اینترنت

نویسنده: post bot

  • Trump proposals for students with disabilities create confusion and fear

    Trump proposals for students with disabilities create confusion and fear


    Students rely on an array of services in special education classes.

    Christopher Futcher/iStock

    Top Takeaways
    • A proposal for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee special education draws criticism.
    • Trump has promised stable levels of funding for special education, but critics worry about his plan to reduce oversight of those funds.
    • Advocates worry that a “brain drain” from the U.S. Department of Education could weaken the quality of education for students with disabilities nationally.

    Javier Arroyo has been impressed with the education his 9-year-old son with a disability receives.

    “This country provides so many resources,” said Arroyo, whose son attends Kern County’s Richland School District.

    Arroyo’s wife has family in Mexico, but he believes his son, who has Down syndrome, is better served here than he’d be in most other countries because of the services he receives: “We don’t have resources like this in Mexico.”

    But because of changes happening at the federal level, he said, it’s hard to tell what education will look like for his son.

    Arroyo has heard that federal cuts are already affecting disabled students and that President Donald Trump has proposed moving oversight of special education from the U.S. Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. Local school leaders have told him that they also don’t have much clarity about how special education is likely to change.

    “It’s confusing right now, what’s going on federally,” Arroyo said. “Not even experts really know.”

    Arroyo isn’t alone. There are 850,000 students with disabilities in California. These students, their parents and educators in California say they have a lot of questions — and serious concerns — about federal proposals that could transform the way schools deliver education to students with disabilities.

    Saran Tugsjargal, 18, is a high school senior and one of the first students to sit on the state’s Advisory Council for Special Education. She said her own initial response to moving special education outside the U.S. Department of Education was confusion: “I was like, ‘What the flip?’”

    Tugsjargal attends Alameda Community Learning Center, a charter school in the Bay Area, and she often hears from students like her who have disabilities. Many have told her they are confused and fearful about how the proposed federal changes could affect their education.

    “A lot of my peers at my school were very scared. They were terrified,” she said. “They were just like, ‘What’s going to happen to me? What’s going to happen to my parents, who need to fight for those accommodation services? What’s going to happen to a lot of us?’ There’s a lot of fear.”

    Education for students with disabilities has historically received broad support across party lines. The federal government provides approximately 8% of special education funding. That’s a critical amount, though it falls well short of the original 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) promise that the federal government would pay 40% of special education funding.

    Because of that bipartisan support, most experts believe that federal funding for special education isn’t at serious risk right now. However, they say that other changes proposed by this administration could adversely impact students with disabilities. 

    Reg Leichty, the founder of Foresight Law + Policy, an education law firm in Washington, is one of those experts.

    “I said often the last few weeks, ‘Don’t over or underreact,’” Leichty said. “But we have a job to do making sure that the system continues to work for kids.”

    In his budget, Trump proposes keeping federal funding for special education at current levels — $15.5 billion nationally — while consolidating funding streams, which would reduce oversight and give more control to local governance.

    His proposal to dismantle the Department of Education requires moving oversight of special education to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which previously oversaw the education of students with disabilities.

    “IDEA funding for our children with disabilities and special needs was in place before there was a Department of Education, and it managed to work incredibly well,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon told a Fox News host.

    In an April 4 letter to the California congressional delegation, California administrators of Special Education Local Plan Areas, or SELPAs, vehemently disagreed, stating that the proposal undermines the rights of students with disabilities and jeopardizes key funding and resources for these students.

    Scott Turner, chair of SELPA Administrators of California, wrote that moving oversight of the education of students with disabilities to a health department “reinforces an outdated and ableist, deficit-based model where disabilities are considered as medical conditions to be managed rather than recognizing that students with disabilities are capable learners, each with unique strengths and educational potential.”

    Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom to the maximum extent possible is the model that the Department of Education has aimed at over the decades.

    Before the passage of the IDEA, students with disabilities were routinely institutionalized or undereducated, if they were offered a public education at all, according to Robyn Linscott, director of education and family policy for The Arc, a national advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

    Moving special education to a health agency “promotes this medical model and continues the othering of students with a disability,” Linscott said.

    Arroyo wants to see his 9-year-old included in more general education classes, such as physical education, and activities like field trips. High staffing ratios make this kind of inclusion possible, ensuring the quality of his son’s education. His son is in a class with nine students, three aides and one teacher. He worries federal cuts could have major consequences for his son and others in his class.

    “I couldn’t imagine if (the teacher) even lost one aide,” Arroyo said.

    The Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education has come out in support of a federal bill that would keep the U.S. Department of Education intact and free from any restructuring, according to the organization’s chair, Anthony Rebelo. 

    “We want to make sure that folks understand students with disabilities are still students, that they don’t just get lumped with disabled people,” said Rebelo, who is also the director of the Trinity County Special Education Local Plan Area. 

    Joshua Salas, a special education coordinator at a charter school, Alliance Renee and Meyer Luskin Academy in Los Angeles, worries that the quality of education for students with disabilities will be “put on the back burner” and that there won’t be enough federal oversight to make sure schools are serving students with disabilities. 

    “What I’m worried about are the long-term implications,” said Salas. “I’m wondering about what will get lost in the transition.”

    Education attorney Leichty said it’s hard to know what education for students with disabilities would look like under a new department, but he worries about the “brain drain” of experts from the Department of Education who view education as a civil right.

    “Over time, could it be made to work? Certainly,” Leichty said. “But I think there’s a major loss of institutional knowledge and expertise when you try to pursue a change like this.”

    He said Trump’s executive order to close the Department of Education acknowledges that the Constitution limits the ability of the executive branch to do so without congressional approval.

    The federal Department of Education and other federal offices, including the Department of Health and Human Services, have already experienced wide-scale cuts proposed by the “Department of Government Efficiency.”

    The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) lost half of its staff, including shuttering the San Francisco-based office dedicated to California complaints, which had over 700 pending cases, more than half involving disability rights. A spokesperson for the administration said that it will use mediation and expedited case processing to address disability-related complaints. Those cuts have been challenged in court.

