اینترنت

نویسنده: post bot

  • The Atlantic: Trump Declares War on the Rule of Law

    The Atlantic: Trump Declares War on the Rule of Law


    During Biden’s term in office, Republicans continually complained that Biden was “weaponizing” the Justice Department because it prosecuted Trump for inciting the insurrection of January 6, 2021, and for taking classified documents to his Mar-A-Lago estate.

    Days ago, the Trump administration announced that it had reached a settlement with the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a police officer as she attempted to be first to break into the House of Representatives’ chamber, where members of Congress were fleeing. The family is suing for $30 million. The police officer who shot her was defending the lives of our elected representatives, both Democrats and Republicans. It’s hard to imagine any other administration, whatever the party in power, paying off the family of a woman leading a mob into the House chambers to stop the electoral vote count.

    Now that Trump is president again, he has turned the Departnent of Justice into his personal law office and assigned it the mission of prosecuting anyone whoever dared to cross Trump.

    Trump is gleefully using his powers to weaponize the Department of Justice and to punish his political enemies. Not a peep from the Republicans, who unjustly accused Biden of doing what Trump is literally doing.

    Trump has issued executive orders targeting law firms who had the nerve to represent Democrats or other Trump critics. His orders barred lawyers from those firms from federal buildings and directed the heads of all federal agencies to terminate contracts with the firms he designated. Several major law firms, fearful of being blocked from any federal cases, immediately capitulated. Trump exacted a price for releasing them from his attack: they had to agree to perform pro bono work on behalf of causes chosen by Trump. He currently has close a billion dollars of legal time pledged to him by those law firms that feared his wrath.

    Individuals targeted by Trump must either find a lawyer who will represent them pro bono or face personal bankruptcy, that is, if they can find a lawyer willing to take on the Trump administration.

    A few law firms have resisted Trump’s tyranny, and one of them–Perkins Coie–won a permanent injunction to block the enforcement of Trump’s ban. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton in 2016, as well as George Soros. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said that Trump’s attacks on specific law firms, based on the clients they represented, were unprecedented and unconstitutional.

    Judge Howell cited the example of John Adams, who represented the British soldiers accused of killing five colonists in the Boston Massacre of 1770. In two separate trials, Adams prevailed. He believed that everyone deserved a good lawyer and that they had been provoked into firing. Adams was a patriot and a man who defended the law. He was not stigmatized for defending the British soldiers.

    An issue that Judge Howell raised but set aside for another time was whether Trump’s orders, which single out specific groups or individuals for punishment without trial are bills of attainder, which the Constitution forbids. They surely look like it, and this issue will come up again in the future.

    As law professor James Huffman wrote in The Wall Street journal about Trump’s targeting of law firms:

    A presidential bill of attainder places the powers of all three governmental branches in the hands of one man. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

    Paul Rosenzweig, who worked in the George W. Bush administration, wrote in The Atlantic about Trump’s destruction of the rule of law, which he has twisted into an instrument of retribution for his personal grudges.

    He writes:

    When Thomas Paine asked what made America different from England, he had a ready answer: “In America, the law is king.” America has not always upheld that ideal, but, taking the long view, it has made great progress toward that principle. In recent decades, the Department of Justice has become an institutional embodiment of these aspirations—the locus in the federal government for professional, apolitical enforcement of the law, which is in itself a rejection of the kingly prerogative. That is why Donald Trump’s debasement of the DOJ is far more than the mere degradation of a governmental agency; it is an assault on the rule of law.

    His attack on the institution is threefold: He is using the mechanisms of justice to go after political opponents; he is using those same mechanisms to reward allies; and he is eliminating internal opposition within the department. Each incident making up this pattern is appalling; together, they amount to the decimation of a crucial institution.

    Investigations should be based on facts and the law, not politics. Yet Trump has made punishing political opposition the hallmark of his investigative efforts. The DOJ’s independence from political influence, long a symbol of its probity (remember how scandalous it was that Bill Clinton had a brief meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch?), is now nonexistent.

    This development should frighten all citizens, no matter what their political persuasion. As Attorney General Robert Jackson warned in 1940, the ability of a prosecutor to pick “some person whom he dislikes and desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, [is where] the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.” Choosing targets in this way flies in the face of the DOJ’s rules and traditions—to say nothing of the actual, grave harm it can inflict on people.

    Far from eschewing the possibility of abuse, Trump and his allies at the Department of Justice positively revel in it. The most egregious example was Trump’s recent issuance of an executive order directing the government to investigate the activities of two of his own employees in the first administration, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, who later came to be political opponents of his. (Both men are friends and colleagues of mine.)

    Their offense of perceived disloyalty is perhaps the gravest sin in Trump world, and as a result, they will now be individually targeted for investigation. The personal impact on each of them is no doubt immediate and severe. Krebs, who is a well-respected cybersecurity leader, has quit his job at SentinelOne and plans to focus on his defense. If Trump’s DOJ pursues this investigation to the limit, the two men could face imprisonment.

    The cases of Krebs and Taylor do not stand in isolation. Recently, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey (Trump’s former personal attorney Alina Habba) launched an investigation into the state of New Jersey for its alleged “obstruction” of Trump’s deportation agenda. In other words, because New Jersey won’t let its own employees be drafted as servants of Trump’s policy, the state becomes a pariah in Trump’s mind, one that must be coerced into obedience.

    Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced that the U.S. government is suing Maine because of the state’s refusal to ban transgender athletes from playing on girls’ high-school sports teams. Not content with threatening Maine, Bondi has also announced an investigation of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office because of its alleged opposition to the Second Amendment and its “lengthy” process for approval of gun permits. And she recently announced that she would target leakers of classified information by going after journalists, rescinding a policy that protected journalists from being subpoenaed to assist government-leak investigations.

    But the most aggressive abuser of the criminal-justice system has to be the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin. Martin has asked the FBI to investigate several of President Joe Biden’s EPA grantees for alleged fraud—a claim so weak that one of Martin’s senior subordinates resigned rather than have to advance it in court. He has also begun to investigate, or threatened investigations of, Georgetown University, Senator Charles Schumer, and Representatives Eugene Vindman and Robert Garcia, among others. More recently, in mid-April, Martin sent a series of inquiry letters to at least three medical and scientific journals, asking them how they ensured “competing viewpoints,” with the evident intention of suggesting that the failure to include certain minority opinions was, in some way, content discrimination.

    A less-well-known example of Martin’s excess is his use of threats of criminal prosecution to empower DOGE. When DOGE was first denied entry into the U.S. Institute of Peace, one of the lawyers for USIP got a call from the head of the U.S. attorney’s criminal division, threatening criminal investigation if they didn’t allow DOGE into the building. Magnifying that power of criminal law, Martin sent D.C. police officers to the agency, telling the police that there was “an ongoing incident at the United States Institute of Peace” and that there was “at least one person who was refusing to leave the property at the direction of the acting USIP president, who was lawfully in charge of the facility,” according to the journalist Steve Chapman.

    A final example of DOJ overreach is, perhaps, the most chilling of all. In a recently issued presidential memorandum, Trump directed the attorney general to “investigate and take appropriate action concerning allegations regarding the use of online fundraising platforms to make ‘straw’ or ‘dummy’ contributions and to make foreign contributions to U.S. political candidates and committees, all of which break the law.” Were the investigation neutral in nature, this might be understandable. But it isn’t.

