اینترنت

نویسنده: post bot

  • How California teachers have navigated a contentious presidential election

    How California teachers have navigated a contentious presidential election


    Oakland High teacher Rachel Reinhard guides her students through the functions of the legislative branch during a U.S. Government class last week.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    In the months preceding this week’s election, some California history and social studies teachers have proceeded cautiously in covering the presidential campaign, while others have embraced the opportunity confidently and comprehensively.  But most included instruction about the presidential election in their courses, according to responses to an EdSource survey of California history and social science teachers.  

    Their responses underscore that most teachers understood the potential pitfalls of teaching politics in polarized times, compounded by a contagion of misinformation on social media. (Go here to read the questionnaire.)

    “A lot of kids are turned off about government and politics. We in the classroom are giving them a sense of access and empowerment,” said Rachel Reinhard, who teaches 12th grade U.S. History and Government at Oakland High School. “We’re showing that elections are ways that individuals can exert power on the system and make sense of an incredibly fast-paced and changing world.”

    Yet some teachers have struggled to explain how Republican Donald Trump’s rhetoric, threats of retribution, and vows to expel undocumented immigrants have added anxiety to an unprecedentedly tense and divisive election.

    “The dilemma for any responsible teacher right now is to explain the stakes while being nonpartisan,” said Mike Fishback, who teaches seventh- and eighth-grade social studies at Almaden Country Day School, a private school in San Jose.

    The California Council for the Social Studies agreed to send EdSource’s survey to its 2,000-member email list, which includes more than 500 active members, most of them teachers. Of those, 64 teachers — about 1 in 8 member teachers — returned the survey by the Oct. 16 deadline. EdSource did not require teachers to submit their names or their schools, although 16 teachers did identify themselves, and many said they were willing to be contacted for an EdSource article.

    Among the top-line results of the survey:

    • More than three-quarters of teachers who answered the survey said they are teaching about the election and the presidential campaign, and most of those who aren’t said it was their choice, not a district mandate.
    • Asked if they planned to discuss the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, 37% said no, 29% said yes, and 34% said maybe.
    • Asked if they planned to discuss potential election interference, 39% said no, 23% said yes, and 38% said maybe.
    • Asked to express their level of concern about student incivility in dealing with the election, 44% said they were slightly or not at all concerned; 23% said they were somewhat concerned; and 15% said they were moderately, very or greatly concerned. An additional 19% said they were neutral on the issue.

    Inoculating for incivility

    Creating a classroom culture of respect is critical to promoting openness and avoiding disrespect amid disagreements, Barrett Vitol, a U.S. History and Government teacher at Aptos High in Pajaro Valley Unified, told EdSource. He characterized the district as politically and economically diverse with “extreme wealth and hard poverty,” where some students in farmworker families “are genuinely worried” about the outcome of the election.

    “When we come together in August, we spend a lot of time helping to build community,” said Vitol, who said he shares with students his own experience as a volunteer for the 2000 Democratic presidential campaign for then Vice President Al Gore.

    “You have to role model someone who will be politically active without disrespecting other people,” he said, adding that he also relies on humor to defuse tensions.

    Bob Kelly, a U.S. History and Government teacher at the 500-student Minarets High and Charter High School in Chawanakee Unified, also set class norms early in the year, with a “social compact that holds the students accountable to being respectful to each other,” he said. The rural school district abuts Yosemite National Park.

    Bruce Aster, who teaches U.S. Government at Carlsbad High School, said that his goal “is to teach civil discourse from day one.” He tells his students, ‘If you demonize your opponent, you will not get their ears.’ That’s a big theme in all my classes.”

     Many of the teachers cited guides and resources they drew on to promote civil dialogue, bridge differences of opinion and lay out frameworks for discussions. Popular sources include Braver Angels, a volunteer-led national nonprofit, and Boston-based Facing History and Ourselves, which offers lessons, explainers and activities on teaching the election.

    While sources of misinformation have proliferated on the internet, so have tools to expose them. Teachers pointed to sites like adfontesmedia.com, AllSides.com and mediafactcheck.com that analyze news sources’ reliability and point to alternative sources with different political perspectives.

    Reinhard refers to encouraging students to seek trustworthy and accurate news sources as building a “muscle memory.”

    “I am hoping they would create a habit to counter what they are seeing on social media,” said Reinhard, who is in her second year teaching high school in Oakland after serving as director of the UC Berkeley History-Social Science Project; it supports K-12 teachers in planning for history instruction.

    Oakland High teacher Rachel Reinhard interacts with students during a U.S. Government class last week.
    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Karen Clark Yamamoto, who chairs the history department at Western High in the Anaheim Union High School District, said students found the revelations of bias in their favorite sites enlightening. “They realized, ‘I don’t know as much as I thought I did,’” she said.

    To help students clarify their own political views, several teachers had students take the Pew Media Typology Quiz, whose questions reveal whether students have conservative or liberal philosophies.  

    Classroom priorities and strategies  

    The EdSource questionnaire asked teachers to describe the focus of their instruction and their plans for covering the election. The consensus was that a teacher should give students the tools to make informed choices about candidates and ballot issues.

    James Yates, a teacher at Stellar Charter School in Redding, wrote, “I will teach my students how to investigate each candidate. I want them to look past the rumors and prejudice to see who will really help our country thrive.”

    Kelly wrote, “We focus on helping the students make sense of the offices, candidates and propositions by understanding which issues matter to them the most.”

    “Essentially, we focus on students informing themselves and using their own ideology to decide what is best,” said Jon Resendez, a U.S. Government and Economics teacher at Portola High in Irvine Unified. He has found that students, unlike some of their parents, are open when forming their political beliefs. 

    Irvine Unified teacher Jon Resendez discusses the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence during a recent class at Portola High.
    Credit: Kaushika (Kaushi) Palliboyina

    “It’s normal for teenagers to be more flexible than adults in their perspective as they learn more,” he said. “They adjust their voting behavior.”

    Little outside criticism

    Slightly more than a third of teachers responded to the question about whether they had experienced any criticism from teaching about the presidential election. The majority — 16 of 23 — said they had not, but five reported being criticized by parents, three by students and two by administrators or other colleagues. 

    All eight teachers EdSource spoke with said they were unconcerned about parental pressure or criticism.

    “No parents are reaching out to express concern,” said Resendez. “Parents assume we will tackle issues head-on.”

    Kelly, of Chawanakee Unified, uses his students’ work to inform parents about the elections. His students created election guides that they shared at the school’s back-to-school showcase in late October. It included separate objective profiles of Democrat Kamala Harris and Trump, drafted by students chosen because they didn’t support the candidates, Kelly said, along with summaries of local candidates and statewide ballot propositions.

    At his back-to-school night, Fishback, of the Almaden County Day School in San Jose, encourages parents of his middle school students to discuss election issues and candidates with them.

    He said that he tells them, “’I need you. If you have not passed along your political values, now is the time to do it. I want them to come to class knowing what families believe and why. My job is to help the students encounter and engage with different perspectives on a variety of contentious issues.’ ”

    What the teachers taught and how

    The survey asked teachers to check off a list of topics for presenting the presidential election and to add to it. Of 48 teachers who responded to the question, 37 said they reviewed candidates’ positions on key issues and 35 discussed the Electoral College; 28 asked students to explain issues that are important to them and 23 included fact-checking candidates’ claims and statements. Fifteen said they discussed claims that there would be widespread voter fraud.

    One teacher included discussing gerrymandering, and another said classes would focus on differences among political parties but not the candidates themselves.

    The teachers reported that they approached the topics with different strategies. Some had students participate in the traditional statewide mock election organized by the California Secretary of State or held their own elections. Some teachers held candidates’ debates, while others intentionally did not, focusing instead on objective analyses of candidates’ positions and the accuracy of media coverage.

    “I’m not interested in debates,” said Reinhard of Oakland High. “Debates often create false parity. I’m not interested in having students try to win a debate around some information I find problematic.”

    Yamamoto asks her students in Anaheim to pick five issues they care about and investigate the positions of the parties and the candidates’ websites to determine which party more closely aligns with their views. Inflation, health care and reproductive rights were among the issues. They did the same process with the 10 state initiatives on the ballot.

    Barrett organized a model Congress for his students at Aptos High. Students wrote their own bills and had to persuade committee chairs and each legislative house to pass them. “Extreme” bills on immigration didn’t make the cut; those that did pass include creating affordable health care, limiting homework, requiring those over 70 to take an extra diving test, taxing billionaires, and granting immigrants who pay taxes for five years a path to citizenship, he said.

    Some students become deeply invested in their bills, but usually they can control themselves, Barrett said.