    Advocates are concerned that doubling the caseload for existing staff means there will be a federal backlog of complaints, weakening enforcement.

    Student advocate Tugsjargal has been telling students with disabilities and their parents to call their legislators and attend town hall meetings and public rallies to protest Trump’s proposals.

    “When we talk with each other about our stories, when we speak out, we learn a lot from each other,” she said. “We drive a lot of change.”





    Source link

  • AI in schools: Let’s not rush to judgment

    AI in schools: Let’s not rush to judgment


    Students at Davis Middle School in Compton.

    Credit: Courtesy of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

    In the clamorous debates about artificial intelligence (AI) in education, there is an unfortunate tendency to make bold proclamations about its role in teaching and learning, either as a panacea or the final nail in the coffin of human knowledge. The noise is puzzling and not helpful. Too many components of AI are still emerging, and no outcomes are predictable with certainty. No one knows how this will shake out.

    As two people involved in education technology — a university professor who runs ed-tech accelerators and a K-12 public affairs and communications executive director — we believe folks should stop the extremist predictions. Instead, we argue that our teachers, staff, students, parents and leaders need to explore AI.

    A recent needs assessment conducted in partnership between the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the nonprofit Project Tomorrow showed that administrators and teachers want and need more information about the potential risks and benefits of generative AI. Armed with training, support and responsible guidelines such as those developed through Los Angeles COE’s artificial intelligence guidelines, teachers using AI in the classroom can help develop new frontiers of learning.

    It’s helpful to understand the context: Artificial intelligence has existed in education for years. AI for learning is simply software that harnesses data to support or replace human activities to help people understand, experience or conceptualize the world around them. It is a learning technology. In economics, we think of technology as something that enhances the productivity of the process. A learning technology is simply anything that makes learning cheaper, better, faster or simpler to produce.

    If one uses this definition, there are reasonable arguments that AI is not the most disruptive of learning technologies. Indeed, more impactful learning technologies include curriculum and pedagogy (both meet the definition), as well as the invention of language itself, arguably the most crucial learning technology. Throughout human history, technological advancements have evolved alongside us, influenced by cultural contexts, and have often impacted us at a slower rate than anticipated. Today’s variations in teaching and curriculum will likely have a greater impact on educational outcomes than the adoption of AI.

    Much of the positive talk around AI centers on its potential to provide scale solutions to support students, educators and district staff at lower costs. In these conversations, AI can enhance personalized learning through the deployment of chatbots as tutors and advice dispensers. The scenario where each student has an individual tutor is one way to think about AI in education. But that view is limited. There could be unintended consequences if students spend excessive time isolated with a chatbot and not engaging with other humans. This brings us back to the point that technology evolves with us. The pandemic taught us we need humans in the room, particularly since employers tend to want people who can work with other people.

    Rather than focus on the technology alone, we should give attention to bold experiments that explore how AI technologies can support learners as they mature into adults skilled at critical thinking, communication, empathy and collaboration.

    And we should do so neither as product salesmen nor muckrakers.

    Deploy AI as a tool, with humans as the focus. Imagine groups where half the collaboration resides with human interaction and the other half with AI guidance. In this scenario, students are grouped within the scaffolding that AI provides to support their abilities to engage in problem-solving and critical thinking, aligned with a hands-on activity. They reap the benefits of personalized learning and gain lessons from listening to other opinions, responding to diverse viewpoints, and navigating relationships critical to success.

    Experimentation can be difficult in an educational setting. If we hope to meet the demands of tomorrow’s AI-powered society, experimentation for growth and learning must occur responsibly. We need to support our schools and districts as they work to understand how the complexities of education coexist with the thoughtful use of technology. We must give them room and encouragement to sustain wonderful learning environments, with AI and beyond.

    Let’s experiment and learn before we proclaim AI as a savior or apocalypse. Along the way, we can usher in the next generation of adults prepared to steer society along paths that uplift and support humanity for a better tomorrow.

    •••

    Doug Lynch is on the faculty at USC, where he teaches innovation and economics to doctoral students. He has been a leading voice in education technology for more than 30 years and founded three ed-tech accelerators, including one at USC.

    Elizabeth Graswich is executive director of public affairs and communications for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

    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

  • LAUSD ordered to hand over records in long-running funding dispute with archdiocese

    LAUSD ordered to hand over records in long-running funding dispute with archdiocese


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    Despite Superintendent Alberto Carvalho’s promise two years ago to settle the conflict, Los Angeles Unified continues denying millions of dollars in federal aid that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles argues it is owed for ongoing services to low-income students in Catholic schools. The archdiocese maintains that the district is diverting the money to bolster its students’ funding.

    Both the California and the U.S. departments of education have chastised the district for breaking federal regulations in dealings with the archdiocese. Now, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ordered the district to turn over documents and data that it withheld.

     That information, which should illuminate the district’s decisions, could either restart stalemated talks or lead the archdiocese to turn to the courts to order a settlement after seven years of fighting.

    “We do not believe further litigation is necessary, and we can achieve equity for non-public school students,” said Paul Escala, the archdiocese’s superintendent of schools. “However, we will pursue all means to see that all students receive their legally entitled services.”

    Title I rules for private schools

    Congress requires that low-income students in private and public schools receive equivalent Title I funding to pay for counseling, tutoring, teacher aides, and learning specialists. The dispute with LAUSD concerns how much money should be allocated for the archdiocese’s schools and how to ensure the funding gets to the students.

    Under Congress’s rules, private and religious schools do not receive Title I funding directly. Instead, districts determine the eligibility of private and religious schools within their borders, administer the funding, and provide the services directly or through vendors after consulting with the schools. Los Angeles Unified, until recently, hired the Title I staff and put them on its payroll (see Frequently Asked Questions by the California Department of Education).