    In fact, there are two major fundraising platforms in use—WinRed (the Republican platform) and ActBlue (the Democratic one). Even though WinRed has been the subject of seven times as many FTC complaints as ActBlue, the Trump memorandum involves only the latter. By targeting his opponents’ fundraising, Trump is overtly marshaling the powers of federal law enforcement in his effort to shut down political opposition.

    In essence, Trump is using the department to try to ensure future Republican electoral victories. One can hardly imagine a more horrifying variation on Lavrentiy Beria’s infamous boast: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    There is more to the article. I encourage you to read it in full.



    Source link

  • Head Start offers path to success for children, families

    Head Start offers path to success for children, families


    Malaya Peterkin and other preschoolers sat in bright blue chairs around a table on a recent afternoon, listening raptly to teacher Rachel Cepeda read a book about butterflies. Afterward, the children created butterfly-themed pieces of art.

    Malaya, age 5, attends the Head Start program at the Sharon Geese Early Learning Center in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento. Her mother, Timeisha Seymore, is confident her daughter will be prepared for kindergarten next school year. 

    “She hasn’t started kindergarten yet, and she can already read,” Seymore said. “My son is doing math already. He’s 4. … You know, they are learning, they are bringing these tools, and we are just ecstatic about it.”

    The children also learn science and, because of the diverse teacher workforce, languages that include Spanish and Mandarin, Seymore said.

    Malaya Peterkin, 5, listens as Rachel Cepeda reads aloud at the Sharon Neese Early Learning Center in Sacramento on April 23, 2025.
    Credit: Randall Benton / EdSource

    Seymore is among the many low-income parents who count on Head Start to prepare their children for kindergarten and to care for them while they work. The program, run locally by schools and nonprofit organizations, serves more than 750,000 children nationwide from birth to 5 years old.

    Now, Head Start parents, teachers and other supporters are worried that potential cuts during federal budget negotiations could either reduce the number of children who can attend the program or eliminate it.

    Program is more than child care

    Students in the Head Start program, operated by the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA), spend their days learning through play in brightly colored classrooms filled with books, blocks, toys and games. Children on tricycles zoom around the fenced playground, play in a giant sandbox or climb on a jungle gym under the watchful eyes of school staff during recess. 

    “It’s an amazing place,” Seymore said. “I love Head Start. My family would not be the same without Head Start.”

    The Sharon Neese Early Learning Center’s program serves 60 preschool students and 29 toddlers. It is one of more than 100 Head Start programs, serving a total of 4,400 students, that SETA operates at schools and other community sites in the Sacramento region.

    Head Start not only teaches children foundational math and reading skills, they receive healthy meals, referrals to dental and medical services, and behavioral support, said Melanee Cottrill, executive director of Head Start California.

    Head Start teachers, who work with students as young as 18 months, sometimes potty-train the children, teach them to wash their hands, how to eat healthy foods and how to take care of their bodies, said Annabel Stofer, who has been a teacher in the Sacramento program for 23 years.

    Annabel Stofer, a 23-year Head Start teacher in Sacramento, says the federal program provides much more than quality child care. “We also support the family and the students to reach their potential, to connect them with resources, referrals, services that their children may need,” Stopher says.
    Credit: Randall Benton / EdSource

    “Head Start is not just a great place for high-quality child care, we also support the family and the students to reach their potential, to connect them with resources, referrals, services that their children may need that they might not even know about,” Stofer said.

    Head Start serves children in deep poverty

    Head Start started in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. It serves children who are homeless, in foster care, on public assistance or whose family income is below the federal poverty level — currently $32,150 annually for a family of four. A limited number of students from families with slightly higher incomes are eligible if space allows. 

    “In a family living in deep poverty, parents are focused on, how am I going to pay rent, how am I going to buy food,” Cottrill said. “They don’t have much capability to focus on A, B, C’s and 1, 2, 3’s.” 

    Early Head Start programs enroll children before they are born, allowing their mothers access to prenatal services and home visits. After the child’s birth, Head Start staff screen the baby for developmental delays. Children as young as 18 months can take part in Early Head Start classroom-based programs for toddlers.

    Jackie Stephens had a home visit from a Head Start worker the morning she spoke to EdSource. The worker checked on her newborn son, Elijah, and offered lactation support. Stephens has been struggling to get Elijah to breastfeed. She tried to schedule an appointment with her medical provider but was told she would have to wait a week.

    “Head Start is about children,” a teary-eyed Stephens said as she discussed the possible funding cuts. “I get the funding part, and I understand, I truly do. But you have to look at the bigger picture — on the effect that it’s having on these children, that it’s helping these parents who are trying to work, who are trying to do better for their family. For something to be ripped apart because of money, it just doesn’t seem right to me. … I pray that it doesn’t happen.”

    Parents are involved

    Family engagement is important at Head Start. Parents are involved at every level of the organization, including as members of the National Head Start board. 

    Teachers meet with parents throughout the year to ensure families aren’t in need of services and to develop educational plans for students. They also help families with their child’s transition to kindergarten — helping them navigate immunization and medical requirements and registration, Stofer said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r6on2Twj0s

    “We’re a family,” she said. “… I consider these children my grandchildren, too. I have three of my own. But these children are equally as important to me emotionally.”

    Stofer finds it difficult to believe the program, in existence for 60 years, could be gone in one presidential administration.

    “I can’t even imagine a world without Head Start,” she said.

    What could replace Head Start?

    If Head Start funding is cut, preschool-age students could be eligible for the California State Preschool Program, which enrolls children beginning at age 3, and transitional kindergarten (TK), which enrolls them at age 4. 

    But Head Start supporters say TK doesn’t offer all the services that low-income families need and that its shorter day isn’t long enough for working families. Head Start programs are generally available at least six hours a day.

    About 75% of all Head Start programs also operate California State Preschool programs at their site with similar services and hours. Early childhood education programs often weave funding from both Head Start and the California State Preschool programs to provide or expand services to all their students.

    But the state isn’t expected to increase funding for additional seats in the California State Preschool Program in the near future, Cottrill said. That means that while early childhood education programs might remain open if Head Start funds are cut, they may have to close centers or eliminate seats, she said.

    California program meets local needs

    California’s Head Start program is unique in that it is designed to meet local needs, Cottrill said. There are Head Start programs in homeless shelters, at schools, in community centers and in private homes.

    Map: Head Start programs across California

    Use the map to explore current Head Start programs across the state, including their status and capacity.

    “One of my favorite examples is that we have a preschool program that is kitty-corner from a library, so they take the parents to the library, and they help them get their library card and access everything that the library has to offer,” Cottrill said. “So, really, it’s about uplifting the entire family.”

    In rural areas of the state, Head Start staff make home visits, offering curriculum to parents and helping them understand their child’s development. 

    Cottrill is hopeful that Head Start will survive upcoming budget negotiations in Washington.

    “What a tragedy it would be to end the program after 60 years of supporting the American Dream,” Cottrill said. “That’s really what we’re talking about, right? This program builds that. It sets people up on a path for success when they did not have it before.”





