the initiative began doling out money to schools last year.
However, the groundbreaking program has run into several significant hurdles during its rollout, including a deep teacher shortage, widespread confusion about spending rules and pointed disagreements about how to interpret the law. Arts advocates are scrutinizing district arts budgets, and some are pushing for a state audit of the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has been accused of misspending funds in an ongoing lawsuit filed by families and Beutner.
What do students learn from the arts?
The lessons of arts education are vast, from creativity to cognitive boosts. That’s why it has always been part of a classical education. From the arts, children learn focus, discipline and teamwork in addition to how to sharpen their own sense of voice and ingenuity, vital skills in a future likely dominated by artificial intelligence (AI). Originality is essentially a human gift, one that machines can only imitate.
While each school has been tapped to choose the kind of arts education that best suits its community, the California Department of Education (CDE) is leading the implementation of the initiative. CDE has provided guidance in FAQs and webinars to help districts navigate the rules. Questions can be emailed to Prop28@cde.ca.gov.
How much money do schools get?
Funding, which gets funneled through the district, is variable depending on the size of the school and the number of Title 1, low-income students there. The money is ongoing, and school districts have up to three years to spend each allocation. Disbursements began to land in February 2024.
What is the money supposed to pay for?
Arts disciplines are broadly defined, from dance to digital arts, and schools are encouraged to tailor the program to the shifting needs of students over time. However, most of the funding is intended to pay for arts teachers. In general, at least 80% of the funds are for school staffers, certified or classified employees, to provide arts education. Up to 20% is for arts education support, including training, supplies, materials and arts partnerships. No more than 1% of total funds may go to administrative costs.
Is there a waiver from the spending rules?
The CDE may provide a waiver to school districts for “good cause” if the 80/20 rule cannot be followed. Waiver requests must include a problem statement, framing the waiver as a proposed solution to the problem. Reasons for a waiver may include a need to purchase costly supplies or equipment, such as buying musical instruments for an orchestra, or the need to contract with an arts partner due to an inability to hire qualified staff. Thus far, 2.4% of school districts have requested a waiver for 2024-25 spending, according to the CDE, down from 8.2% for 2023-24.
Can you pay for existing arts programs with the new money?
No. Prop. 28 money must “supplement” and not “supplant” funding for arts education. For example, if you spent $1 million on arts education in the 2022-23 school year, you were expected to spend $1 million plus your Prop. 28 money in the 2023-24 school year (the first year Prop. 28 funds were available).
However, allegations of supplanting funds have arisen across the state as arts teachers watch new Prop. 28 funds being used to pay for existing programs. There are also disagreements on whether the litmus test on spending applies to districts as a whole or school by school.
What are the main issues in the Los Angeles Unified lawsuit?
The core issue is paying for old programs with new money. Beutner, the author of the law, maintains that each individual school should offer more arts than before, while Los Angeles Unified officials have argued that spending is measured at the district level. Student plaintiffs and Beutner have filed a lawsuit against LAUSD, alleging misuse of funds. State education officials have avoided taking sides in the matter, but CDE auditing rules suggest that compliance is determined at the district level. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, has called for a state audit of LAUSD’s use of Prop. 28 funds.
What are the biggest challenges facing Prop. 28?
The challenges of this rollout are myriad. Thorny issues include finding staff amid a teacher shortage, interpreting complicated rules and finding the time and space to hold extra classes. Schools without a Visual and Performing Arts coordinator often struggle with planning, experts say, and many have put off spending the money due to a lack of clarity on the spending rules and a lack of knowledge about the arts in general. While many school districts have reported they did not use the funds in the first year of Prop. 28 funding, according to some estimates, the window to tap into the funds is three years. Next year will be crunch time on assessing how comprehensively California schools are able to expand arts education.
What should parents know?
Ask your principal how the Prop. 28 money is being spent and share your ideas on what artistic disciplines would best fit your community. Remember that arts education is a very broad landscape, from dance to digital arts. If there has been no increased access to arts education, that could be a red flag.
Are adults shaped by childhood exposure to arts education?
Early music training may impart a lifelong neuroplasticity that helps keep the brain sharp even as it ages. A 65-year-old musician has the neural activity of a 25-year-old non-musician, experts say. A 65-year-old who played music as a child but hasn’t touched an instrument in ages has neural responses faster than a peer who never played music.