    The system worked amicably for years. Districts can choose from several ways to determine Title I eligibility, and LA Unified picked the fairest and most efficient method for the 100-plus schools within the archdiocese with low-income students, Escala said. The district used census data to determine the number of Title I-eligible students in an attendance area, then awarded a proportionate share of the money to archdiocese schools. Long Beach Unified uses the same method.

    More paperwork, more confusion, less money

    Then in 2018-19 and the following year, coinciding with the new administration of Superintendent Austin Beutner, the district chose another option for calculating private schools’ eligibility — student registrations for the federal school lunch program. Not only did this method require a lot more time, paperwork and verification by the schools, but the district changed the reporting rules several times with little notice and failed “to engage in timely and meaningful consultation,” the California Department of Education concluded in a 58-page report issued in June 2021 in response to a formal complaint by the archdiocese.

    Los Angeles Unified’s Office of Inspector General removed hundreds of students’ eligibility after examining parents’ school lunch forms in the two dozen schools it chose to audit and failed to include any students from other schools it didn’t audit.

    The result was to cut Title I funding to the archdiocese by more than 92%, from about $9.5 million in services 2017-18 for 102 schools to $767,000 for fewer than two dozen schools, according to Escala. In 2023-24, funding crept up to about $2 million for 43 schools. The district cut its total share allocated to private schools from between 2% and 2.6% of about $291 million to 0.5%, according to the California Department of Education.

    ‘Totally unreasonable’ demands 

    The state Department of Education harshly criticized the district. The timetable for demanding documentation was “totally unreasonable,” and the district “engaged in a pattern of arbitrary unilateral decisions” and failed to justify its decisions to the archdiocese, the report said.

    In ignoring the archdiocese’s Public Records Act requests for documentation to justify the cuts, the district took a “hide-the-ball approach (that) breached both the spirit and the letter” of the law, the report said.

    The spirit of Title I, as stated in the law’s preamble, Escala said, is to maximize participation. The intent of other options like surveys and free-lunch verification is for schools to prove they have higher proportions of low-income families than neighboring schools, he said.

    LAUSD is doing the opposite, Escala said.

    “The district’s using these other methods as a way of filtering and screening and reducing participation,” he said. “You’re extracting children you know qualify simply because a “t” wasn’t crossed or an “i” wasn’t dotted. It is beyond reproach, because they (LAUSD officials) don’t apply the same standard to their own schools.” 

    LAUSD had an obligation to give (the Archdiocese) the requested information. LAUSD’s hide-the-ball approach breached both the spirit and the letter of the duty to consult. — The California Department of Education in a June 2021 ruling

    LA Unified declined to comment on the state’s report, and last week, a spokesperson wrote in an email that “Los Angeles Unified does not typically comment on pending or ongoing litigation.”

    Districts have a financial incentive to minimize private schools’ funding eligibility. The federal government awards the total Title I funding to districts, which determine how much should be allocated for services to private and religious school students. Lawyers for the archdiocese point out that the less money that districts award, the more Title I funding they can spend on their own students.

    The district appears to understand this, said Kevin Troy, an attorney for the archdiocese, citing a Jan. 29, 2019, email from the principal auditor of the district’s Office of the Inspector General to the archdiocese, in which the auditor stated that the archdiocese “receives over $10 million of Title I funds from the LAUSD every year — money that could otherwise be allocated to LAUSD schools.”

    “There’s a moral and ethical question on the table,” Escala said.  “You (LA Unified) have got children in need, and you’re not serving them right,” he added, referring to students in archdiocese schools.

    The impact on one high school

    Mark Johnson, principal of Bishop Mora Salesian High School, has seen the effect of the cuts on students. Before the cutback, Title I paid for a reading intervention teacher and part-time aide who worked with 40 to 50 students weekly — about 1 out of 8 students at the all-boy, 400-student school in the low-income Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Although on the district’s payroll, the teacher fit in like any other staff member, building personal relationships with the students and collaborating with their teachers. 

    “She (the teacher) had her own classroom and was just a regular teacher as far as any of our kids knew,” he said. She would work with the lowest-performing students on basic reading comprehension skills. “If they were working on a tough piece of literature, she would help them break it down so that they could write an analytical paragraph or essay.”

    Pulling out students also reduced the class size for the remaining students, he said. Now, there is only enough money for a two-day-a-week coach from a contractor who sees at most a dozen students a week.

    “We’re serving kids who are significantly behind grade level and families that deal with poverty and all the things that come along with that,” Johnson said. “So this kind of antagonistic relationship that has developed (with the district) ultimately hurts kids.”

    The California Department of Education gave the district 60 days from its June 2021 ruling to consult with the archdiocese to fix deficiencies pointed out in the report and then recalibrate the proportional share of Title I funding for archdiocese schools. It ordered the district to begin providing the increased services for 2020-21, the next school year.

    Instead, the district appealed the decision to the U.S. Department of Education, which issued its own findings in November 2023. In his decision, Adam Schott, deputy assistant secretary for policy and programs, found that the district could justify reducing the eligibility count based on its analysis of parents’ forms. But by doing that, they cut the funding for the dozens of schools that the district did not audit. He credited the district with consulting with the archdiocese to an extent, but said the district’s overall approach in demanding documentation was “inconsistent and confusing.”

    Schott also ruled that the district violated federal regulations by claiming it didn’t have to share data with the archdiocese on how much it spent on Title I services for students and how much was unspent at the end of each year. 

    In December 2021, the archdiocese sued the district in Los Angeles Superior Court for ignoring multiple requests under the state Public Records Act to turn over Title I spending records and other relevant information. The court held off ruling until the complaint process played out.

    On July 16, Judge Curtis Kin ordered the district to turn over all relevant documents, emails and records to the archdiocese by Aug. 20 and to pay $82,141 to the diocese in attorneys’ fees.

    An appeal to Superintendent Carvalho

    Weeks after he started work as Los Angeles Unified superintendent in February 2022, Alberto Carvalho told EdSource he had familiarized himself with the case and added, “I’m going to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.” He declined to elaborate due to litigation.