    Source link

  • How parents can limit children’s harmful cellphone use at home

    How parents can limit children’s harmful cellphone use at home


    The use of personal devices has increased since the Covid pandemic closed school campuses in 2020.

    Credit: Brett Sayles / Pexels

    Children who use cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices excessively are more likely to have shorter attention spans, be more anxious, have trouble thinking critically, be less physically fit and have problems interacting socially, according to research.

    The debate about how much screen time is too much has been ongoing for more than two decades, but it has gained urgency in recent years as young people have become more reliant on cellphones and other devices. 

    The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, with 12- to 13-year-olds more than doubling their recreational screen time to 7.7 hours a day in 2020, according to research led by the University of California San Francisco.

    Adolescents have since decreased the number of hours they are on the phone, but cellphone use is still well above pre-pandemic levels, said Dr. Jason Nagata, an associate professor of pediatrics at UC SanFrancisco. 

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom brought the issue to the forefront earlier this month when he urged school district leaders to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use on campuses this school year. Newsom said excessive cellphone use by young people is linked to anxiety, depression and other mental health issues.

    Cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices aren’t inherently good or bad, Nagata said. They can be a useful tool for communication, education and socialization, but they also have their dangers, he said.

    “The goal of parents and for teens is really to try to optimize all of the benefits, while really minimizing the risks,” Nagata said. “And, I do think that one of the risks associated with constant connection on phone use is that some teenagers and adults really can develop signs and symptoms of an addiction.”

    Up to 95% of young people ages 13-17 nationwide report using social media platforms. A third say they use it “almost constantly,” according to the Office of the Surgeon General.

    “If kids are on their phones 24/7, it doesn’t help them develop a sense that they can create, understand and generate thoughts and ideas,” said Dr. John Piancentini, a psychologist and professor at UCLA Health on its website. 

    Too much screen time can be bad for kids

    Excessive cellphone use can impact a child’s mental health, resulting in anxiety and sometimes disruptive behavior disorders, according to research. Teens who use social media too much can develop body image issues and eating disorders, Nagata said. Others may feel less connected to friends and family.

    Excessive phone use also has potential health consequences. One of the primary ways that phone use can adversely affect a young person’s health is by displacing sleep, which is essential to health and development, Nagata said. The blue light emitted by cellphones and other devices can suppress melatonin, a hormone that helps a person to sleep.

    Cellphone sounds, such as notifications and rings, can also disturb rest. Sleep is important for teenagers in particular. Research shows that one-third of teens already get fewer hours of quality sleep than is required for optimal growth, development and academic achievement, Nagata said.

    Young people who excessively use cellphones are also more likely to have sedentary lifestyles and to focus on the screen instead of what and how much they are eating, he said.

    Increasingly, school districts are banning cellphones and other personal devices to keep students focused on school work and to encourage them to interact more with their teachers and peers. But what can parents do to ensure their children have a healthy relationship with their cellphones and other devices?

    Warning signs of addiction

    There is no consensus among researchers or physicians about exactly what constitutes phone addiction or problematic phone use, Nagata said. Despite that, the issue has become dire enough for the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to issue an advisory in May, calling on policymakers, technology companies, researchers and families to minimize the harm of social media and to create safer, healthier online environments to protect children online. 

    “I think, in general, parents and kids have a sense that maybe their use is too much, maybe it’s leading to problems at home, maybe it’s leading to problems at school,” Nagata said. “And so those might be indications that someone has problematic phone use or a phone addiction.”

    Nagata said there are a few indications that your child may not have a healthy relationship with their phone: 

    • If they are upset at the thought of being without their phone.
    • If they stop whatever they are doing to answer calls, texts or messages.
    • If they argue with others over the amount of time they are on the phone.
    • If they can’t reduce the amount of time they are on their device.
    • If time on the device interferes with schoolwork, chores or in-person socializing with family or friends.

    Parents can limit phone use

    Decreasing the use of cellphones and other devices before adulthood can be particularly important because research shows that screen-use patterns in young adulthood persist through adulthood.

    Tips to decrease screen time:

    • The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends having a family media use plan that outlines when phones can be used and when they can’t. 
    • Initiate screen-free times before bedtime so that children get enough sleep. Parents could consider prohibiting screens in the bedroom and turning off devices and notifications at night.
    • Establish that dinner and social times are screen-free times to better promote conversation and socialization.
    • Parents should have regular conversations with their children about screen use and find opportunities for children to put away their phones and do nonscreen activities with friends.
    • Parents should try to work with the parents of their children’s friends to institute similar rules on social media and screen use to make implementation easier.
    • Parents should adhere to the family media plan and model good cellphone practices.

    “The biggest predictors of children’s screen use are their parent’s screen use,” Nagata said. “It’s really important to practice what you preach.”

    Parental monitoring and limiting of adolescent screen use were both linked to lower adolescent screen time, according to UCSF research. Punishing adolescents by taking away their devices or rewarding them with more screen time was not effective, Nagata said.

    “There is not a one-size-fits-all solution for screen rules, so parents should consider their children’s ages, what electronic devices are in the household, and the family’s needs for communication and school work on electronic devices when constructing a family media use plan,” Nagata said.





    Source link

  • Lithwick & Stern: A Time for Lawyers to Defend Their Profession and Democracy

    Lithwick & Stern: A Time for Lawyers to Defend Their Profession and Democracy


    Writing in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern criticize the big law firms that immediately caved to Trump’s demands to quash their diversity programs and pledge millions of dollars in pro bono work for Trump’s causes. They were singled out for punishment by Trump in executive orders because they dared to represent his political enemies.

    In the present crisis of American law, judges have been overwhelmingly strong in upholding the rule of law over the demands of an egotistical, lawless president. Over 200 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration, which has so far not gone well for Trump. Judges have been targets of abuse, intimidation, even death threats directed at them and their families.

    The authors single out Judge Beryl Howell for her fearless defense of the right of lawyers to represent their clients regardless of their political views.

    They write:

    Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell deftly knit together the professional obligations of the bench to the bar when she handed down a 102-page opinion in favor of one of these fighting firms, Perkins Coie, handing it a massive victory that carried a deeper lesson for the entire legal profession. Howell’s decision is noteworthy for all manner of things, but perhaps the most important aspect is that it serves as a clarion call for lawyers—meaning every lawyer in the country—to find their way to doing the work of democracy. The judge highlighted the “importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice,” a role “recognized in this country since its founding era.” She condemned the administration’s “unprecedented attack on these foundational principles.” And she praised Perkins Coie for defending its lawyers’ right “to represent their clients vigorously and zealously, without fear of retribution from the government simply for doing the job of a lawyer.” Howell also gave credit to the hundreds of lawyers who filed amicus briefs on behalf of the firm, including a cross-ideological array of lawyers, former government officials, and retired judges, reflecting the profession’s near-unanimous revulsion at the prospect of singling out firms based on the clients they choose to represent.