Michelle H. Davis writes a thoughtful blog on Substack called “Lone Star Left,” where she reports incisively on politics in Texas. This column explains how white supremacists keep Blacks and Hispanic unrepresented and disenfranchised: gerrymandering voting district. What’s happening in Texas is happening in other states, especially the South.
It’s hard to remember that Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Davis writes:
In the early 1960s, Black residents in Leflore County, Mississippi, comprised two-thirds of the population. Despite that, they had no political representation. In 1962, when voter registration of Black voters increased, the all-white Board of Supervisors (similar to a Commissioners’ Court in Texas) cut off federal surplus food aid, a lifeline for over 20,000 poor Black sharecroppers and farmworkers. This move came to be known as the Greenwood Food Blockade.
This move by the white Board of Supervisors exacerbated widespread poverty-induced hunger and malnutrition among Mississippi Delta sharecroppers. This laid the groundwork for long-term food insecurity, economic marginalization, and ongoing inequality in Mississippi that persists to this day.
This pattern is not new. Every time Black Americans have taken even a step toward political power, white supremacy has moved to snatch it back. In Greenwood, it meant starving families to stop them from voting. In Tarrant County today, it means redrawing district lines to erase Black representation, again, by a white-majority governing body.
What happened in Mississippi in 1962 wasn’t just about food. It was about control. And what happened in Tarrant County today isn’t just about maps. It’s about the same thing.
It’s not a coincidence. It’s not neutral. It’s not “routine.” It is the calculated removal of a voice that dared to speak up for all of us.
Commissioner Simmons has stood firmly against the racist agenda pushed by Judge Tim O’Hare and the Republican Commissioners on the court. She spoke out against the rise in jail deaths under their watch. She called out the cruelty of defunding Girls Inc., a nonprofit that empowers young women of color. She opposed the elimination of free rides to the polls, which made it harder for working-class people, especially Black and brown voters, to cast a ballot.
And now, she’s being punished for it.
Commissioner Simmons wasn’t just a name on a ballot. She is my commissioner. I voted for her. I campaigned for her. And like thousands of others in Precinct 2, I saw her as a voice for the voiceless, a woman unafraid to shine a light on white supremacy, even when it came dressed in a suit and tie.
That light scared them. So they tried to snuff it out.
What we witnessed today was retaliation. It was white supremacy striking back at a Black woman who told the truth. And just like in Greenwood in 1962, they’re using the tools of power, maps, votes, and bureaucratic language, to do what they couldn’t do in public: silence her.
But we see it. We name it. And we will fight it.
The new map that the County Commissioners voted on today.
They said the map was designed to secure a Republican majority, not to silence Black voters. As if those two things aren’t deeply intertwined.
It’s the same argument Greg Abbott’s lawyers made in Shannon Perez v. Abbott, when Texas was caught racially gerrymandering districts. Their defense?
“It is not our intent to discriminate against minorities. It is our intent to discriminate against Democrats. If minorities happen to vote Democrat, that is their fault, not ours.”
That’s not a denial. That’s a confession….
Let’s stop pretending this distinction between race and party means anything in Texas. In Tarrant County, in Harris County, across the South, voter suppression by “party” is voter suppression by race. When you target the communities who dare to elect Black women, working-class progressives, young organizers, and civil rights leaders, you are targeting those communities on purpose.
They can say it’s about partisanship all they want. But we know what it’s really about.
Because when Conservatives talk about “conserving” something, they mean it.
They want to conserve white supremacy.
They want to conserve inequality, corporate power, and police brutality.
They want to conserve a system where jails are full, books are banned, teachers are silenced, and women don’t have autonomy.
They want to conserve a Texas where your zip code decides your worth, and where Black and brown voices are only welcome if they stay quiet.
And when people like Alisa Simmons refuse to stay quiet, they get erased.
But erasing her seat won’t erase her power, or ours….
Yesterday, far-right extremist Tony Tinderholt (R-HD94) announced he would not seek reelection to the Texas House. For a brief moment, there was celebration across Arlington. A man who built his career on cruelty, censorship, and conspiracy was finally stepping aside. But the celebration didn’t last.
Because today, just minutes after the Tarrant County Commissioners voted to dismantle Precinct 2, Tinderholt announced he would run for that very seat, Alisa Simmons’ newly gutted district.
And he didn’t come alone.
Cheryl Bean, another far-right extremist and ally of Tinderholt, announced her run for the now-open HD94 seat. A seat that was, conveniently, made safer for someone like her under the new maps.