    “What I can tell you,” he added, “is that we need more objective, transparent tools by which we assess and fund this guaranteed federal entitlement that’s driven by poverty.”

    Escala said he remains hopeful. “I believe that Superintendent Carvalho has the ability to direct his staff towards that outcome. I have a great degree of confidence that when brought to him, this can get adjudicated appropriately.”





    Source link

  • Unleashing The Power Of Digital Marketing


    Unleashing The Power Of Digital Marketing: The Benefits—Infographic

    No one can ignore the power of digital marketing, as it’s the secret behind how businesses connect with their audience, build relationships, and grow. Whether you’re a small business owner or running a large corporation, digital marketing gives you the tools to level up your game, reach the right people, and, most importantly, stay ahead of the competition. 

    With just a few clicks, you can share your brand’s story, target your ideal audience, and measure the results instantly. From social media ads to email campaigns and SEO strategies, digital marketing has reshaped how we promote, sell, and engage. The best part? It’s constantly evolving, offering fresh opportunities to innovate and stand out in a crowded market. This infographic shows all the benefits and reasons why investing in it is non-negotiable. Let’s begin.

    Benefits Of Digital Marketing

    Global Reach

    • Expand your business beyond geographical boundaries.
    • Target audiences worldwide, 24/7.

    Cost-Effectiveness

    • Lower costs compared to traditional marketing.
    • Maximum ROI for small and large businesses alike.

    Precise Targeting

    • Tailor campaigns to specific demographics, interests, and behaviors.
    • Connect with the right audience at the right time.

    Measurable Results

    • Access real-time data and analytics.
    • Track campaign performance and refine strategies instantly.

    Enhanced Engagement

    • Interact with customers directly via social media, emails, and live chats.
    • Build stronger relationships and customer loyalty.

    Flexibility

    • Test and tweak campaigns in real time.
    • Adapt to market trends and consumer preferences effortlessly.

    Mobile Access

    • Tap into the growing mobile audience.
    • Reach consumers on smartphones, tablets, and other devices.

    Improved Conversion Rates

    • Convert leads into customers efficiently with retargeting and remarketing.
    • Leverage personalized content for higher engagement.

    Sustainability

    • Minimize paper waste with eco-friendly digital solutions.
    • Support a greener planet while growing your brand.



    Source link

  • How a wonky policy tool may be the secret to building a robust, diverse teacher workforce

    How a wonky policy tool may be the secret to building a robust, diverse teacher workforce


    A teacher helps a student with a math problem.

    Credit: Sarah Tully /EdSource

    I am still making peace with a difficult truth. I am not sure I did enough for my students during my short tenure as a teacher. 

    After two years as an intern, I held a preliminary credential and felt ready for my sixth grade class. Then I was quickly thrown into a new eighth grade class due to dropping enrollment at Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Just like my students, I felt awkward and uneasy — brand new again. I studied hard and quickly. I had amazing students who learned with me. But, I still think about Luis, a smart young man who struggled with reading, yet could understand complex concepts.

    Luis and I both worked hard but needed more support than we were getting. I woke up at 3 a.m. daily as we approached eighth grade promotion, trying to think of how to reach him while there was still time. Unfortunately, by the end of that school year, our city, state and nation began to feel the effects of a recession.

    Pink slips had been issued. I had other options and left teaching.

    Now I am an advocate focused on how to improve student learning and teacher working conditions and outcomes. Nearly two decades later, we have a lot of the same problems — economic volatility, dropping enrollment and revolving teacher shortages. We can add the pandemic and its aftermath. It has been a downward spiral for teachers, with many leaving the profession and districts raising alarm bells about cuts. 

    There is one key difference, though.

    We now have access to a powerful data tool, Teaching Assignment Monitoring Outcomes (TAMO), a data set that reflects student access to teachers who are appropriately assigned and fully credentialed in the subject area and for the students they are teaching. This data is available statewide and can be traced to the school level. It ultimately reveals where we need greater focus and investment on teacher recruitment and retention.

    A third year of data was just released on DataQuest. Eighty-three percent of the state’s teachers are fully prepared. That is a good average, but it still leaves nearly 1 in 7 classes taught by teachers who are not fully credentialed and properly assigned. We also must analyze the data across and within districts to assess the equitable access to qualified teachers for low-income students, students of color, English learners and other student subgroups in our diverse student population.

    Educators, parents, policymakers, advocates, and community leaders can conduct that equity analysis and engage in transparent, local conversations to examine unique areas of need such as disparities between schools with high and low proportions of English learners at the same district, or shortages in specific areas such as math or career technical education.

    Public access to this data allowed our colleagues at The Education Trust–West (Ed Trust-West) to develop the TAMO Data Dashboard. They found, within districts, that schools with the highest percentages of students of color and low-income students have less access to fully prepared and properly assigned teachers. The tool also shows where higher proportions of high-need students are associated with more access to qualified teachers. By exploring this data we could identify places that have successful policies and practices to effectively and equitably recruit and retain fully prepared teachers.

    While a wide variety exists, districts also have their own systems to closely track hiring, retention and vacancies. Actionable and publicly accessible teacher data systems are critical in our long-term quest to effectively and equitably staff schools. Oakland Unified, where 61% of teachers are fully prepared, has developed a public dashboard to track teacher retention data disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Oakland also employs a teacher satisfaction survey to help potentially identify systemic issues with teacher working conditions much sooner. It is possible to address teacher stress and provide more support to newer teachers at specific schools, for example, before they become overwhelmed and take steps toward leaving their jobs. 

    District, county and state leaders who use data to precisely define their teacher workforce challenges may have more capacity to envision solutions, such as those in the California Educator Diversity Roadmap, published by Californians for Justice, Public Advocates and Ed Trust-West.

    Teachers have enormous impact on individual life trajectories, school communities, and, in the aggregate, whole societies. We must prioritize and invest in the potential of teachers as we recruit, train and retain them to help students also reach their full potential.

    Luis and I didn’t get what we needed back in 2008, but we had assets. I built on mine when I moved on from El Sereno Middle School, and I hope he did too. We have much better access to data today. We must match that data with action.   