    Aster, of Carlsbad, and Kelly, of Chawanakee Unified, continued what they have done for years: bringing in outside speakers to represent parties and candidates for a debate run by students. “We seek regular folks, not politicians,” said Aster. “It’s always civil, and students see that you can be gracious while speaking strongly.”

    Several teachers said they didn’t avoid controversy, including looking at the rhetoric of the campaign: Trump’s racist language and post-election authoritarian threats and Democrats’ calling him a “fascist” and a “clown.” But students looked at the furor through an analytical lens to keep discussions “from going off the rails,” said Fishback. He asked his students, How would you characterize Trump, and what has been the impact of his language on the campaign?

    Most teachers emphasized they kept their own presidential preferences to themselves. “I work hard to be objective; I want it to be a mystery as to my views, though I don’t want them to think I don’t care,” said Aster. Kelly said he would tell students after the election whom he voted for if they asked.

    “As much I like to lean into politics, the line I don’t cross is siding with one candidate over another,” said Fishback.

    Seeing themselves as voters

    Aster has been teaching high school for more than three decades.

    “I see part of my job is to be a cheerleader for the American system and to have them look forward to participating in it,” Aster said.  “I don’t want them to come away thinking the system is rigged.”

    Last spring, when it appeared likely to be Trump vs. Joe Biden, students in Reinhard’s Government class at Oakland High had no interest in the election. “They were deadened by it,” she said. The nomination of Harris, the hometown candidate and a younger woman of color, however, at least sparked interest, she said.

    More findings in the EdSource Questionnaire
    • The teachers were from all regions of the state, with 27% from Southern California, 17% from the Central Valley and Central Coast and 17% from the San Francisco Bay Areas, 14% from the Sacramento area, 10% from Northern California, 9% from the San Diego area and 3% from the Inland Empire of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
    • Of the teachers who said they aren’t teaching about the presidential election, only three – two who teach in a largely Democratic district and one from a largely Republican district – said it was their school’s and/or district’s policy not to discuss the subject. Another teacher is discussing the election but not the candidates.
    • Offered multiple choices to explain their reasons for not teaching the election to their students, the majority said there is too much other course material to get through, especially AP courses in U.S. History and Economics and one semester in Government. However, one-third of the 24 respondents to this question said they were concerned about complaints from parents, and five teachers said they had reservations that students would discuss the election respectfully. Five teachers said they were unsure how to address the subject.
    • Teachers were evenly split on how much time to spend on the election, with 39% of 49 respondents spending more than one week on it and 39% spending between two days and a week. Several said they spread discussion of the election out over time, based on topics in the courses they were teaching, and another teacher said five to 10 minutes per day.
    • Most of the respondents were high school teachers who teach multiple subjects; 43% introduced the election in a 12th grade Government course, while 42% taught it in 11th grade American History; 27% taught it in 9th grade Ethnic Studies and 25% introduced it in 10th grade World History. A quarter of respondents were middle school social studies teachers. Individual teachers taught it in AP Psychology, ninth grade Geography, and an English course in persuasive essays.





    Source link

  • All students can excel in advanced mathematics

    All students can excel in advanced mathematics


    Students in Rebecca Pariso’s seventh-grade math class designed and created piñatas with specific volume and surface area constraints.

    Courtesy: Rebecca Pariso

    Last year, my seventh-grade class created at-scale drawings of cost-efficient cabins for an outdoor education camp. Using three-dimensional figures and proportional reasoning, my students designed and created piñatas with specific volume and surface area constraints. We completed many challenging test questions, such as: If eight and a half cups of flour are needed for five and three-quarter cups of sugar, how much sugar is needed for one cup of flour?

    Such problems require higher-level thinking skills and a lot of grit. The number of students in my classroom who did not meet the standard on the state test was the lowest in nine years. The number of proficient students doubled compared with last year’s seventh-grade class. 

    Contrary to what you might expect, I was not teaching an honors math class. Instead, my students were a diverse group wholly representative of our student population. In my district, 89% of students are Hispanic or Latino, 24% are multilingual learners, and 81% are socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The accomplishments of the students in my class are a testament to what happens when our educational system becomes inclusive. 

    Take Luciana, for example. She walked into my classroom with bangs covering her eyes and an oversize sweatshirt covering the rest of her face. She was used to not being seen by people, but I saw her potential in mathematics. At first, Luciana talked to no one and hid in the back of the classroom while she did the math. By the end of the year, her bangs were parted down the middle and her hands were outside her oversize sweatshirt. It was incredible to see Luciana’s transformation. She had raised her score two band levels and was considered proficient in seventh-grade mathematics. 

    Math is the most tracked subject in the United States. (Tracking is the practice of placing students in different classes or levels based on perceived ability.) Historically, specific student groups, predominantly Black, Latino, and low-income students, have been underrepresented in advanced math courses like honors classes. On the other hand, students from more affluent backgrounds, mainly white and Asian students, tend to be overrepresented in these programs. This can be attributed to many educational inequities, including school funding disparities, which affect the availability and quality of advanced math courses in schools serving low-income communities. Research shows that these schools often need more resources, experienced teachers and challenging curricula that promote success in these advanced courses. 

    This setup doesn’t serve anyone. My students are just as capable as any other students, honors or otherwise, of succeeding in a math class rich in project-based learning and rigorous problem-solving. Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that separating students based on skills and abilities widens the achievement gap between minority students like Luciana, low-performing students, and students of low socioeconomic status. Luciana and every other student in California deserve to be in a class rich in high-quality math instruction, where they can connect their learning to their school and community, conduct open-ended inquiry, and engage in reflective learning. 

    In 2020, I was one of 20 educators to serve on a committee with the California Department of Education to help with the revision of the math framework. As a result, I have come to see that a paradigm shift must occur in how we define an inclusive math classroom. California Common Core State Standards challenge us to go deeper than just recall and procedural fluency, and my students’ achievements reflect a broader truth: All children, regardless of background, can excel when given the opportunity to engage in meaningful, high-quality math instruction. 

    By creating a learning environment emphasizing problem-solving, collaboration, and high expectations, I enabled my students to rise to the challenge — proving that diversity and background is not a barrier but an asset. Our educational system must stop limiting students based on preconceived notions and instead embrace inclusive teaching methods that unlock every student’s potential. Every child deserves the chance to succeed, and my class proves that they can do so with the right approach.

    •••

    Rebecca Pariso is a seventh-grade math teacher at EO Green Junior High School in Oxnard and a Teach Plus California Senior Policy Fellow.

    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.





    Source link

  • Harris or Trump? A lot at stake today for California students

    Harris or Trump? A lot at stake today for California students


    A person stops to watch a screen displaying the U.S. presidential debate in September between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in Washington.

    Credit: Democracy News Alliance/news aktuell via AP Images

    Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have contrasting visions of schools and the federal government’s role in funding and shaping them. Today, voters will pick a president and his or her educational agenda.

    Based on what he said during the campaign, Trump would pursue radical changes from the conservative playbook, such as abolishing the Department of Education, withholding federal funding from states like California that protect transgender students, stripping the department’s Office of Civil Rights of defenders of civil rights, and elevating the case for school vouchers and programs of choice.

    Harris also has priorities that would affect the lives of children, including increasing the child tax credit by thousands of dollars and making universal prekindergarten a national priority. During the vice presidential debate, candidates Tim Walz and J.D. Vance found common ground on more federal support for early childhood. Harris wants to expand the federal child tax credit, now $2,000, to $6,000. Vance supports raising it to $5,000, paid for by raising tariffs on all imported goods.

    Harris has vowed to find common ground and negotiate with Republicans. Trump is a disrupter who is confident the Supreme Court won’t stand in his way. Much of his rhetoric could prove to be bluster that a narrowly divided Congress will ignore. Harris’ priorities may face the same fate.

    Here are some examples of policies that, depending on who wins the presidency, could change the nation’s educational system.

    Trump policies could mean big changes

    Abolishing the federal Department of Education has been an idea circulating among Republicans off and on since its creation 45 years ago during the Carter administration.

    Trump has revived the idea of targeting the department, which he calls a waste of money and an intrusion on states’ authority.

    But only Congress can abolish what it established, and it would take Republican control of the House, and perhaps the elimination of the filibuster in the Senate, for this to happen.

    Then Congress would have to decide how to handle, up until now, untouchable funding streams for Title I and special education.

    A less drastic option would be to transfer the department’s functions to the Labor Department or, for Pell Grants and federal higher education aid, to the Treasury Department. But if that happens, there probably wouldn’t be “much impact beyond the Beltway,” observed conservative writer Rick Hess.    

    School choice

    Trump has pledged to offer “universal school choice” through some form of taxpayer support that could underwrite private school tuition, which also was a major goal of his first administration.