    But Howell went out of her way to cast doubt upon the capitulating firms that took Trump’s deal, for possibly compromising their own legal ethics. Describing Trump’s threat that “lawyers must stick to the party line, or else,” she wrote, archly: “This message has been heard and heeded by some targeted law firms, as reflected in their choice, after reportedly direct dealings with the current White House, to agree to demand terms, perhaps viewing this choice as the best alternative for their clients and employees.” Some clients, she noted, “may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel”—an extraordinary warning to these clients that their lawyers may no longer be defending their best interests. And to make her position perfectly clear, the judge added: “If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.”

    Howell’s opinion serves as the most important reminder to date that in this constitutional moment, those trained to operate within the law and those who swear oaths to defend it have a singular and critical role to play. The days of “I just do mergers and acquisitions” are behind us, sports fans. If America were experiencing a national tooth-decay crisis, the dentists would be on the front lines; and were it experiencing a sweeping leaky-pipe epidemic, the plumbers would be on the front lines. Given that we are in the throes of the greatest legal disaster the country has faced in many Americans’ lifetimes, it might be a good idea for the nation’s attorneys to begin to understand that they have a role to play too. Howell, meanwhile, holds no quarter for those who would seek to be neutral. If you have the tools to fight lawlessness and you opt not to use them at this moment in history, you are emphatically still taking a side.

    It is hard to read Howell’s opinion without worrying that some judge somewhere will find it too sweeping, too polemical, and too teeming with overinflated claims about the centrality of attorneys in American life. (She quoted Alexis de Tocqueville’s observationthat in the early United States, “the authority … intrusted to members of the legal profession … is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy.”) What Howell seems to understand, with as much force as de Tocqueville, is that those entrusted to protect against the “excesses of democracy” are not going to have the luxury of appearing “neutral” much longer, or even just tamping down criticism by avoiding flowery prose in favor of more anodyne wrist slaps. Effective immediately, the defenders of the rule of law are those who went to school to understand it, who get paid to fight for it, and who swear an oath to uphold it.



    Source link

  • Let’s ensure ‘Recess for All’ law really does apply to all

    Let’s ensure ‘Recess for All’ law really does apply to all


    Recess at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland.

    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    When one of our sons (then a third grader) lost recess privileges for a week last school year, he came home cranky and irritable. As he put it, “Recess is the only time I can actually really play with my friends without so many rules.” Research in education, psychology, physiology, and brain science consistently points to recess as a vital part of the school day. There’s a reason most kids claim recess is their favorite subject in school.

    As students across California return to their classrooms, they will step back into healthier learning environments thanks to the landmark Senate Bill 291, known as Recess for All, which requires elementary schools — for the first time in the state’s history — to provide students with at least 30 minutes of daily recess, while also prohibiting withholding recess as punishment.

    The law is a response to the growing concerns about inactivity and the mental health crisis among our youth — challenges exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As public-school parents and professors who study recess and school health, we applaud the effort to not only increase students’ opportunities for school-based play but also to help address the traumas and social isolation our children faced during the pandemic.

    Now we must ensure that schools implement these changes so all children have the access to recess they need and deserve.

    Unfortunately, many still see recess as simply fun and games. This view — a vestige of the No Child Left Behind era, which ramped up school testing and created disincentives for developmental activities like recess, arts, music, and civics — had led some localities to reduce or eliminate regular breaks for children. This was a major issue post-pandemic when concerns about learning loss were pitted against the healing power of play in school. Research supports the importance of taking recess breaks from traditional academic subjects like math and reading; stepping away from classroom learning to move and play can help improve students’ test scores.

    Why is recess so essential for California’s more than 3 million public school students? The play, teamwork, socialization, leadership and self-regulation that happen at recess are critical for child and youth development. Recess is the only unstructured time in the school day when students can acquire and practice these skills. Young children learn a tremendous amount through organized and imaginative play — how to create and follow rules, be inclusive, make good decisions and collaborate.

    The physical activity that occurs at recess is important for many reasons, including helping students to get their wiggles out. But brain science tells us there is more to it than just wiggles. Physical activity and social connection at recess help students regulate their behaviors and emotions. Supporting these executive functions improves students’ abilities to concentrate and learn throughout the school day. 

    Providing students with daily recess can help students deal with trauma. With the distress and isolation they experienced through remote learning, coupled with the escalating mental health concerns, we need low-cost solutions to reach as many students as possible. Research shows that people under stress act reactively, and they behave poorly as a result. Recess allows students time to practice their executive functioning skills, which can help them cope better with stress and reduce anxiety. 

    Importantly, Recess for All is an anti-racist and equitable policy. It has the potential to close the gap in access to recess that exists in California and across the country.

    Students of color and those in low-income areas routinely have less recess time than students in wealthier and whiter areas. Additionally, children of color are disproportionately more likely to be disciplined in school. By abolishing the practice of withholding recess, schools can create restorative practices that support appropriate behavior, rather than punishing students by forcing them to sit out and miss essential growth time. 

    Recess for All is vitally important for California’s youth. As California public school parents, we plan to speak directly to our principals, PTAs and school boards to show our educators how much we value school-based opportunities for play and socialization. We encourage other parents to do the same. Schools respond to the issues most important to parents and their communities. Talk to your school administrators about their plans for ensuring kids get the newly mandated 30 minutes of recess a day. Our children, and our communities, will be healthier for it.

    •••

    Rebecca A. London, Ph.D., is professor of sociology and faculty director of Campus + Community at the University of California Santa Cruz. She is author of the book “Rethinking Recess: Creating Safe and Inclusive Playtime for All Children in School” (Harvard Education Press, 2019).

    Hannah R. Thompson, Ph.D., MPH, is assistant research professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health. She works with school districts to study the impact of improved school-based physical activity and nutrition opportunities on student health.

    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

  • No cuts for schools, more funding for early literacy, in Newsom’s revised budget

    No cuts for schools, more funding for early literacy, in Newsom’s revised budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised 2025-26 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 14, 2025.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    TK-12 schools and community colleges can expect the same funding in 2025-26 that they received this year, plus a small cost-of-living adjustment, and there will be a big boost for early literacy, Gov. Gavin Newsom revealed Wednesday in the revision to his January state budget plan.

    Schools and community colleges will be shielded from the pain facing other state services because of the revised forecast of a $12 billion drop in state revenues that Newsom blamed on the “Trump slump” — the president’s erratic tariff and other economic policies that are affecting California.

    For the University of California and California State University, the news was better than anticipated. The systems would face a 3% cut for 2025-26, notably less than the nearly 8% reduction Newsom proposed in January. The smaller cut may provide some relief at a time when higher education in California and across the nation is worried about losses in federal research grants and other funding under Trump administration policies. 

    The 2.3% cost-of-living adjustment in 2025-26 for most TK-12 programs is determined by a federal formula that does not factor in the cost of housing, the biggest expense facing teachers and other employees.

    In his May budget revision, Newsom keeps significant money for TK-12 programs that he proposed in January for fully rolling out transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds, along with additional funding to reduce class sizes, and for expanding summer school and after-school learning to more districts.

    And Newsom would add $200 million to his earlier $543 million proposal for early literacy instruction, with money to buy instructional materials, hire literacy coaches and train teachers in “evidence-based literacy instruction,” which is code for teaching phonics and word decoding as well as other fundamental reading skills.