    •••

    Angelica Salazar is senior policy advocate on the education equity team of Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Netanyahu Is a War Criminal. Will Trump Stop Him?

    Netanyahu Is a War Criminal. Will Trump Stop Him?


    Gideon Levy, a writer for the Israeli progressive publication Ha’aretz, excoriates the ongoing military campaign in Gaza. It’s about to get worse. Netanyahu is perpetuating the war for no reason. He has utterly destroyed Gaza. He has ordered the bombing of hospitals and schools, claiming that they sheltered terrorists while knowing that he was committing war crimes. For the last three months, Israel has prevented food, medicine and humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.

    Nothing the Israeli Defense Forces do can eliminate Hamas. Their soldiers live in an elaborate city of well-supplied tunnels, protected from the bombing. When hostages were released, members of Hamas appeared in their uniforms, faces hidden, brandishing their weapons, letting the Israelis know that they are still a force, still in charge. This served to goad the extremists who surround Netanyahu. More killing lies ahead. The only one who could end it is Trump. He’s in the region. He’s not stopping in Israel. He’s not using his relationship with Netanyahu to stop the killing. He should.

    He could intervene instead of musing idly about turning Gaza into “the Riviera of the .Middle East” and expelling its people elsewhere.

    Gideon Levy wrote:

    About 70 people from dawn to noon on Wednesday. Almost twice the number of those killed in the massacre at Kibbutz Nir Oz. 22 of them were children, and 15 were women. The previous evening, 23 were killed in a hospital. 

    Operation Gideon’s Chariots has yet to begin, and the chariots of genocide are already warming their engines.

    How will we call this massacre, so indiscriminate and pointless, even before the big operation has begun? 23 killed in the bombing of a hospital – one of the most serious war crimes – just to try and kill Mohammed Sinwar, the latest devil, with nine bunker buster bombs – everything to provide Yedioth Ahronoth in their lust for the main headline: “In his brother’s footsteps.” 

    The readers loved it, Israelis loved it, no one came out against it on Wednesday.

    They made peace in Riyadh, and in Gaza they massacred. It’s hard to think of a more grating contrast than this, between the scenes in Riyadh and those in Jabalya on Wednesday.

    Children’s bodies being carried by their parents, the bulldozer trying to clear a way for the ambulance and being blown up from the air, the people burrowing in the ruins of the hospital searching for their loved ones – all this in the face of lifting sanctions from Syria and the hope for a new future.

    Nothing, not even the elimination of another Sinwar, can justify the indiscriminate bombing of a hospital. This unwavering truth has been totally forgotten here by now. Everything is normal, everything is justified and approved, even the attack on the intensive care ward in the European Hospital in Khan Yunis is a mitzvah. 

    No choice exists but to cry out again: You cannot attack hospitals – and not schools that have been turned into shelters, either – even if the strategic air command of Hamas is hiding underneath them. Even if Sinwar is there, whose kill is so pointless.

    Is there anything left we can do in Gaza that will be seen in Israel as morally and legally unacceptable? 100 dead children? A thousand women for Sinwar the brother? It was necessary to eliminate him, they explained, because he was an “obstacle to a hostage deal.” 

    We’ve even lost our shame. The sole obstacle to a hostage deal sits in Jerusalem, his name is Benjamin Netanyahu, along with his fascist partners, and no one can even conceive that it’s legitimate to harm them to remove the obstacle.

    What happened on Wednesday in Gaza is just a promo for what will occur in the coming months, if no one stops Israel. The further Donald Trump’s colossal campaign in the Gulf advances, the pistol that will stop Israel has yet to be seen.

    When supposedly there was still a purpose, when the goals were seemingly clear, when the human need to punish and take revenge for October 7 was still understandable, when it still seemed that Israel knew what it wanted at all; it was still possible somehow to accept the mass killing and destruction. 

    But no longer. Now, when it’s clear Israel has no goal and no plan, there is no longer any way to justify what happened in Gaza on Tuesday night.

    No Israeli leader opened their mouth, not a single one. The left’s hope, Yair Golan, on a good day calls to end the war, and like him, tens of thousands of determined protesters. 

    They want to end the war to bring the hostages home. They are also worried about the lives of the soldiers who will fall in vain. 

    But what about Gaza? What about its sacrifice? How have we reached a situation in which no Zionist politician can come out in its defense? Not one righteous man in Sodom, not a single one. 

    The sights from there once again scorched the soul on Wednesday, once again body carts, once again children in a long line of body bags on the floor, here lie their bodies, and once again the heartbreaking weeping of parents for their daughters and sons. 

    About 100 people were killed in Gaza on Wednesday. Almost all of them innocent, except for their being Palestinians who live in the Gaza Strip. They were killed by Israeli soldiers. This is their appetizer for the campaign their military aspires to – and we remain silent.



    Source link

  • California wants to accelerate schools’ efforts to build 2.3 million units of housing

    California wants to accelerate schools’ efforts to build 2.3 million units of housing


    A view of the courtyard from the third floor of a housing complex for teachers and education staff of Jefferson Union High School District in Daly City on July 8, 2022.

    Credit: Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo

    Jefferson Union High School District used to lose a quarter of its staff every year, which meant that it began every school year scrambling to fill vacancies. That changed in 2022 when the Daly City-based district developed affordable housing for its staff.

    The district built 122 units on school district-owned land that is now fully occupied by 25% of the district’s staff. Board member Andy Lie said the district is beginning the new school year with zero vacancies, a transformation he calls “remarkable” and “unheard of in public education.”

    In January, legislation to ease zoning requirements for school districts interested in building affordable housing took effect. Jefferson Union High and a handful of other districts in the state are ahead of others in providing housing for both teachers and classified staff.

    Districts with success stories, as well as local and state leaders, will be at an Aug. 14 housing summit convened by the California Department of Education (CDE). During a news conference Tuesday at department headquarters, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said schools own 75,000 acres of undeveloped land that could be used to build 2.3 million units. Thurmond wants to see these units built over the next eight years as a way to address California’s teacher shortage.