    It would not find fertile ground in California. “Twice in the last three decades, California voters have decisively rejected taxpayer-funded voucher plans — the last time in 2020 — and no one has ventured to put a similar initiative on the ballot since. Any such plan would also run into resistance from the state Legislature as well as teachers’ unions, which would see a voucher plan as a threat to public schools.

    It is possible, however, that if Republicans gained control of Congress, they could pass one or more variations of a voucher plan — like setting up education savings accounts that for-profit companies could donate funds to in return for tax credits. These funds could then be awarded in the form of scholarships to eligible students and families. If — and it is a big if — the federal government were to set up a program like this, California might have no choice but to allow families to take advantage of it. 

    “Twice in the last three decades California voters have decisively rejected taxpayer-funded voucher plans –the last time in 2020 — and no one has ventured to put a similar initiative on the ballot since.

    Immigration

    A Trump win could cause widespread fear for many California children. An estimated 1 million California children — about 1 in 10 — have an undocumented immigrant parent. About 165,000 California students are recent immigrants themselves.

    Trump has pledged to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, and has said immigrant children who do not speak English are a burden to public schools, an idea that aligns with a plan from the conservative Heritage Foundation to end the right to public education for undocumented children.

    Curriculum

    Trump wants to have more say about what students are taught in school. He has said they should be taught reading, writing and math, and not about gender, sex and race. He has threatened to stop funding schools that teach students about topics like slavery or systemic racism. 

    In California, the State Board of Education sets policy regarding academic standards, curriculum, instructional materials and assessments. Local school districts decide how they will implement curriculum requirements. It isn’t clear whether Trump would be able to make changes at the federal level that would impact the state’s curriculum, including new ethnic study graduation requirements that will start with the graduating class of 2029-30. 

    Vaccination

    Trump has vowed to cut federal funding to schools that mandate vaccinations, a move that runs counter to California’s requirement that all children have 10 vaccinations against disease to attend school. It is unlikely that Trump could simply strip schools of federal funding and, because there is no federal mandate to vaccinate students, stopping them from doing so will almost certainly require congressional action. 

    Just days before the election, Trump heightened attention to the issue when he told reporters that he will find a place in his administration for campaign adviser Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent vaccine skeptic, and would consider banning some vaccinations.  

    Water fluoridation

    In a late campaign development, Trump said, if elected, he would act on Kennedy’s proposal to remove fluoride from America’s drinking water, although it’s unclear how that would be accomplished.

    Fluoride, which helps children grow strong teeth, is also commonly present in toothpaste and mouthwash. Its use across the country and globe, starting in the 1950s, was considered one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century. Studies have shown that poor oral health is linked to poorer academic outcomes.

    Kennedy, a former environmental lawyer, has long railed against man-made chemicals and claimed some could be making children gay or transgender. Numerous studies have found that the level of fluoride in drinking water is safe.

    Cultural attacks

    Conservative groups leveraged parental angst over Covid-19 school closures and masking policies to ignite a “parents’ rights” movement that has since pushed back against educational policies on gender identity and racial equity, which Trump has vowed to eliminate. Some school board meetings have been so incendiary that school districts have had to pay for additional security to keep unruly audiences in order. Some think a Trump victory will further embolden far-right conservative activists.

    “I think that a Trump victory will lead some on the right to take the message that these sorts of cultural attacks that have been playing out across the United States, and across California in the last couple of years, are an effective strategy for mobilizing the base and for energizing an electorate,” John Rogers, director of UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education and Access, told EdSource. 

    Higher education

    In response to pro-Palestinian sentiment on some college campuses in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the Trump campaign in November 2023 proposed “taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments” and using the money to establish a free, online educational institution where “there will be no wokeness or jihadism allowed.” Politico reported that plans for the new institution — to be called the American Academy — called for giving students credit for previous coursework and granting credentials students could use to seek jobs with the federal government and its contractors.

    Harris to focus on early childhood, paid leave

    Harris has said she would make child care more affordable for American families by starting a program that limits a family’s cost to 7% of their income. It is unclear how this program would be funded.

    Harris also said she would support paid family leave for workers who need to care for newborns or ill family members. So far, attempts to pass paid family leave in Congress have been unsuccessful, and the extent to which a Harris administration would be able to expand child care programs will depend heavily on the makeup of Congress. 

    Even though the Senate almost certainly will be in Republican hands, child care and preschool is one issue that has significant bipartisan support, so this is one area where Harris could make headway. 

    Student loan forgiveness

    Harris’ platform notes that she plans to “continue working to end the unreasonable burden of student loan debt,” though it doesn’t offer specifics, and she has said little else on the campaign trail. Any significant action hinges on the Democrats winning back control of Congress — an unlikely outcome. That’s because President Joe Biden’s most sweeping actions on student loan forgiveness programs have been blocked by the courts. In 2022, for example, the Supreme Court blocked his plan to cancel more than $400 billion in loans, ruling he didn’t have the authority to cancel that debt. However, the Biden administration was able to have millions of loans forgiven through executive action, and Harris would no doubt seek ways to continue to do that.

    Workforce development

    Harris has previously promised that, if elected, her administration would remove degree requirements for some careers in the federal government. In remarks last week, she took that commitment a step further, pledging to “eliminate unnecessary degree requirements for federal jobs” through an executive order signed on the first day of her presidency, according to Politico. 

    For-profit colleges

    During her campaign, Harris has repeatedly referred to her record while attorney general of California when she filed a lawsuit against the California-based Corinthian Colleges for false advertising and deceptive marketing practices, especially those targeting low-income students. 

    The Trump administration reversed Obama-era policies implementing greater regulation of for-profit colleges, and some of these were in turn reversed by the Biden administration. Last year, it introduced regulations intended to ensure that students are prepared by these colleges for “gainful employment.” But the task of regulating for-profit colleges is far from complete, and it is likely that a Harris administration would attempt to extend the efforts of her Democratic predecessors in the White House. 

    Areas of agreement?

    Notwithstanding the candidates’ diametric differences on many issues, there may be opportunities for compromise, whoever wins.

    Both parties want more support for career and technical education. Trump’s platform says he favors funding preferences for schools that provide internships and summer jobs aligned to future careers.

    Both Harris and Trump emphasized support for historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which supply 20% of the nation’s Black college graduates. In 2020, Trump reauthorized $225 million in funding for minority-serving institutions, including $85 million in recurring funds for HBCUs. The Biden-Harris administration upped the ante with $17.3 billion during the past four years, including $1.3 billion announced in September.

    During the vice presidential debate, candidates Tim Walz and J.D. Vance found common ground on more federal support for early childhood. Harris wants to expand the federal child tax credit, now $2,000, to $6,000. Vance supports raising it to $5,000, paid for by raising tariffs on all imported goods.





    Source link

  • Dana Milbank: Trump and His Ideas are Meshuggene

    Dana Milbank: Trump and His Ideas are Meshuggene


    Dana Milbank tries to find humor in Trump’s disastrous policies. Trump inherited a healthy economy. In only a few months, he has repeatedly crashed the stock market, wiping out trillions of dollars. He announced global tariffs on what he called “Liberation Day,” he lunges forward with his latest nutty idea (seizing control of Greenland), then lurches back for a brief period of sanity. No one seems able to modulate his behavior. The good news is that his poll numbers continue to fall.

    Dana Milbank, a regular columnist for The Washington Post, reviewed some of the latest nuttiness, giving evidence that searing critiques of Trump do survive publication in The Post.

    He writes:

    I love it when MAGA bros speak Yiddish.
    “The president deserves better than the current mishegoss at the Pentagon,” John Ullyot, who just quit as a top aide to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, wrote in a takedown of his former boss in Politico this week.

    Ullyot, who had been the department’s chief spokesman, described “a month of total chaos at the Pentagon,” a “near collapse inside the Pentagon’s top ranks” and a “full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon,” and he alleged that “the Pentagon focus is no longer on warfighting, but on endless drama.”

    Let me offer Ullyot a heartfelt mazel tov, both for his courage and for his use of the term “mishegoss” — which is on point, if not entirely precise. It means, literally, “insanity,” though as Leo Rosten noted in “The Joys of Yiddish,” mishegoss “is nearly always used in an amused, indulgent way” to connote tomfoolery. But there is nothing amusing about what these shmegegges are doing at the Pentagon. Their insanity is putting the lives of our troops and the security of our nation at risk.

    We now know the woefully unqualified Hegseth, a former Fox News personality, shared details of a military operation in a second Signal chat; this one, the New York Times reported, included his wife, brother and lawyer. He also had the app put on his Defense Department computer. Hegseth has purged his top staff — people he just hired — and blames them for a series of damaging leaks. He set up a top secret briefing on China for Elon Musk, ignoring an outrageous conflict of interest that even the Trump White House couldn’t stomach. He brought his wife to sensitive meetings. He had a makeup studio set up for TV appearances, CBS News reported.