    That funding would take a significant step toward creating and funding a comprehensive early literacy strategy and coincides with compromise legislation, pushed by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, on spelling out what the instruction and reading materials should look like.

    “We’re thrilled. We’re excited,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, which pushed early literacy legislation. “In a really tight budget year, prioritizing reading for California kids and investing $200 million is real leadership.”

    Newsom would also add to past efforts to recruit teachers by including $64.2 million in one-time funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, under which teachers receive college tuition in exchange for agreeing to teach in underserved districts and in subjects facing critical shortages, and $100 million to pay stipends to student teachers. Unpaid student teaching has been cited as one of the primary reasons teacher candidates fail to complete their credentials. 

    The Legislature has a month to reshape Newsom’s budget before the June 15 constitutional deadline to pass a budget for the fiscal year that starts on July 1.

    What the budget doesn’t include, however, is any funding to backfill for the potential loss of billions of federal dollars in Medi-Cal funding for school physical and mental health services, cuts for Head Start programs, training grants for new teachers and research grants for the University of California and California State University, and the dismantling of the AmeriCorps program, which supplies teachers aides and tutors in hundreds of low-income schools.

    “Our ability to backfill all these federal cuts — no, we’re not going to be in a position to do that, we just are not in that position,” Newsom said. “It’s the old adage, you can’t do everything but you can do anything. There may be areas where we can make adjustments.”

    “I think we should be cautious about eliminating consideration of x, y, and z until we see the totality of the challenges as they present themselves.”

    In one cost-cutting measure, Gov. Newsom is proposing to roll back California’s health insurance program for undocumented immigrant adults, by charging premiums and freezing new enrollment, a move that advocates said will affect their children, many of whom are U.S. citizens. One in 10 California children are estimated to have an undocumented parent.

    “When a parent or family member is sick and unable to work or provide care, kids suffer as a result,” said Mayra Alvarez, president of the nonprofit organization The Children’s Partnership.  “Ripping away these family members’ access to health care, while they are also under threat of cruel immigration enforcement and other anti-immigrant policies, in turn puts the well-being of our children at risk.”

    Higher education

    State funding for the state’s system of 116 community colleges would change little from last year, receiving 0.6% less, at $8.9 billion. However, some of its important funding — $531.6 million from Proposition 98 revenues — would be deferred for a year under the proposal.  

    UC would have its funding cut by $129.7 million, while CSU would lose $143.8 million. In January, Newsom’s administration had proposed deeper cuts of $396.6 million and $375.2 million, respectively. 

    The revised budget maintains a proposal to defer previously promised 5% budget increases until 2027-28 for both systems. Those deferrals, which were part of Newsom’s multiyear compact agreements with the systems, were also included in Newsom’s January budget proposal. 

    The compacts, originally agreed to in 2022, promised annual budget increases for UC and CSU in exchange for the systems working toward goals such as increasing graduation rates and enrolling more California residents. 

    “We were able to hold strong to that over a two-year period. And we’re struggling now with some challenges,” Newsom said during a news conference Wednesday, though he added that the compacts are “sacrosanct” and that the systems would get their deferred dollars in 2027-28.

    By reducing the proposed cut to UC’s budget for 2025-26, the 10-campus system will be able to minimize cuts to student support services and preserve “critical investments like affordable student housing construction,” President Michael V. Drake said Wednesday in a statement.

    CSU Chancellor Mildred García in January warned that a nearly 8% state budget reduction would result in larger class sizes and fewer course offerings for the system’s more than 460,000 students, hampering their prospects for graduating on time. With those cuts now dialed back to 3%, García praised the May revision as a “thoughtful and measured approach to addressing the state’s fiscal challenges.”

    Proposition 98 maneuvers

    In total, the May revision proposes $45.7 billion for the state’s higher education institutions and the California Student Aid Commission.

    The minimum funding for 2025-26 for Proposition 98, the formula that determines the portion of the general fund that must go to TK-12 and community colleges, would be $114.6 billion, down from $118.9 billion in 2024-25 because of shrinking state revenues.

    Newsom proposes to make up the difference by shifting numbers around, depleting what was left in the Proposition 98 rainy day fund. Among other maneuvers, he would:

    • Drain the remaining $540 million from a fund that was $8.4 billion only two years ago, when the state faced a fiscal crisis.
    • Defer $1.8 billion that would be due to schools in June 2026 by a month, to July 2026. Schools should notice little difference, although the maneuver does create a state obligation that must be repaid.
    • Withhold $1.3 billion due to schools and community colleges in 2024-25 in anticipation that the revenues for the rest of the year might come up short because of the further decline in state revenues.

    This last maneuver grabbed the attention of the California School Boards Association, which filed a lawsuit over a similar effort last year and is threatening to do so again.

    “Even in lean times, investing in public schools is California’s best economic strategy, so we cannot sidestep constitutional protections for public education nor underfund Prop 98 to offset shortfalls in other sections of the budget,” association President Bettye Lusk said in a statement.

    The immediate reaction to the budget proposal was positive, with some caveats.

    “The bottom line is that amid a budget crisis, the governor is protecting every major investment in education,” said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors, a consultant for school districts. “We want to make sure Prop 98 funding is accounted for. As long as that’s the case, there’s not much to complain about.”

    Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers, praised the commitment to universal transitional kindergarten (TK) while criticizing Newsom’s decision to suspend a cost-of-living adjustment for child care providers for low-income children and freeze funding for emergency child care services for foster and homeless children. 

    “We know that small class sizes and highly qualified teachers are two of the most important quality standards to ensure children benefit from pre-K. This budget invests wisely in TK,” he said. “The proposed cut to the COLA (cost of living increase) for child care providers must be restored. Now is the worst time to eliminate a small, but very much needed and deserved COLA for those who take care of our youngest and most vulnerable children.”





    Source link

  • LAUSD’s 100 priority schools show support for equity, but some say program isn’t enough

    LAUSD’s 100 priority schools show support for equity, but some say program isn’t enough


    Students catch up and get ahead during LAUSD’s Summer of Learning.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Thomas Jefferson High School has a rich history. 

    It is one of the oldest schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District — established more than a century ago — and lies in Central Avenue, which used to be called “Little Harlem” during the 1920s and 1930s. 

    Its graduates — from Ralph Bunche, the first Black Nobel laureate, to Alvin Ailey, the legendary choreographer — have had lasting impact.

    Now, Jefferson High sits on LAUSD’s list of 100 priority schools — meaning that Superintendent Alberto Carvalho has identified it as one of the district’s highest-needs campuses with lagging academic performance and lower attendance rates. 

    In an effort to promote equity across the district, LAUSD provides priority schools like Jefferson extra support and is the first to receive various resources, including instructional days designed to recover pandemic learning losses, as well as being the first to pilot LAUSD’s AI personal assistant. 

    “This approach places schools with the most need in a place of priority in the District regarding time and attention by Central and Region Offices,” an LAUSD spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource. 

    While veteran teachers and community activists have applauded Carvalho for putting an emphasis on equity, they have also said that being placed on the list creates a stigma that affects the schools’ administrators, teachers and students. Many have also warned that the superintendent’s approach is too standardized and does not address the root, societal causes of students’ academic struggles. 