    Citing overwhelming interest in this matter, the California School Boards Association’s presentation on the topic this month noted that 158 of about 1,000 school districts have expressed interest in providing affordable housing for education staff. Eight districts already provide housing or have housing under construction, while the vast majority of the rest are in the early stages of exploring it.

    The California School Boards Association (CSBA) has created a map showing the status of housing projects across the state. To access more information expand the map to full screen:

    Recruiting and retaining school staff

    State and local officials say that building housing goes a long way toward solving many of the problems both schools and other Californians face. Salaries of school staff are often far below the median rent in many areas, which creates difficulties finding or retaining staff. That leads to long commutes for staff whose household budgets are already stretched thin.

    Many districts dealing with declining enrollment and associated financial woes consider selling off some of their land, a valuable resource in California, for short-term gain, according to Andrew Keller, senior director of operations and strategic initiatives for CSBA.

    Developing housing on that land instead makes a dent in California’s affordability crisis and helps retain teachers, while also offering school districts a new stream of no-strings-attached funding. Schools can typically rent far below market value while still earning income that can support them long-term, Keller said.

    Jefferson Union High School District found no shortage of staff members interested in their affordable housing. The district currently has a waitlist of 30 members. Thurmond would also like to see legislation that would allow districts to open their units to the wider community because students and their families are also struggling with the affordability of California.

    In Los Angeles, LAUSD has three projects with 185 units that serve its employees — and Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the district is surveying employees and considering opening more affordable housing on 10 sites. But the district has also launched a project aimed at helping local families in concert with Many Mansions, a local nonprofit. The Sun King Apartments is a 25-unit facility that offers permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless families with children enrolled in LAUSD schools.

    Even school districts that led the trend said it was a struggle to make the pitch to the community. Richard Barrera, a San Diego Unified School District board member, said community members would be confused about why the district would need to get into the housing business.

    “If we don’t recruit and retain educators, we can’t do our job as educators,” Barrera said.

    San Diego Unified has a goal of opening up 1,500 affordable units to house 10% of its staff, thanks to a school bond measure that passed in 2022, Barrera said.

    Thurmond would like to see legislation that creates even more financial incentives for districts to build housing, which might help those seeking bond measures to fund projects. He noted that educator housing is also eligible for the $500 million in available annual housing tax credits from the state.

    Some school districts have had trouble convincing voters that building housing for teachers and staff is worth it. In 2020, school bond measures for staff housing failed at Patterson Joint Unified School District in Stanislaus County, Soledad Unified in Monterey County and East Side Union High School District in Santa Clara County. 

    Even Jefferson Union High School District eked out a narrow win with just over the 55% requirement needed to pass.

    “The community didn’t quite understand what it was that we were doing,” Lie said, “but it passed.”

    Lie said that staff morale has improved, and the district can now rely on veterans to stick around and build on their success in Jefferson Union High School District, demonstrating why affordable housing for staff is so important to student success. 

    “We can’t give our best to our students if our educators are struggling with housing insecurity,” he said.

    Resources for districts

    CSBA has joined forces with researchers to create resources for districts interested in building housing — to help overcome one of the biggest concerns about school districts lacking expertise in building housing, Keller said. 

    Researchers want to make the process as easy as possible for schools, said Manos Proussaloglou, assistant director at UCLA’s cityLAB, including preparing guides, based on lessons learned both from both successful and unsuccessful projects. 

    “We’re really interested in learning why some educational workforce housing projects start but then stall — and see if we can learn from those,” Proussaloglou said.

    To expedite the process of building, researchers from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley have created a map that homes in on the communities that will most benefit.

    “Ultimately, those are the districts we really want to work with and make sure they understand that it is an opportunity to address those challenges,” said Sara Hinkley, the California program manager at the Center for Cities + Schools.

    The calculations behind the map by UC Berkeley are where Thurmond got the number of 2.3 million potential units in the state. That figure assumes that every extra acre of developable land a school district owns could support 30 units.

    The map tallies the surplus property California school districts own, considering factors such as how many are on school campuses or completely undeveloped sites and whether those sites are close to amenities like public transit, while also accounting for annual teacher turnover rate, the demographics of the school, enrollment and the gap between staff salaries and median rents.

    “We know that until we can pay teachers and classified staff better — which is our priority, that building affordable housing for them is an important tool for educator recruitment and retention,” said Thurmond.





    Source link

  • UC admits more California residents, looking to meet state goals

    UC admits more California residents, looking to meet state goals


    UCLA campus in westwood on Nov. 18, 2023.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    The University of California admitted a record number of California resident first-year students for the upcoming fall term, offering a spot to 93,920 of them, the university system announced Wednesday.

    UC also made more admission offers to community college transfer students and to low-income students. Latino students were the largest demographic group of admitted first-year students, while UC also slightly increased offers to Black students. 

    But just because the students were accepted doesn’t mean they will ultimately attend UC. The numbers released Wednesday do not indicate how many students paid their deposits and told UC they intended to enroll. Enrollment data won’t be available until after the fall term — typically in January. 

    Still, UC President Michael Drake said in a statement that the admission numbers “demonstrate the University of California’s commitment to expanding opportunity and access” for all students. 

    “We’re setting more California students on the path to a college degree and future success, and that translates to a positive impact on communities throughout the state,” Drake said. 

    Latino students represented the largest share of California first-year admits, accounting for 38.6% of them, up from 37.7% last year. UC also made admission offers to about 500 more Black students than it did for fall 2023. 

    In total, UC admitted 166,706 students for fall 2024, its largest ever class of admitted students. That includes 137,200 first-year students and 29,506 transfer students.

    The 93,920 admission offers to California resident first-year students represents a 4.3% increase from last year.

    Latino students in fall 2023 accounted for 26% of UC’s undergraduate population — much less than the share of Latino students in California high schools, where they make up more than half the student population. Black students made up 4.6% of the UC undergraduate population in fall 2023. The largest demographic group was Asian students, accounting for 36%, while white students accounted for about 20%. 