    Under Hegseth, the whole place has devolved into paranoia and vulgar recriminations. Hegseth’s ousted chief of staff, two of his former colleagues told Politico, “graphically described his bowel movements to colleagues in one high-level meeting.”

    Oy gevalt.

    It’s not just at the Pentagon. Across the executive branch, in agency after agency, it’s amateur hour under the Trump administration.

    That titanic legal battle with Harvard University now underway over academic freedom and billions of dollars in grants? The whole thing might have been set off by mistake. The Times reported that the university, after announcing its intention to fight the administration, received a “frantic call from a Trump official” saying the administration’s letter full of outrageous demands that provoked the standoff was “unauthorized” and should not have been sent.

    Likewise, in the celebrated case of Kilmar Abrego García, deported from Maryland to El Salvador in violation of a court order, the Trump administration blamed “an administrative error” and “an oversight” for the original deportation.

    Now, the administration is trying to justify Abrego García’s deportation retroactively with a statement from a disgraced police officer who claims the Maryland resident was an “active member” of the MS-13 gang in Upstate New York — where he has never lived.

    And — oops — the administration did it again. On Wednesday, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the administration had deported another person, a 20-year-old Venezuelan migrant, in violation of a court-approved settlement, and must facilitate his return.

    There’s mishegoss at the IRS, which is now on its fifth commissioner in three months; the last one presided for only three days before being replaced last week, the victim of a power struggle between Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that exploded into a shouting match in the West Wing.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store at the White House on Thursday. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
    There’s mishegoss at the Department of Homeland Security, where Secretary Kristi Noem had her Gucci bag containing $3,000 in cash stolen from under her seat at the Capital Burger restaurant in D.C. on Sunday. This follows her recent visit to El Salvador, where she posed in front of imprisoned deportees while wearing a $50,000 Rolex.

    There’s mishegoss at the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made the ridiculous claims this week that “teenagers in this country have the same testosterone levels as 68-year-old men” and that diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, which have been described in medical literature for centuries, “were just unknown when I was a kid.”

    There’s mishegoss in the White House briefing room, where press secretary Karoline Leavitt this week gave a seat of honor and the first question to far-right influencer Tim Pool, who has various white-nationalist ties and was funded (unknowingly, he says) by a Russian propaganda outlet.

    There’s mishegoss at the National Security Council, where national security adviser Mike Waltz, while promoting the fiction that the president’s unilateral executive orders are acts of Congress, claimed this week that Trump “just passed an amazing executive order” — as though it were a kidney stone.
    But the meshuggener in chief resides in the Oval Office. There, Trump announced this week that “the cost of eggs has come down like 93, 94 percent since we took office.” If that were true, eggs should now cost about 39 cents per dozen.
    Cock-a-doodle-doo!


    Trump edged closer this week to admitting that the centerpiece of his economic agenda — his trade war — was a mistake. Two weeks ago, Trump was still attacking China for its “lack of respect” and raising tariffs on Beijing to 145 percent. But as stock markets were finishing what would have been their worst April since the Great Depression, Trump did another about-face, as he had done earlier with his “reciprocal” tariffs. “We’re going to be very nice” to China, he said this week, and the tariffs “won’t be anywhere near” the current 145 percent. In China, which denied Trump’s claim that the two countries were in talks, analysts claimed victory, citing Trump’s “panicking.”

    The markets also forced Trump to acknowledge error in his plans to oust Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Last week, Trump proclaimed that Powell’s “termination cannot come fast enough,” and Trump’s top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, said that “the president and his team will continue to study” the legality of firing Powell. But Trump reversed himself this week, saying he had no plans to fire Powell: “None whatsoever. Never did.”


    Why would anyone think otherwise?

    Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Feb. 11. (Valerie Plesch/For The Washington Post)
    The president can’t even seem to keep his endorsements straight. In December, he endorsed Karrin Taylor Robson’s candidacy for Arizona governor. But this week, he announced that he was also endorsing Robson’s opponent in the GOP primary, Rep. Andy Biggs. He offered “MY COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT TO BOTH.”


    We are by now accustomed to Trump’s amateurism. When he rolled out his “reciprocal” tariffs, they targeted penguin-occupied Antarctic outposts and the like. When his administration rolled out its memo requiring a government-wide spending freeze, the memo was quickly rescinded, as White House officials claimed it (like the Harvard letter) hadn’t been approved.

    The whole meshuggene administration could use some oversight. So what is Congress doing? Well, Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin and chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, announced this week that he would hold a hearing on … his belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an inside job. “Start with Building Seven,” he said during a podcast, referring to a common conspiracy theory. He said that the World Trade Center structure collapsed because of a “controlled demolition,” that the evidence was destroyed, and that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s investigation was “corrupt.” Quoth QAnon Ron: “My guess is there’s an awful lot being covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.”


    Trump this week voiced his determination that “we’re not going to be a laughingstock” among nations. It’s a bit late for that.


    Let’s review where Trump’s mistakes have left us over the past week.


    The International Monetary Fund reduced growth forecasts for the United States to just 1.8 percent this year, down from 2.8 percent last year, in large part because of Trump’s trade war. After saying it would reach 90 trade deals in 90 days, the administration has yet to negotiate even one. The CEOs of Walmart, Target and Home Depot warned the president that his tariffs would lead to empty shelves, as Axios first reported — part of what caused Trump’s latest surrender on China. Markets were pleased, but Americans have been deeply shaken. A Gallup poll found a record number of people saying their personal financial situation is deteriorating. A Reuters-Ipsos poll found that only 37 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, lower than it ever was during his first term. Fox News found that Trump is lower in public esteem than any other president has been at the 100-day mark in more than a quarter-century.

    Trump’s cruelty, by contrast, exceeds that of all others. Gothamist, a publication of New York Public Radio, carried a heartbreaking account this week of migrant children at shelters in New York facing an immigration judge alone because the Trump administration has cut off the funding that provides them with lawyers. The judge explained why the United States wants to deport a group that “included a 7-year-old boy, wearing a shirt emblazoned with a pizza cartoon, who spun a toy windmill.” The report went on: “There was an 8-year-old girl and her 4-year-old sister, in a tie-dye shirt, who squeezed a pink plushy toy and stuffed it into her sleeve. None of the children were accompanied by parents or attorneys, only shelter workers who helped them log on to the hearing.”


    In foreign affairs, Trump is proposing the most odious appeasement in Europe since Neville Chamberlain abandoned the Sudetenland. He is demanding Ukraine surrender the 20 percent of its country, including Crimea, that Vladimir Putin has seized and abandon any hope of joining NATO. When Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky understandably protested, Trump dismissed him as a man with “no cards to play.” Putin continues some of his most savage attacks of the war (Russian strikes on Kyiv early Thursday killed at least 12 people and wounded about 90 others) in expectation that Trump will force Ukraine to give up even more. “Vladimir, STOP!” Trump pleaded in a Truth Social post on Thursday morning. (Trump simultaneously resumed his attacks on our former friend and ally Canada, saying it “would cease to exist” as a country without U.S. support.)

    Police officers help an injured woman leave her damaged house in Kyiv after a Russian airstrike on Thursday. (Evgeniy Maloletka/AP)
    Trump’s corruption has become even more brazen. A website promoting Trump’s cryptocurrency “meme coin,” $TRUMP, announced that the top 220 investors in the meme coin — proceeds of which go directly to Trump and his family — would be invited to an “Intimate Private Dinner” with the president and a “Special VIP tour.” The Justice Department has stepped in to help Trump in his appeal of the $83 million jury award against him for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, which would amount to a gift by the taxpayers to Trump of millions of dollars in legal fees. A Trump political appointee at the Treasury Department has asked the IRS to reconsider audits of two “high profile friends of the president,” including MyPillow’s Mike Lindell, The Post’s Jacob Bogage reported. And Musk’s SpaceX is poised to be given a juicy contract by the Pentagon to build Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile shield.

    To arrest Trump’s ongoing abuses of power, judges have now weighed in more than 100 times blocking his actions, at least temporarily. Though Trump officials, including an increasingly hysterical Stephen Miller, blame a “rogue, radical-left judiciary” and “communist, left-wing judges” (as Miller screamed Wednesday night on Fox News’s “Hannity”), the judges include conservatives such as Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, who this week ordered the administration to restore Voice of America. Lamberth said the administration’s attempt to shut down VOA was “a direct affront to the power of the legislative branch” and said it would be “hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions.”