Bean doesn’t even live in the district. She changed her voter registration to a new address inside it—an address she doesn’t own, according to the Tarrant Appraisal District. Her real home? Still outside the district lines. But facts don’t matter when the plan is to bulldoze through communities with precision and arrogance.
This wasn’t a coincidence. It was a coordinated political hit job, plain and simple.
A rigged map. A choreographed retirement. A handoff. A handpicked replacement. All timed to disempower the voices of Black and brown voters in Tarrant County. All orchestrated by Tim O’Hare and the extremist wing of the Republican Party.
John Martin is a plaintiff in one lawsuit and is the chairman of the California Part-Time Faculty Association.
Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
A pair of recent court decisions may bode well for the state’s part-time community college professors, known as adjuncts, who have argued for years that they work unpaid hours to meet students’ needs.
In Southern California, roughly 1,200 adjuncts who brought a class-action lawsuit against the Long Beach Community College District in 2022 are preparing for mediation to resolve claims of lost pay.
A judge would have to approve any settlement.
That the case proceeded to mediation after a judge denied a district motion to throw it out “is having a pretty substantial impact” in California as some districts are “looking at renegotiating their terms by which they’re paying adjunct faculty,” said Eileen Goldsmith, a San Francisco labor lawyer who represents the Long Beach plaintiffs. “Our case really started that process.”
A spokesperson for the Long Beach district said she could not comment on ongoing litigation.
Many issues cited in both suits were detailedin EdSource’s 2022 series Gig by Gig at California Community Colleges. Adjuncts routinely claim they are exploited by only being paid for time spent teaching, not for designing syllabi, grading, and answering student emails. Yet they are considered the backbone of the community college system, numbering more than 30,000.
In Sacramento County, a Superior Court judge ruled in March in a separate 2022 lawsuit that adjuncts working at colleges across the state are employees of the community college system’s board of governors — a decision that could lead to uniformity in pay across the 116-college system, said Dan Galpern, a lawyer for John Martin, the plaintiff in the case. Martin, an adjunct in the Shasta and Butte community college districts, is also chair of the California Part-Time Faculty Association.
He claims in the lawsuit that the board and districts violated state wage-and-hour laws by not paying for time spent preparing for classes, writing curriculum, grading, and interacting with students outside of class.
Lawyers for the community college system sought to have the suit thrown out, arguing that adjuncts work for local districts, not the state.
In a decision rejecting the request for dismissal, Judge Jill H. Talley wrote that because “the statutory scheme of the community colleges” requires the board of governors “to provide oversight, establish minimum employment standards, and to advise local community college districts on the implementation of state laws,” the board has “an obligation that extends to faculty wages.”
Martin called the judge’s decision to go forward “a big victory.”
The decision may be appealed.
California Community Colleges “does not control the wages, hours, and working conditions of part-time professors at local community college districts, which are established through collective bargaining at each individual district,” Melissa Villarin, spokesperson for the chancellor’s office, wrote in an email.
“The chancellor’s office is disappointed that it was unable to persuade (Talley) to adopt its motion for summary judgment, and will evaluate its legal options as this litigation moves forward,” she said.
The favorable ruling in Martin’s case and the mediation in the Long Beach case are building momentum for adjuncts to continue to push for pay for all hours worked, said Karen Roberts, an art history professor for more than 20 years in Long Beach who is one of the lead plaintiffs in the case.
“I got into academia as an idealist,” Roberts said Tuesday. “Join the professor ranks and we’re all gonna join hands and sing Kumbaya.” But, she said, adjuncts can’t let themselves “be exploited. We live in a capitalist economy. We have a moral obligation to take care of ourselves financially.”
The lawsuit, should the mediation result in awards for lost pay, should motivate adjuncts to stay active in unions and trade groups, she said.
The suits are clearly being watched around the state and have the potential to have important impacts, Stephanie Goldman, the executive director of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, said in an interview Tuesday.
It’s too soon to know how they might impact college district funding through Proposition 98, the 1988 ballot measure that sets funding levels for K-12 schools and community colleges based on the state general fund.
“That’s a really big and heavy question,” Goldman said. “I think ultimately it depends on how the lawsuits turn out and the reasoning behind it.”
Still, she said, schools across California are carefully watching to see what happens.
“I don’t think anybody would be surprised if it had a ripple effect across the state,” she said.