    Although UC is aware of the race of applicants, the system is not allowed to consider race as a factor in admissions due to Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot measure banning the use of race in admissions at California public colleges.

    UC in recent years has prioritized admitting and enrolling California residents in response to pressure from lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom. In 2022, Newsom agreed to give UC as well as the California State University system annual funding increases of 5% for five years. In exchange, the two systems are expected to work toward a number of goals, including increasing graduation rates and enrolling more in-state students.

    Amid declining state revenues, the governor nearly reneged on the compact this year. But after negotiations with lawmakers, the final budget deal included a 5% base increase for both UC and CSU, equal to $227.8 million for UC. The budget, however, also included a one-time cut of $125 million for UC.

    In a statement Wednesday, UC said this fall it is “poised to enroll more California undergraduates than ever, building on systemwide progress toward the shared enrollment goals outlined in the budget compact with the state.”

    The compact also calls for UC to increase access for California community college transfer students. UC admitted 26,430 of those transfer students for fall 2024, a 7.8% jump from a year ago. That increase is consistent with trends in the community college system, which has seen its enrollment steadily increase since the 2022-23 academic year following pandemic-related enrollment declines prior to that. 

    UC on Wednesday also touted its increased admission offers to low-income students. Among California first-year students who were admitted, the number who reported low family incomes grew by 1% compared with a year ago. 

    Han Mi Yoon-Wu, UC’s associate vice provost for undergraduate admissions, credited UC’s “holistic admissions process” and the system’s “deliberate work” with high schools, community colleges and community-based organizations.

    “We are thrilled that the University of California continues to be a destination of choice for our state’s incredibly accomplished and diverse students,” she added in her statement.





    Source link

  • Drag Show Owners Beat DeSantis in Court

    Drag Show Owners Beat DeSantis in Court


    Anyone who has ever seen a drag show knows that they are performances. I remember seeing “Dame Edna” on Broadway, and she was hilarious. There was nothing sexual about her show. And by the way, Dame Edna was played by a straight man who created an original character. Last year, I went to play “Drag Bingo” at a local restaurant, and the performers were funny. Their goal was to entertain.

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, America’s number one prude, decided that drag shows had to be banned because they “sexualized” children. In addition to drag shows performed in bistros, there are also Drag Queen Story Hours at local libraries, where drag queens read children’s books out loud. Parents bring their children to these events; the little ones do not come alone.

    To heck with parental rights, DeSantis wanted to close down all the drag shows.

    Hamburger Mary’s, one of the leading venues for drag queens, sued.

    They won.

    Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sebtinel tells the story:

    In recent years, Florida Republicans have been on a crusade to censor books, speech, theatrical performances and even thoughts expressed in private workplaces.

    Their actions have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional — often by conservative judges who have more respect for the Constitution than these petty politicians with their phony patriotism.

    Still, it takes courage to stand up to political bullies willing to spend unlimited amounts of tax dollars, paying lawyers as much as $725 an hour, even when they know they’ll lose.

    That’s why John Paonessa and Mike Rogier deserve credit.

    The Clermont couple and Hamburger Mary’s franchise owners are the victors in the latest court fight against Gov. Ron DeSantis and GOP lawmakers’ attempts to silence speech they dislike.

    This time it was Florida’s war on drag queens, which was pretty clearly unconstitutional from the day it debuted, mainly because it was so poorly written.

    Authors of the so-called “Protection of Children” act claimed to want to protect kids from “shameful” and “lewd” performances, but couldn’t even explain what that meant.

    When bill sponsor Randy Fine was asked on the House floor to define “shameful” — so that venue owners could know what kind of performances would be illegal — he responded:

    “Um … um … [eight seconds of silence] … I think that it … again, that is things that are … I dunno … I mean, again, you can look these things up in the dictionary.”

    Quite the legislative brain trust.

    The reality is that Florida already has laws on the books that protect children from sexually explicit performances. Did you know that? A lot of these tinpot politicians sure hoped you didn’t. But two rounds of federal judges did. And they concluded that this law wasn’t written to target obscenity in general, but rather drag in particular. That’s selective censorship. And if you’re a fan of government doing it, you might prefer living in Russia.

    Patriotic Americans don’t support government censorship of speech. Dictators in North Korea do.

    So after Paonessa and Rogier saw lawmakers repeatedly target drag performers — and even nonprofit organizations like the Orlando Philharmonic rented out their venues for such shows — Paonessa said the two men decided: “If we just let them do this, what is next?”

    Both a federal judge in Orlando and appellate judges in Atlanta ruled they were right to do so.

    The 81-page appellate ruling from the majority made several key points: One was that the state already has laws to protect minors and that out-of-court comments from guys like Fine and DeSantis made it clear that the politicians were trying to specifically — and unconstitutionally — target drag.

    Another was that the state’s own inability to define the kind of behavior it was trying to outlaw proved it was overly broad. “The Constitution demands specificity when the state restricts speech” to shield citizens “from the whims of government censors,” the ruling stated.

    The case also laid bare a lie: These chest-thumping politicians don’t actually believe in “parental rights” or “freedom.” Because this law attempted to make it illegal for teens to attend certain performances even when accompanied by their parents.

    Keep in mind: These politicians are fine with parents taking their kids to see R-rated movies with hard-core sex and graphic violence. They kept that legal. It was only when drag queens got on stage that these politicians lost their minds.

    Drag queens? Evil. Cinematic depictions of bestiality? That’s OK. Those are some strange family values.

    I can’t recall ever taking my own kids to a drag performance. But that was my choice — not the government’s. And Paonessa said many of his restaurant’s offerings, including the Sunday drag brunch, were family-friendly affairs that some teens enjoyed so much, they would return with their own kids when they were older.