    Likewise, appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative icon, last week said the administration’s deportations without due process were a threat to “the foundation of our constitutional order” and should be “shocking not only to judges but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.” Yet Trump continues to worsen the constitutional crisis by ignoring or slow-walking responses to court orders, not just in deportation cases but also in cases where courts have blocked the firings of federal workers, such as those employed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    This largely illegal destruction of federal functions continues to pile up casualties and proposed casualties: Food-safety inspections. Efforts to make infant formula safer. Milk testing. Weather balloons. Monitoring of IVF treatment safety. Data on maternal health. The administration has even tried to sell off the Montgomery, Alabama, bus station where Freedom Riders were attacked in 1961; it now houses the Freedom Rides Museum. Republican Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia proposed a plan that would sharply cut what the federal government spends on Medicaid. Happily, after a disastrous quarter for Tesla (net income fell 71 percent, largely because of its CEO’s antics), Musk said he would “significantly” reduce his time spent on his government work, calling the cost-slashing effort “mostly done.” His boss is apparently moving on. “He was a tremendous help,” Trump said on Wednesday, in an unmistakable shift to the past tense.

    And Trump continues to Trump. Twice in the past week, he has posted a photo from the Oval Office of himself holding an image purporting to show the knuckles of deportee Abrego García, with a message saying “He’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles.” But the “MS-13” characters are obviously photoshopped, as clumsily done as Trump’s one-time manipulation of a government weather map with a Sharpie.

    Surrounded by young children at the White House Easter Egg Roll, Trump entertained them by showing them a different photo: that of him, bloodied, after last year’s assassination attempt.

    Meshuggene doesn’t begin to capture it.



    Source link

  • ‘Nothing about us without us,’ students say as they head to polls

    ‘Nothing about us without us,’ students say as they head to polls


    Student-run school board candidates’ forum at Fremont High School on Oct. 22, 2024. 

    Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

    While most attention in the United States is focused on the presidential elections today, I’ll be watching two local school board races that will be historic for a completely different reason. 

    For the first time, young people aged 16 and 17 in Oakland and nearby Berkeley will be voting in school board elections. 

    Although some smaller communities in Maryland have extended a limited vote to a similar age group, Oakland, with a total population of over 400,000, is the largest community in the nation to do so by far.

    The initiative came about as a result of youth organizing that put pressure on their city councils to place measures on the ballot allowing young people aged 16 and over to vote in their local school board elections. Berkeley voters passed a law approving the change in 2017 and Oakland voters in 2020. It has taken years to bring the idea to fruition.

    When I heard about this effort, I was deeply skeptical.

    After all, school board meetings are, for the most part, sleepy affairs — unless there is a controversy that rouses parents and students, like school closures or political battles over curricula, book bans and other hot-button issues.

    It is hard enough to get parents interested in school board politics. It seemed to me even less likely that teenagers would embrace doing so with enough gusto to justify the effort and expense of giving them the vote.

    But after attending a school board candidates’ forum organized by students in Oakland two weeks ago — and speaking to the candidates vying for their votes, I now have a different view.    

    I’m convinced that having young people involved in school board politics and decision-making is more than just a nice idea.

    For one thing, we know that the earlier young people participate in the democratic process, the more likely they are to do so as adults. It is also a powerful way to get young people involved in shaping institutions that affect them profoundly, and which they have intimate knowledge of:  the schools where they spend much of their time during their adolescence.   

    The forum itself was a rousing affair, and ran from 5 to 8 p.m. Six of the seven candidates running for the board showed up for the event. (The seventh was out of the country and sent a representative.) There were 200 students, most of whom stayed until the end of the marathon interrogation. Many wore T-shirts with the slogans, “My Vote Will Make History” on the front and, on the back, “Nothing About Us Without Us.”

    Each candidate had one minute to respond to a set of questions students projected on a screen. If candidates went over the time limit, their microphones were shut off, so the candidates mostly obeyed the rules. And they answered the questions seriously without being patronizing. 

    Oakland school board candidates spoke in front of 200 students at Fremont High School on Oct. 22, 2024.
    Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

    These student voters are arguably going to be a lot more informed than most older ones who may not have been inside a school in years. Many adult voters have only the barest idea about current school concerns or what goes on inside their walls.

    Let’s be honest: With rare exceptions, votes for school boards are typically the last thing many, if not most, voters pay attention to.

    “A lot of adults are making decisions about our schools when they’re not even the ones in the school,” Edamevoh Ajayi, a senior at Oakland Technical High School who has been a leader in the Oakland youth vote project, told me. “So they wouldn’t even know what to change.”

    “At least for students, we haven’t really been welcomed,” she said, referring to district governance in general. “It’s kind of been an adult-led space.”

    It would be one thing if things were going well in their district, and adult leaders had proven themselves. But once again, the district is in crisis as it copes with declining enrollment, poor attendance, a massive budget deficit, and the prospect of having to close or merge schools next year. There is a real chance of a state takeover — a repeat of what happened 20 years ago when the district had to get a $100 million loan from the state to bail it out.

    Getting students’ voices into the mix certainly can’t hurt, and is more likely to help.  That’s in addition to the long-term benefits of getting young people involved in our democracy at an earlier age.  

    As Patrice Berry, a former teacher running for the Oakland school board, told me after facing students at the candidates’ forum, “They’re going to make us better overall.”

    •••

    Louis Freedberg is EdSource’s interim executive director.

    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.

    Related podcast:





    Source link

  • California voters say yes to $10 billion school construction bond

    California voters say yes to $10 billion school construction bond


    A student sits in the hallway at San Juan Unified’s El Camino Fundamental High School in Sacramento.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    This story was updated to include additional information on community college projects.

    Californians on Tuesday decisively passed a $10 billion initiative to support construction projects by TK-12 schools and community colleges. The victory of Proposition 2 will authorize the first state bond for school construction since 2016 and replenish state funding that had run dry.

    With initial results from all precincts, 56.8% of voters backed the bond measure, and 43.2% opposed it. Still to be counted are mail-in ballots not yet received and provisional ballots. Support for the bond broke 60% in Los Angeles, Alpine, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Mendocino, Alameda, Yolo, Marin and San Mateo counties. Only counties in the state’s far north opposed it.

    Proposition 2 was one of two $10 billion state bonds on the ballot; the other was Proposition 4 for funding efforts to abate the impact of climate change. Proposition 2 supporters had worried that voters might choose one over the other, but both passed easily.

    “What has been clear is that people support it when they understand what Proposition 2 will do and its impact on schools,” said Molly Weedn, spokesperson for a pro-Proposition 2 campaign. “People are seeing the need in real time. When you have a leaky roof, it only gets leakier.”

    The campaign, organized by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), representing school districts and school construction interests that underwrote the effort, had not yet issued a statement Wednesday.

    Even as enrollment in most districts is projected to continue to fall over the next decade, the need for unattended repairs and replacement of aging portable classrooms and buildings has mushroomed. The Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are more than 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 years old or older. 

    Climate change has exposed more of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air and underscored the need to replace aging or defective heating and cooling systems.  

    The last state bond proposal, in March 2020, coincided with the emergence of Covid-19; anxiety over the virus contributed to its defeat as well as a majority of local districts’ construction bonds. Districts on the rebound from the pandemic were reluctant to ask voters to pass bonds in 2022.

    Reflecting a suppressed demand for addressing facilities, a record 252 school districts asked voters on Tuesday to pass local construction bonds totaling $40 billion; an additional 13 community colleges proposed bonds totaling $10.6 billion. Thus, the demand for state help will far exceed the new funding.

    Proposition 2, funded by the state’s general fund, needed a simple majority of voters to pass while local school bonds, which require increases in property taxes, require a 55% majority approval. A quick look at some of the larger proposals indicated voters were largely supportive, passing a $9 billion bond in Los Angeles Unified, a $900 million bond in Pasadena Unified and a $1.15 billion bond in San Jose Unified for upgrading facilities, with $283 set aside for housing for staff.

    The portion of state funding for school districts will be distributed to projects on a matching basis, with the state contributing 50% of the eligible funding for new construction and 60% of the cost for renovations.

    An estimated $3 billion in unfunded school projects from the 2016 bond measure, Proposition 55, will get first dibs at Proposition 2’s new construction and modernization money under the existing rules. Some of these projects have already been completed and will receive the funding retroactively. The rationale is that districts undertook the projects with the expectation that they would eventually receive state aid.