    “Nobody wants to be listed as a failing school,” said Nicolle Fefferman, a longtime LAUSD educator who co-founded the Facebook group Parents Supporting Teachers. “Who wants to be on this list? No one — because it feels like an indictment of the hard work that we are doing every day at these schools in the face of huge historical and institutional obstacles.” 

    According to a district spokesperson, LAUSD’s priority schools have higher percentages of underserved students, including those who are Black, Latino, foster youth, unhoused and from immigrant backgrounds. 

    Proponents of other equity programs that largely support the same student body, including the Student Equity Needs Index, say their efforts have been sidelined and that they have not received the same level of support. 

    LAUSD has a history of prioritizing equity, Fefferman said, and Carvalho wasn’t the first district leader to roll out a list of struggling schools during Fefferman’s tenure as a teacher in the district. Former Superintendent Ruben Zacarias, who served in the late 1990s, did something similar. 

    “Los Angeles Unified is committed to an equitable approach in providing historically underserved schools with critical access to supports and resources,” the spokesperson for LAUSD said. 

    A need for equity support

    Largely clustered in south and southeast Los Angeles, the roughly 54,000 LAUSD students who attend Carvalho’s priority schools have struggled with chronic absenteeism — 38.2% in the 2022-23 academic year — and lower academic performance. Only 23% of students attending priority schools met or exceeded English standards, while 16% met or exceeded math standards, according to Smarter Balanced Test results for that same year. 

    Meanwhile, nearly 70% of priority school graduates failed to complete their A-G requirements, which are mandatory for admission to the University of California or the California State University systems. 

    Data for the 2023-24 academic year is not yet available, and it is difficult to determine whether performance at priority schools has improved since they were so identified. 

    So far, the priority schools have improved their outcomes, the spokesperson said, noting that their rate of improvement is larger than the district’s overall. 

    “The questions are: How did those schools get there? How long have they been there? And what’s the plan?” asked Evelyn Aleman, the organizer of the Facebook group Our Voice/Nuestra Voz. 

    “Outside of tutoring and additional school days, things like that, what does (being a priority school) mean? Is it going to be Saturday classes throughout the year? Is it just going to be three additional days? That’s simply not going to be enough.” 

    According to a district spokesperson, developing the list of 100 priority schools was part of a larger plan to improve student performance — and that the campuses on the list receive strategic and priority staffing, along with additional professional development opportunities that are “specific to their school’s unique needs.” 

    They also receive more instructional coaches and dual/current enrollment options. Their progress is more closely monitored. 

    Some LAUSD teachers, however, maintain that the extra support that comes with being a priority school won’t be enough because there are other institutional and societal factors that get in the way of better outcomes. 

    “There is so much stress in the community — much of it because of poverty, some because of violence. And it’s not that there’s violence all the time, but it’s the fact that there can be at any moment — that you’re on guard,” said Susan Ferguson, a veteran LAUSD educator who previously taught at Jefferson High School. 

    “When you’re on your stressors like that for an extended period of time, it affects your immune system. It affects your ability to learn and focus. It affects so many things,” Ferguson said.

    ‘I just don’t feel like we’re moving forward’ 

    Educators in priority schools say they can feel pressure from the district to improve outcomes, and Ferguson said LAUSD officials would come by and visit classrooms on a weekly basis. 

    “Classrooms are constantly having visitors: ‘Are they teaching? What are they teaching?’ The people coming in, I feel like, are well-intentioned, but they’re visiting 10 different schools who have different needs,” Ferguson said.

    “And yet, they’re being asked to help all of us, and they can’t — not unless they really spend time at one school looking at it.” 

    Administrators at the Jefferson High School campus, Ferguson said, have been under enormous pressure to improve academic outcomes. 

    She also said she wouldn’t be surprised if students’ psychology were impacted by the constant flow of district administrators in and out of classrooms — and any nervousness coming from their teachers. 

    “Our kids aren’t stupid. I’m sure that they have picked up on … some sort of problem,” Ferguson said. “I’m really hoping that they’re not taking it as being them. … I can’t imagine them not feeling the anxiety.”

    More than anything, Ferguson maintains that the district’s standardized approach may not address the root cause of students’ academic challenges. 

    “‘Let’s have tutors. Let’s assign these tutors to Jefferson and make the kids stay till 6 p.m.’” Ferguson said. “Well, if you bothered to come to our school and talk to our kids, you’d realize that we don’t have kids that generally stay until 6 p.m. because it’s not even safe. And people have family members to take care of and responsibilities.” 

    “It just totally seems not in touch with what’s going on and what the issues are.”

    ‘A broader view’: SENI’s approach to equity 

    A long-term equity program across LAUSD schools — the Student Equity Needs Index (SENI) — is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. 

    The effort, which was developed by the district alongside various community partners, ranks and categorizes all of LAUSD’s campuses based on their needs. The 15 factors that inform SENI’s rankings go beyond academic factors to include the prevalence of gun violence and asthma rates. 

    During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, exposure to the coronavirus and related deaths were also taken into account. 

    Jessenia Reyes, Catalyst California’s director of educational equity, said social indicators help them focus on challenges more uniquely faced by lower income communities and communities of color. 

    SENI then uses a sliding scale to allocate funding, which schools can use to address whatever needs they and their communities collectively feel are most pressing, said Daniela Hernández, the senior director of campaign development at Innercity Struggle, a local nonprofit organization that has been part of the effort to implement the program. 

    About 90% of SENI funds — which come from the district and are given to schools based on their level of need — went toward bolstering staff across elementary, middle and high schools, with many choosing to focus on psychiatric social workers and pupil services and attendance staff, according to a 2021 evaluation of the district’s SENI program conducted by American Institutes for Research. 

    The same evaluation found that SENI helped boost English language arts scores among economically disadvantaged students and those who are English learners. Math scores also increased among students with disabilities who are also English learners and economically disadvantaged.  

    Despite the improvements SENI has seen over the past decade, community advocates have also sounded alarms that not all of SENI funds allocated to schools are spent by principals. According to a district budget report, there is roughly $282 million that remains unused going into the 2024-25 academic year. 

    “Schools are encouraged to utilize SENI funds for each school year in order to serve the students who generated those dollars, and to engage with educational partners regarding the use of these funds,” a district spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource. 

    “Unspent SENI dollars are reallocated to schools based on need in order to address learning acceleration, provide mental health services and supports, provide additional learning supports, support student attendance, and address the needs of student populations.”

    Priority schools, the spokesperson said, get to keep up to 70% of their carryover funds. 

    A delicate relationship 

    This past year, 88 high- and highest-need SENI schools were listed on Carvalho’s list of 100 priority schools. A district spokesperson said that SENI serves as more of a financial designation, while the 100 priority schools list is more of a “strategic designation for central and regional support systems.”

    Advocates have said they appreciate LAUSD’s expressed commitment to equity. 

    “The district, if anything, has been ahead of the game of understanding that students don’t learn in a box — that whatever happens in their community matters,” said Miguel Dominguez, the director of development at Community Coalition, who has worked with LAUSD on the SENI initiative. 

    “If they’re being exposed to gun fatalities in their neighborhood, maybe doing a test or a pop quiz might not be something at the forefront of their mind. … This understanding of this overall whole child approach has been big.” 