    Of course some drag performances are vulgar — just like some movies are. But trying to use a snippet of one sexed-up drag show to represent all drag performances is about as honest and accurate as using a movie like “Eyes Wide Shut” or the “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” to represent all movies. It’s a tactic of misrepresentation known as “tyranny of the anecdote” that’s particularly effective with the intellectually incurious

    For the record, a dissent was authored by a 95-year-old judge appointed by Gerald Ford who invoked states’-rights-themed arguments and said censorship laws needn’t be that specific.

    While the judges who shot down the drag law last week were appointed by Democratic presidents, the judges who shot down DeSantis’ other unconstitutional attempts to silence speech have been hard-core, Federalist Society conservatives.

    Like the ones who blocked the “Stop Woke Act” that tried to ban private businesses from holding employee-training sessions on topics like sexism and racism that GOP lawmakers found too “woke.”

    And the Trump-appointed judge who invalidated the GOP law that called for arresting citizens who donated more than $3,000 to citizen-led campaigns for constitutional amendments.

    If you think government should be able to imprison citizens for donating to campaigns that politicians dislike or silence private speech within the walls of private companies, don’t you dare call yourself a constitutionalist. Or even a patriot.

    In response to the latest judicial smackdown, a DeSantis spokesman whined about judicial “overreach” and said: “No one has a constitutional right to perform sexual routines in front of little kids.”

    Once again, he was banking on your ignorance, hoping you don’t know Florida already has laws that protect minors — just not ones created specifically to target drag.

    The appellate judges referred the case back to Orlando Judge Gregory Presnell, who issued the original injunction in a ruling that was maybe even more damning in effectively detailing the law’s many flaws. But there’s certainly a chance the state will continue trying to litigate the case, since it has unlimited access to your money.

    Frankly, Paonessa and Rogier, who shut down their Hamburger Mary’s location in downtown Orlando last year in the middle of this court battle and are currently looking for a new home, probably couldn’t have afforded to fight back in this two-year court battle if they hadn’t had pro bono help. It came from a Tennessee attorney, Melissa J. Stewart, who fought a similarly unconstitutional attack on drag in that state.

    But Paonessa said they decided to fight for their rights — and yours — because they concluded: “If not us, then who?”

    smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com



    Source link

  • My life as a foster youth includes dreams of college

    My life as a foster youth includes dreams of college


    First Star, Inc., guides high-school-aged foster youth through their journey to college, filling in for the support from family and friends that most young people take for granted.

    Credit: Courtesy First Star, Inc.

    From the time I was 8 years old, I lived in countless homes and attended more than five different elementary and middle schools combined and four high schools.

    To say my upbringing was different from the norm is an understatement. But I’m not alone. In California, 68,000 young people moving in and out of foster homes are currently experiencing the same challenges I faced.

    As a former foster youth, my college journey was not easy. Living in so many different foster homes, frequently changing schools, feeling isolated and disconnected, and falling behind in school were just some of the hurdles I faced daily. When you are in foster care, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and abandoned because you don’t have a family to pick you up when you fall down. No one is around to offer comfort or gently push you in the right direction when you need it most.

    I went to a public high school for my first year and then moved to a Catholic school as a sophomore — and would attend two different public schools after that. Because I moved so much, my school transcripts often got lost. For example, in my sophomore year, I attended one school for just two weeks before switching again because it didn’t work out with the foster family. When I started the new school, they enrolled me as a freshman until I advocated for myself and got placed in the sophomore classes where I belonged.

    This constant upheaval left me feeling isolated and disconnected. Each move meant a new beginning, new people and a new environment to adapt to. Even support services from the state, like social workers and lawyers, were constantly changing, leaving me with no stable adult figure to rely on.

    The impact was devastating academically. My struggles went beyond the frustrations of lost paperwork and transcripts. Schools ignored my request to be evaluated for an individualized education program (IEP), which I knew I needed. Despite obvious academic difficulties, like poor spelling and grammar, teachers simply passed me along. As a college student, I continue to face the consequences of these educational gaps.

    The turning point came when I was introduced to First Star, a community-based organization supporting high-school-age youth in foster care by guiding them to college. They provided more than just hope; they offered tangible support that assisted me with the college application process. Even when I moved out of the Los Angeles area, they ensured I had transportation to attend meetings and access to mentorship. They taught me about the real costs of college and how to budget and navigate financial aid applications. I finally had the supportive relationships I needed with caring people I could trust and rely on to prepare me for life beyond foster care. With their guidance, I was able to apply for college instead of giving up on my goals.

    I know my experience is not unique. There are many other youths like me, striving for a better future, aiming for college, and working hard to beat the stereotypes of youth in foster care. This sense of community was invaluable and gave me the confidence to pursue my dreams. Now, I’m attending college while working with children with special needs. My goal is to someday become a schoolteacher.

    A recent report from the Foster Youth Pre-college Collective, “Destination Graduation,” underscores the need for more support for students in foster care. It highlights a stark reality: Nearly 37% of California’s foster youth do not complete high school within four years, and fewer than half enter postsecondary education within a year of graduation. The college-going rate for foster youth is 25% lower than that of the general population.

    This disparity isn’t due to a lack of ambition or desire to learn. We have the same dreams and potential as any other young person. I speak from personal experience when I say what young people in foster care lack is stability and the nurturing attention that many kids growing up with traditional family support take for granted. However, students like me can achieve great things once we receive the proper support.

    My purpose in sharing my story is three-fold:

    • I want other youth in foster care to see that there is a pathway to college and independence. I am an example of that.
    • I want child welfare and education leaders to recognize that foster youth are not just products of their systems. We are young people who require more than odd-fitting clothes and toiletries sent yearly. To achieve our goals and dreams, we need extra help to heal from trauma, focus on our studies, and reclaim our ability to become accomplished young adults.
    • It’s time for public systems to deepen partnerships with community-based organizations who understand us and offer the individualized support, coaching and encouragement we need to get to graduation day and prepare for the future.

    Improving educational attainment for foster youth will change the course of their lives.

    •••

    Andi Mata is a foster youth ambassador and advocate for educational support programs for foster youth.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link