    Once Proposition 2 runs out of money, a new line of unfunded projects will be formed for the next state bond. Interest and the principal for Proposition 2 will be repaid from the state’s general fund, at an estimated cost of $500 million per year for 35 years, according to an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    How money will be spent

    The $10 billion will split as follows:

    • $1.5 billion for community colleges
    • $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
      • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
      • $3.3 billion for new construction
      • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
      • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
      • $115 million to remove lead from school drinking water

    The portion of Proposition 2 for community colleges will help renovate existing buildings, construct new classrooms and even replace sewage lines. The chancellor’s office earlier this year already approved 27 projects — totaling about $709 million — that will be covered by the bond measure in a first round of funding. They include projects across the state, from Shasta College in the north to Imperial Valley College near the Mexico border.

    Across the college system, with 115 brick-and-mortar community colleges, more than half of the buildings were built more than 40 years ago, said Hoang Nguyen, director of facilities for the system. 

    “It’s not like we’re sitting on newer facilities or anything like that. Our campuses are older,” he said. “So this proposition would be of great help.”

    The state’s largest district, the Los Angeles Community College District, got approval for four projects in the first round. That includes a new building to house Los Angeles Trade-Tech’s automotive technology, diesel technology and rail systems technology programs, as well as a new kinesiology building at Los Angeles City College. There will also be sewer replacement at Los Angeles Valley and Pierce colleges.

    “We’d like to think that our students, if they’re learning in these beautiful new buildings, will feel motivated to complete their training, get their certificates and get an education,” said Leigh Sata, the district’s chief facilities officer.

    The portion for TK-12 will set aside 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction for small districts, defined as those with fewer than 2,501 students. It will also expand financial hardship assistance in tiny districts whose tax bases are too low to issue a bond. The state will pick up the full tab for those districts.

    The bond will also allow districts to seek supplemental money to build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them. But, contrary to the wishes of early education advocates, it won’t dedicate funding to one of the most pressing needs that districts face: adding more classrooms or renovating existing space for transitional kindergarten students.

    Except for the set-aside for small districts, Proposition 2 will continue allotting matching money on a first-come, first-served basis, which favors large districts and small, property-wealthy districts with an in-house staff of architects and project managers adept at navigating complex funding requirements.

    It also won’t significantly provide a bigger state match for districts with low property values; many lack a large enough tax base to issue bonds to meet basic building needs. Data from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley shows that property-wealthy districts, with more taxable property per student, have received a disproportionately higher share of matching state funding over the past 25 years.

    One of the system’s outspoken critics is the nonprofit public interest law firm Public Advocates. Its managing partner, John Affeldt, said Wednesday that in passing Proposition 2, “Voters recognized the reality that so many facilities need significant modernization. But I don’t think voters are also aware of and approving the underlying distribution of the bond funds that send so many more dollars to high-wealth districts instead of low-wealth districts.

    “We’ll continue to be a voice to make sure the state creates a system that equitably treats all its students,” he said.

    EdSource reporter Thomas Peele contributed to the article.





    Source link

  • Maine Governor Mills Stands Up to Trump’s Bullying; He Backs Down

    Maine Governor Mills Stands Up to Trump’s Bullying; He Backs Down


    Last February, Trump met with the nation’s governors. He gave them a lecture about his agenda. When it came to his determination to ban transgender athletes, he called out Governor Janet Mills of Maine. He warned her that had “better comply” with his executive order. They exchanged words. She was unbowed. She said to Trump: “See you in court.”

    Trump told the Agriculture Department to hold back $3 million in food from Maine schools.

    Maine sued to get the money that was due.

    They settled. Maine got its $3 million. Governor Mills changed nothing.

    The New York Times reported:

    The state’s attorney general, Aaron M. Frey, said his office had withdrawn a lawsuit it filed in objection to the funding freeze, which had held up around $3 million, he estimated, and was initiated by the Agriculture Department last month. The federal dollars, Mr. Frey said in an interview, pay for food preparation in schools and child care centers, and also assist in feeding disabled adults in congregate settings…

    “The food doesn’t just buy itself, deliver itself, cook itself,” Mr. Frey said Friday, adding that the Trump administration had tried to “bully” Maine. “The message here is if you don’t follow the law and you try to target Maine without relying on any shred of law to support it, we’re going to have to take you to court.”

    The White House deferred comment to the Agriculture Department. 

    Ms. Mills said in a statement that the Trump administration had made an “unlawful attempt to freeze critical funding.” But the agreement, she said, will preserve healthy meals for about 170,000 schoolchildren across Maine.

    That’s the thing about bullies. If you stand up to them, they back off. They get their power by intimidation. At bottom, they are cowards. Take Trump. He dodged the draft. Five times. Don’t be afraid of him.



    Source link

  • What Trump’s victory means for education in California

    What Trump’s victory means for education in California


    Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, stand on stage at an Election Night watch party at the Palm Beach Convention Center on Nov. 6, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    This story was updated to include comments from Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    The re-election of Donald Trump is certain to bring a period of conflict, tension and litigation between the White House and California’s political and education leaders whose policies and values the president castigates. It also could potentially have major implications for California schools.

    Trump, whose position on education has focused more on cultural ideology than on policies to improve education, has threatened to cut school funding to states, such as California, with policies that protect transgender students and promote diversity, equity and inclusion in their schools. He also has pledged to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, a move that would impact millions of California families and their children.

    “California will seek to work with the incoming president – but let there be no mistake, we intend to stand with states across our nation to defend our Constitution and uphold the rule of law,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Federalism is the cornerstone of our democracy. It’s the United STATES of America.”

    Newsom, who has been a high-profile adversary to Trump, foreshadowed the coming tensions between the president-elect and the nation’s largest and, by some measures, bluest state in a statement on X, or Twitter, on Oct. 18.

    “Donald Trump just said he will take away $7.9 BILLION in school funding from California’s kids if we don’t do whatever he wants. This man is unhinged and unfit to be President,” wrote Newsom.

     The $7.9 billion represents the total annual federal K-12 funding for California,  about 7% of the total California spending on education in 2024-25, according to state Department of Finance figures. 

    California officials preparing

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said that his team has been preparing for possible litigation to stop many of President Trump’s expected policies, including attacking rights and protections for transgender children and youth, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and ending protections for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

    California has sued the federal government more than 100 times over Trump’s past rules and regulatory rollbacks, according to CalMatters.

    Bruce Fuller, professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley, worries that Trump’s tax cuts to the rich will be paid for by budget cuts in public education. 

    “The president-elect’s commitment to cutting taxes for affluent Americans means there will be no new funding for public schools,” Fuller said. “Watch out for efforts to expand vouchers and tax credits for well-off parents who opt for private schools.”

    Trump proposals often contradict policy

    Michael Kirst, former president of the State Board of Education and chief education advisor to former Governor Jerry Brown, said there is a contradiction between what Trump proposes and federal education policy.

     “He says he wants to turn control back to locals, but his campaign platform and statements indicate a deep interest in getting involved in local decision-making: having parents elect principals, cutting back teacher tenure and instituting merit pay,” Kirst said. “He wants to examine the curriculum of schools for ‘woke’ ideology.”

    The Every Student Succeeds Act, the primary law governing federal education policy, limits federal involvement in education, Kirst said. ESSA bans federal intervention in setting curriculum and federal involvement with teacher evaluations, which will affect Trump’s plan to offer merit pay. 

    “Some of his aides talk about slashing K-12 spending, but who knows what will happen?” Kirst said. Congress could transfer some funding for schools to create incentives for school choice, but that would require changes in school law, he said.

    Student debt relief at risk

    A second Trump administration could have far-reaching consequences for Americans with student debt, said Mike Pierce, the executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, in a statement. 

    “President-elect Trump’s dark vision for millions of American families with student debt is as extreme as it is unpopular—dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, undoing hard-fought protections for student loan borrowers, driving millions into the open arms of predatory for-profit schools and private lenders, and leaving millions drowning in student debt,” Pierce said. “The threat posed by these plans is real and will imperil the financial stability of millions of working families.”

    Deportation promise causing fear

    The Trump proclamation that has evoked the most fear for Californians is his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants en masse. An estimated 1 million California children – about 1 in 10 – have an undocumented immigrant parent. About 165,000 California students are recent immigrants themselves.  In 2016, after Trump’s first election, attendance at schools dropped.

    In a call with reporters last week, Newsom said that Trump’s promise to deport undocumented immigrants would be devastating to California’s economy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

    “No state has more to lose or more to gain in this election in November,” he said.

    Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas told reporters the state would be ready to forcefully protect its immigrant population, which could face major upheaval under Trump’s proposed mass deportation program, according to Politico.

     “We’ll do everything we can to ensure that people feel protected, and they feel welcomed,” he said, though he did not discuss specifics.

    Manuel Rustin, an American History teacher at John Muir High School, an early college magnet program in Pasadena Unified, said his students have expressed concern and angst over what a second Trump presidency might be like, considering the intense anti-immigrant sentiment of his campaign and his promise of mass deportations. 