    But several advocates also maintain that the district’s attitude toward SENI has changed with the emergence of the 100 priority schools. 

    When Carvalho announced he had developed developedhe list, Reyes said SENI seemed to drift onto the back burner; and, they felt an increasing pressure to prove SENI’s worth, and that it “wasn’t just symbolic” but had funding tied to it. 

    She noted that funding for SENI has increased over the years — soaring from $25 to $700 million. Advocates have continued to press for sustained support. 

    “Now more than ever, it is vital that LA Unified takes actionable steps to demonstrate its core belief of equity by interrupting the course of history and committing to prioritizing stable, long-term adequate funding to meet the unique needs of highest-needs students,” a March letter from various SENI supporters to Carvalho and the school board states. 

    “This includes protection of SENI and ensuring the $700 million investment is a permanent and stable funding source beyond the 2024-2025 school year.”      

    Meanwhile, SENI advocates said that a lack of transparency from the district and its failure to immediately release the list of 100 priority schools has made it harder for them to work collaboratively. 

    The district, however, noted that support for priority schools is intended to help campuses take advantage of their resources, including SENI funding and “removing any barriers that may interfere” with their schools’ individual efforts. 

    “There’s room for improvement in collaborating and working in parallel. Because ultimately, if they are SENI schools and they are priority schools, that means it’s a high-need school, period,” Reyes said. “It needs the support and the love from everybody and everything.”





    Source link

  • Chief Justice Roberts Blames “Lack of Civics Education” for Breakdown in Respect for Law

    Chief Justice Roberts Blames “Lack of Civics Education” for Breakdown in Respect for Law


    If this weren’t so pathetic, it would be funny.

    Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at the Georgetown University Law School about the loss of respect for the rule of law.

    Did he point his finger at the President who encouraged an insurrection on January 6, 2021?

    No.

    Did he blame the loser of the 2020 election who spent four years claiming that the election was rigged and that he didn’t lose?

    No.

    Did he blame the political party that spent four years asserting not only that the election of 2020 was rigged but that the rightful winner was “crooked” and every member of his family was part of a “crime family”?

    No.

    Did he blame the President who has openly ignored federal court orders?

    No.

    Did he blame the President who proposes to abolish due process of law even though it is written into the Constitution?

    No.

    Did he blame the President who said publicly that he didn’t know whether he is required to support the Constitution?

    No.

    Chief Justice Roberts is right to be concerned about the shrinkage of civics education, but he is wrong to ignore the reason for that shrinkage: No Child Left Behind made test scores the central goal of education, which diminished everything in the curriculum other than reading and math.

    Because so many young people have not received civics education, they are likely to be misled by a charlatan whose actions model contempt for the rule of law and the Constitutuon.

    And, worse, it was the Roberts Court that proclaimed that the President while carrying out his duties has absolute immunity and is above the law.

    The Supreme Court, in short, overturned the deep-seated principle taught in civics classes that “no man is above the law.”

    Mr. Chief Justice, if you want to know who encouraged disrespect for the rule of law, look in the mirror.



    Source link

  • Don’t criminalize homeless students | EdSource

    Don’t criminalize homeless students | EdSource


    Credit: John Cudal/St. Joseph Center

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent encampment executive order mandating the clearing of homeless encampments on state property, coupled with the start of the school year and a new Supreme Court decision, shines light on an often-overlooked crisis — the devastating impact that both homelessness and the criminal justice system can have on our youth.

    I know firsthand how housing insecurities, combined with a broken criminal justice system, can destabilize the lives of young people, pushing them further into systems that fail to support their complex journeys.

    As a high school student growing up in Los Angeles, I remember coming home after a full day of classes to find something unexpected on our door — an eviction notice. My mom, an educated single mother who worked tirelessly to afford our Culver City condominium, looked at me with sorrow in her eyes.

    She handed me trash bags and told me we had a day to leave the home we had spent a decade making our own. Uncertain of the future, I packed all my belongings in those bags, making sure to grab my grandfather’s wooden cane, which I needed for my leading role in the school’s upcoming Black History Month assembly.

    As my mother and I slept in an acquaintance’s living room, I convinced myself to keep going to school, clinging to the fact that I had a play to complete. On the day of the play, I woke up early, grabbed the cane, and walked to Culver City High from our new neighborhood. On the way, the police stopped me and questioned why I was carrying what they considered a weapon.

    Confused, I explained that the cane was for my role in the school play. They handcuffed me, searched my belongings, and asked where I lived — a question I couldn’t answer. They interrogated me about gang affiliations and potential tattoos while noting my information, likely for future stops.

    Although they eventually let me go, I realized then that my reality had shifted — I was now a young Black man navigating systems not designed for my success.

    Unfortunately, my story is far from unique. Black and Latino people are overrepresented in both the criminal justice system and the unhoused community. Although Black youth make up about 6% of California’s population, they account for roughly 29% of the homeless youth population.

    A 2021 report from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice indicated that homeless youth are more likely to be criminalized for “survival behaviors” such as loitering, panhandling or sleeping in public places. These interactions can lead to arrests, fines or incarceration, further entrenching them in the justice system.

    The Supreme Court’s misguided Grants Pass v. Johnson decision this spring allows cities and counties to criminally charge people who sleep in public. This will disproportionately affect youth and families of color — those who have historically been displaced from their housing due to redlining, rising costs, gentrification and lack of access to resources. Communities of color find themselves pushed into a criminal justice system designed to marginalize and penalize rather than support and serve them.

    Intertwining the brutal inequities of homelessness with those of the criminal justice system has devastating long-term impacts, particularly for youth. The lack of stable housing often leads to repeated interactions with the criminal justice system, as these youth may be detained for minor offenses or for violating terms of probation that require them to maintain a stable address.

    Criminalizing our unhoused youth further exacerbates homelessness, creating a vicious cycle of jail, debt and inevitable future homelessness. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, people who have been to prison even just once experience homelessness at a rate nearly seven times higher than the general public. A criminal record can also reduce the likelihood of a callback or job offer by almost 50%.

    We must address the root causes of youth homelessness, including economic instability, lack of affordable housing, and inadequate support systems for those aging out of foster care. Let’s not place undue burdens on the youth most impacted by our systemic failures — those who have the least power to do anything about it.

    While there is much work to be done, we’ve seen progress from Santa Monica to downtown Los Angeles in moving people inside humanely with tangible results. The recent Los Angeles Housing Services Authority Homeless Count showed declines in the number of people living outside across LA, including a nearly 20% decrease in homelessness on the Westside of LA, where I experienced housing insecurity growing up. This decline is the product of homeless service providers and community-based organizations working with policymakers to provide quality case management, interim and permanent supportive housing, mental health supports, and workforce development opportunities for our unhoused neighbors.

    Gov. Newsom and other leaders should seize this moment to end the youth homelessness-to-prison pipeline once and for all. LA County’s Office of Diversion and Reentry Housing program has successfully housed thousands of people, including youth, through diversion and development programs tailored to both young people and adults.