    “I expect students today will be very quiet, melancholy, confused, and worried like I witnessed them back in 2016,” Rustin said. “My plan: Similar to 2016, I plan to hold space for students to safely express their thoughts, reactions, and questions.”

    Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers, fears that many of the families he works with will be terrified today.

    “What is sad is that today, children will come to Kidango, and some of them will be crying and scared that their parents or a close relative will be taken away from them,” Moore said. “This is what happened in 2016.”

    Teachers in the crosshairs

    A Trump presidency also could have a big impact on how educators teach and on whether they choose to stay in the profession. Trump has claimed teachers have been indoctrinating children with anti-American ideologies. His solution: create a new credentialing agency to certify teachers “who embrace patriotic values and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but to educate them.” 

    He also wants to abolish teacher tenure and to give preference in federal funding to states and school districts that support his efforts to do so. 

    “He will go after teacher associations backing Democrats, with a vengeance,” Fuller predicts.

    California Teachers Association President David Goldberg said that, as a union of 310,000 educators, CTA has the strength to fight for the state’s students, schools and communities.

    “We are prepared to stand up against any attacks on our students, public education, workers’ rights, and our broader communities that may come,” Goldberg said. “We’re committed to fight for the future we all deserve.”





    Source link

  • California education leaders try to reassure students of protections against Trump policies

    California education leaders try to reassure students of protections against Trump policies


    In this Jan. 25, 2017, file photo, protesters rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco in the wake of Donald Trump’s first election as president..

    Credit: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu,file

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    When Alejandra Lopez saw swing states that had gone for Joe Biden in 2020 leaning red for Donald Trump on Tuesday night, it felt like déjà vu.

    “I was really distraught. Honestly, I really would have never thought I would see him having a second term in office,” said Lopez, who is a second-year political science student at Cal Poly Pomona.

    For Lopez, the stakes were personal. Both of her parents are undocumented immigrants from Mexico who have lived in the U.S. for almost 20 years. Trump has pledged to enact mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

    When Trump won for the first time in 2016, Lopez was 11 years old. She remembers feeling scared that her parents — or even she, a U.S. citizen — would be deported and crying all day in class. Now, she feels more angry.

    “I’m angry that he was elected into office again, that he has promised the same thing again, and that people keep perpetuating it and moving it forward, not recognizing how harmful it can be,” she said. “You look back, and you see that time and time again, he’s just rephrased the same hate that he’s spewed.”

    Many California children and their families, including immigrants, transgender students and Black and Latino students, among others, are feeling similar fear and uncertainty, after the election of a candidate who has threatened to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, and to cut school funding to states that protect transgender students and promote diversity, equity and inclusion in their schools.

    California education leaders and advocates said the fear is palpable and justifiable, but they also urged TK-12 schools, colleges and universities to make sure students and families know about policies to protect their rights, some of which were enacted during the first Trump administration.

    An estimated 1 million California children — about 1 in 10 — have an undocumented immigrant parent, the state estimates. Many more have undocumented family members. About 165,000 California students are recent immigrants themselves.

    “If we thought teaching was hard yesterday, wait for today’s questions like, “Is Trump going to send me back to the gangs?” and “Is he going to deport my mother/father/brother/cousin?” wrote teacher Larry Ferlazzo on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday.

    Xilonin Cruz-González, deputy director of the advocacy organization Californians Together, said schools must reach out now to immigrant families to ensure they feel welcome and safe in school.

    “Even though it feels scary, especially for immigrant families, because of the rhetoric we’ve heard through the election cycle and we anticipate we will continue to hear, it’s important to remember, especially in California, we have legal protections for immigrant students,” Cruz-González said. “We have federal protections that require us to make sure our schools are safe and welcoming for all students. And we have California laws, especially AB 699, that was passed in 2017, that requires school districts to ensure that our immigrant students are welcomed into our public schools.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court established in 1982, in the case Plyler vs. Doe, that all children have a right to a free public education, regardless of their immigration status.

    California’s Assembly Bill 699 was passed in response to the previous Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and the fear it caused among immigrant families in California. The bill instructs schools not to collect information about families’ immigration status unless required by law, and requires schools to pass policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, among other things.

    Lindsey Bird was a newcomer teacher, working with recent immigrant students in 2016 when Trump was first elected. She said she had Syrian refugee students in tears that day.

    “They felt like their humanity was on the ballot, and they lost,” she said.

    Bird now works with Teach Plus California, coaching teachers throughout the state on how best to teach English learners. She said teachers are “heartbroken” for their students after Tuesday’s election and eager to share information with their students about their rights.

    “One teacher told me, ‘I’ll let myself grieve for the remainder of the week, but then I feel like my mama bear mode has been activated because I feel like I have to protect my students,’” Bird said. “So she was asking, ‘How can I protect them? What are my rights? What are their rights?’”

    Megan Stanton-Trehan, a senior attorney at Disability Rights California who represents students with disabilities, said she saw many students with disabilities and students of color struggle during the last Trump presidency.

    “I am really concerned about my clients who have disabilities, who are students of color, who are transgender,” said Stanton-Trehan. “In California, we may have a state that is protecting those students to some degree. We have laws that protect them here that are not dependent upon the way the federal government interprets the law, but that’s a lot of burden to put on the state.”

    She said that the lessons of that first term, however, are in the power of people standing up to such policies.

    “I think it’s definitely more than ever a time to really center those students and their needs and, really, their voices too,” Stanton-Trehan said. “They’re the next generation, and they’re living through this as well. They’re the ones at the forefront. If there’s any silver lining, it’s perhaps how galvanizing this can be for young people to say enough is enough.”

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta has said that his team is preparing to protect immigrants, transgender students and others, with possible litigation against Trump’s expected policies.

    “Fortunately, and unfortunately, we have four years of Trump 1.0 under our belts. We know what to expect, and we won’t be caught flat-footed,” said a Bonta spokesperson. “California’s Legislature has enacted strong protections for the rights of all students in California, and the Department of Justice will ensure those protections are enforced across the state. We are paying attention to what Trump and his advisers have said about their plans for a second administration, and we will be prepared to defend California’s values.”

    U.C. Berkeley political science professor Dan Schnur said Gov. Gavin Newsom has battled Trump before, but faces a new reality with Harris’ loss.

    “Newsom’s challenge is going to be balancing what’s best for him as governor and what’s best for him as a potential presidential candidate,” Schnur said.

    And Trump recognizes, Schnur said, “how much he can benefit politically with his base by beating up on California. The question is how he decides how much of that political benefit can be realized by threats and how much can be realized through follow-up on those threats.”

    Trump’s campaign promise of shutting down the U.S. Department of Education is an example.

    Such a move “is a long, long, long shot,” Schnur said “Even if Republicans do win a House majority, he’s going to have a lot of members here who are reluctant to cast that vote.”

    But Trump’s railing against transgender people and false claims that children receive gender reassignment surgeries at public schools may keep political traction, Schnur said.

    “I think that debate is much more likely to be central to his agenda.”

    LGBTQ+ youth were a major focus of this election season up and down the ballot, according to Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Equality California. 

    Trump attacked transgender women playing sports and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Local school board candidates promoted policies that outed transgender students to their parents, in opposition to a new state law. Anti-bullying policies at local school districts that specifically name LGBTQ youth have become a flash point.

    California already has laws on the books that protect these communities, and Salinas noted that voters supported Proposition 3, which enshrines the right to same-sex marriage.

    “I think being in California does provide a peace of mind,” Salinas said.

    Equality California will be working with other organizations to ensure that there are no gaps in protecting LGBTQ+ youth in California, and that state laws that do support them are implemented. 

    Some school districts, including Los Angeles Unified, sent messages out to parents prior to or during Election Day, highlighting protections for students and offering mental health support for students experiencing anxiety or fear after the election.

    The union representing teachers in LAUSD, United Teachers Los Angeles, issued a statement saying that “Ensuring that students and their families are informed and safe will always be our top priority. We are committed to ensuring that every LAUSD student, especially BIPOC, immigrant, and LGBTQIA+ students, has access to the education, resources, and support they deserve.”

    Some colleges and universities sent similar messages to students. Santa Monica College sent a message to students before the election to offer counseling and “debriefing” spaces for all students, but particularly for LGBTQ students, undocumented students and “racially minoritized communities.” In a Nov. 6 message, San Francisco State University President Lynn Mahoney encouraged students to seek support from campus counseling services as well as groups including the Dream Resource Center and the Queer & Trans Resource Center.

    Higher education officials in California are well aware they could face legal and funding challenges from the Trump administration on such issues as enrolling undocumented students, free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a rare move Wednesday, the leaders of California’s three public higher education systems shared a joint statement emphasizing that their campuses are welcoming to students and staff from all backgrounds.

    “Following the presidential election results, we understand that there is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety within California’s higher education community,” reads the statement, which was signed by Michael Drake, president of the University of California; Mildred García, chancellor of the California State University; and Sonya Christian, chancellor of California Community Colleges.

    “The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges remain steadfast and committed to our values of diversity and inclusivity,” they added.

    Ju Hong, director of the UCLA Dream Resource Center, said Trump’s call for mass deportation is stoking fear among undocumented students and students who are citizens but have family members who are undocumented.

    Hong said there’s also concern that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program could get terminated by the courts during Trump’s presidency. Hong himself is a DACA recipient. If the program gets terminated, he wouldn’t be able to keep his job and would be at risk of deportation. 

    Hong called on UC leaders, including the system’s board of regents, to support immigrant students and staff, both with public statements of support and by advocating for more funding for programs like the Dream Resource Center.

    “Hopefully they think through what are some creative ways to proactively support immigrant students on and off campus,” Hong said.

    Kevin R. Johnson, professor and former dean of the UC Davis School of Law, said he is concerned that the election of Trump to a second presidency could deter undocumented students from attending public universities, even in California, where they are eligible for in-state tuition and where all three public college and university systems have legal services for undocumented students and family members.

    “I do think that over the next few months, we will see a great deal of fear and consternation in the immigrant community, including the immigrant student community,” Johnson said. “I fear that the general tenor and thrust of President Trump and some others about immigrants can chill undocumented students from attending a public university and be worried that any appearance in public places could lead to their removal.”





    Source link

  • School board results show wins on conservative and progressive sides

    School board results show wins on conservative and progressive sides


    Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.

    Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed

    Election results for California’s school boards are still not final in most counties, but the dust is settling in some of the state’s most hotly contested races.

    This year, California teachers unions and conservative groups intensified efforts to get their favored candidates elected to district school boards. Their primary difference of opinion — educational policies on gender identity and racial equity.

    In June, voters recalled Temecula Valley Unified school board President Joseph Komrosky — one of a three-member conservative block that passed controversial policies to reject textbooks with materials that included references to gay rights activist Harvey Milk, ban critical race theory and require teachers and school staff to notify parents if a child appears to be transgender. 

    But Komrosky and a new conservative majority could be back in January. As of Thursday evening, he and candidates Melinda Anderson and Emil Roger Barham — all endorsed by the Riverside County Republican Party — were winning their races.

    Komrosky is narrowly edging out opponent David Sola in the race for Trustee Area 4, with 51.21% of the vote — a little more than 300 votes — as of about 5:30 p.m. Thursday. Sola is endorsed by the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union.

    “During this historic election season, I’m confident Temecula will choose trustees devoted to prioritizing academics, honoring parents, protecting children, and (keeping) divisive ideology out of the classroom,” said Jennifer Wiersma, who was part of the board’s conservatively held majority, in a statement to EdSource. Wiersma represents Trustee Area 3.

    Riverside County still had 350,000 mail-in and conditional ballots to be counted on Wednesday.

    The seats of the two board members who pushed back against the conservative majority — Steven Schwartz and Allison Barclay — are also up for election. Currently, Schwartz leads challenger Jon Cobb with 51.64% of the vote in Trustee Area 5, while Barclay is losing with 41.50% of the votes to Anderson’s 58.50% in Trustee Area 1.

    The Area 4 and Area 2 seats have been empty since Komrosky’s recall in June and the resignation of board member Danny Gonzalez last December.

    Both Cobb and Komrosky are supported by the Inland Empire Family PAC, a conservative Christian political action committee. Cobb is also endorsed by the Riverside County Republican Party.

    Barclay, Schwartz and Gary Oddi are endorsed by the teachers union. Oddi is running against Barham and Angela Talarzyk for the Trustee Area 2 seat.

    San Jose Unified results mixed

    Nicole Gribstad, endorsed by the Santa Clara County branch of Moms for Liberty, could take the Trustee Area 5 seat on the San Jose Unified school board, despite heavy campaigning against her by the teachers union. 

    Moms for Liberty is a national group that has supported efforts to bar schools from teaching about race, gender and sexuality. If Gribstad wins, she will be the only conservative member of the board, said San Jose Teachers Association President Renata Sanchez.  

    Gribstad is leading with 44.93% of the votes, only 870 votes more than union-endorsed candidate Lenka Wright.

    “We are not quite ready to call the race yet,” Sanchez said.  

    The county had about 284,000 ballots left to count at 10 a.m. Thursday, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

    “(If she wins) we will continue to do everything we can to protect our students from these policies, including working with the board to make sure they understand how policies impact the work at the site level, ensure that our policies and processes are in alignment with those from CSBA (California School Boards Association),” Sanchez said. 

    “The parental rights policies, book bans and anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are coming from a loud minority, and are not indicative of what the community as a whole desires for their children,” she said.

    Teresa Castellanos, the union’s other endorsement in the San Jose Unified race, seems likely to take the Trustee Area 1 seat with an overwhelming 59.47% of the vote compared to 40.53% for Chris Webb.

    Orange Unified incumbents winning

    Orange Unified School District incumbents Ann Page, Sara Pelly and Stephen Glass seem to have handily won re-election in Orange County. All three incumbents had between 72% to 80% of the votes in their trustee areas by 5 p.m. Wednesday.

    The county reported there were about 364,000 ballots left to process on Thursday evening.

    Pelly, in Trustee Area 4, and Glass, in Trustee Area 7, completed the terms of Madison Miner and Rick Ledesma, who were recalled in April, after Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen was abruptly fired without explanation. Neither Miner nor Ledesma sought re-election.

    Orange Unified recall organizer Darshan Smaaladen said interest in local races has grown since culture wars made their way into school district boardrooms. 

    “We have seen greater interest in the high quality and motivation of school board candidates, which is a great thing,” Smaaladen said in a statement to EdSource. “Greater interest equals greater engagement; public schools shine brighter in the light of transparency and truth from this interest.”

    Santa Ana Unified surprise

    In what could be an upset, special education teacher and conservative candidate Brenda Lebsack is edging out incumbent Rigo Rodriquez for the Trustee Area 1 seat on the Santa Ana school board, 52.16% to 47.84%. 

    The district has three seats up for election. Valerie Magdaleno is handily beating opponent Lloyd Boucher-Reyes, 72.5% to 24.75% in Trustee Area 2, while incumbent Alfonso Alvarez has 59% of the vote in a three-way race for the Area 3 seat.

    Recalled Sunol Glen trustee losing

    School board policies focusing on gender identification and LGBTQ+ rights continue to be a hot-button issue in some districts this election season.

    Ryan Jergensen played a role in passing conservative policies associated with gender identity and the display of flags, including the Pride flag, while a trustee for the Sunol Glen Unified School District in Alameda County. Now, he is trying to reclaim his board seat.

    On Wednesday at 1 a.m. he was losing to Erin Choin, 41% to 59%.

    LA Unified filling three seats

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board will go through a drastic change in leadership this election cycle — with three of its seven seats up for grabs. 

    Board President Jackie Goldberg, representing District 5, along with board member George McKenna from District 1, announced their retirement last fall after decades in education. Their seats — along with the District 3 seat currently occupied by board Vice President Scott Schmerelson, are on the ballot this November. 

    United Teachers Los Angeles, the district’s teachers union, and charter school organizations have been battling over board seats. The union mobilized its 39,000 members and ran campaigns in two of the districts, said Julie Van Winkle, vice president of the union.

    As of 4:34 p.m. Thursday, all three union-endorsed candidates — Sherlett Hendy Newbill, Schmerelson and Karla Griego — were winning their races. Only the District 3 race between Schmerelson, 51.91%, and Dan Chang, 48.09%, was close.

    District 7’s seat was on the ballot last March — and board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin secured her next term with support from 55.91% of voters. 

    In addition to deciding the makeup of LAUSD’s school board, voters determined the fate of a substantive $9 billion school construction bond to upgrade LAUSD school facilities. It needs at least 55% of the vote to pass, and has secured just over 66% of the vote so far. 

    West Contra Costa race close

    Early returns in the West Contra Costa Unified race show incumbent Otheree Christian trailing challenger Guadalupe Enllana by about 400 votes, according to results published early Wednesday morning. Enllana had nearly 53% of the vote. 

    Enllana, a member of the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) committee, has been critical of the district’s financial management and the school board’s failure to adopt an LCAP, which in turn prevented the district from passing a budget by the deadline.

    Otheree, a graduate of the district’s Kennedy High School and a substitute teacher, was elected in 2020. As trustee, he abstained from voting on the accountability plan because the document lacked transparency and failed to include parent feedback.





    Source link