    Also, organizations like Safe Place for Youth and Covenant House California provide a comprehensive range of services, including housing support, education, employment resources, and mental health care for homeless and at-risk youth. The SJC Santa Monica Youth Resource Team, a collaborative network that connects youth with essential services like shelter, counseling and job training, is doing everything possible to end youth homelessness in this generation.

    It’s not just about what we do, but how we do it. Los Angeles and all of California must continue to lead with compassion, confronting the roots of this crisis with the care and dignity that all our neighbors deserve.

    Even though I nearly gave up on high school, I had a counselor who was, committed to helping me apply to colleges and then assistant principal Leslie Lockhart, who paid for my application to UCLA. Because of their efforts, I completed my undergraduate and graduate studies at UCLA.

    We overcame our challenges because of support systems that focused on my family’s needs with healing and dignity. Now is the time to double down on resources and evidence-based practices for the communities we serve.

    We must prioritize care, not cages.

    •••

    Ryan J. Smith, who holds a doctorate in education, is the president and CEO of the St. Joseph Center, a homelessness services and poverty alleviation agency, and an affordable housing commissioner for the city of Los Angeles. 

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





    Source link

  • SF State drops investments in arms makers in deal with pro-Palestinian students

    SF State drops investments in arms makers in deal with pro-Palestinian students


    A Cease Fire Now sign hangs on a tent on the grass as tents are set up in The Quad during a Students for Gaza rally at San Francisco State University on April 29, 2024.

    Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    San Francisco State has pulled investments from three companies it says don’t meet its human rights standards following pressure from pro-Palestinian student activists.

    The moves resulted in changes to the university’s $163 million investment portfolio.

    SF State Foundation confirmed Wednesday that it has sold its Lockheed Martin corporate bond position and stock positions in Leonardo, an Italian multinational defense company, and Palantir Technologies, a U.S.-based data analysis firm that has worked with the Israeli Defense Ministry. 

    The foundation also screened out a fourth company, the construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar, based on a pre-existing policy that steers the foundation away from investments in fossil fuels. The company has become a target of groups advocating divestment from Israel. They claim Caterpillar’s heavy equipment has been turned into weapons by Israel in the Palestinian territory. 

    College students around the country have pushed universities to remove companies aligned with Israel from investment portfolios. Student activists have met resistance from California State University system officials, who have said they won’t tinker with investment policies in reaction to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Instead, students on some campuses have focused their energy on school-level foundation endowments, but say their goal remains to influence the entire system’s investment policies. 

    San Francisco State students made headway by training their attention on the university foundation’s investment screens, standards used to make sure investments are consistent with the school’s values, like racial justice, social justice and climate change. The SF State Foundation shed investments in the four companies as the result of implementing those screens and not because it agreed to sell specific companies.

    The changes come following a summer of Zoom meetings held by a work group composed of representatives from Students for Gaza, SF State Foundation investment committee, faculty and administrators.

    The work group proposed a revised investment policy that says the foundation will not invest in arms makers and will “strive not to invest in companies that consistently, knowingly and directly facilitate or enable severe violations of international law and human rights.” The draft does not name any specific country or conflict.

    The proposed policy is slated for a final vote in December. The foundation’s investment committee decided to act on the suggested revisions in the meantime, identifying the investments in Lockheed Martin, Leonardo and Palantir under the human rights screens.

    The foundation also will unveil a new website disclosing more information about its endowment by the end of September.

    “Through the work of the many students involved in GUPS (General Union of Palestine Students) at SFSU and SFG (Students for Gaza), we have been able to successfully ensure our money is not funding GENOCIDE ‼️” an Aug. 27 announcement on Instagram by the group Students for Gaza at San Francisco State said.

    Sheldon Gen, a faculty representative to the SF State Foundation, said the work group landed on draft policy language that aligns the university’s investment policies with its values, without singling out a specific conflict, country or geographic area.

    “What we did at San Francisco State isn’t going to end the conflict in Gaza, but we did find some space where students can have agency and be heard ― and not only that, but really, honestly improve our university,” he said.

    Jeff Jackanicz, the president of the SF State Foundation, thanked students who participated in the work group in an Aug. 22 email to the campus outlining proposed changes to the foundation’s environmental, social and governance, or ESG, strategies.

    “We have been lauded for being a leader in ESG investment before, and with credit to Students for Gaza, our revised policy affirms our leading role in values-driven advising,” Jackanicz wrote.

    Students for Gaza scheduled a rally and news conference Thursday at 12:15 p.m. in San Francisco State’s Malcolm X Plaza to announce the investment changes.

    A ‘tangible’ bid for divestment

    The decision to tighten investment screens at San Francisco State follows a wave of campus protests calling on Israel to end an assault on Gaza that has killed more than 40,000 people, according to the local health ministry. The current fighting started on Oct. 7 when Hamas and other militants attacked Israel, killing more than 1,000 people and abducting hundreds more.

    Rama Ali Kased, an associate professor of race and resistance studies and an adviser to students in the work group, said some on her campus were surprised to learn the university had any investments in arms makers. Asking the university to cut ties with those firms was “tangible and understandable,” she said — which made the case to drop those investments easier.

    The SF State Foundation is the auxiliary organization responsible for raising private funding for the university and managing the university’s endowment, money the university funnels into facilities, scholarships and other university programs. 

    The foundation’s endowment spent $8.9 million of its income across the university in the 2022-23 fiscal year, according to Cal State records, and ranked as the seventh-largest in the Cal State system by market value.

    This is not the first time that SF State has revised its foundation investment criteria following feedback from student activists. In 2013, the foundation limited direct investments in coal and tar sands, a step Cal State says was a first among U.S. public universities. 

    Each of the 23 campuses in the California State University system, as well as the Chancellor’s Office, has a separate endowment managed by an auxiliary organization. Together, the CSU endowments had a market value of $2.5 billion in the 2022-23 fiscal year, growing roughly 8.7% year-over-year. 

    The Chancellor’s Office on April 30 released a statement saying that Cal State “does not intend to alter existing investment policies related to Israel or the Israel-Hamas conflict” because such divestment “impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses.​”

    Campus leaders nonetheless have some flexibility to manage their own endowments. 

    Sacramento State on May 8 announced new investment policy language as a concession to pro-Palestinian student groups. That language does not mention Israel specifically but instead directs the school’s foundation “to investigate socially responsible investment strategies which include not having direct investments in corporations and funds that profit from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and activities that violate fundamental human rights.”

    Less than a week after the Sacramento State announcement, SF State agreed to revise its investment policies in consultation with student encampment representatives, setting in motion this summer’s work group.

    But an incident at another Cal State campus suggests there are limits to how much leeway campus leaders have to negotiate with student protesters. 

    Mike Lee, then-president of Sonoma State University, announced on May 14 that he had reached an accord with protesters to review the school foundation’s investments and form an advisory council that would include a local chapter of the group Students for Justice in Palestine.

    Lee was forced to backpedal soon afterward. The CSU placed him on administrative leave the following day, saying he announced the agreement without proper approvals. Lee decided to go back into retirement soon afterward.

    The path to a deal

    To Lynn Mahoney, the president of San Francisco State University, the student encampment pitched on her campus for roughly two weeks this spring had roots in a range of student concerns, from dizzying Bay Area housing costs to the climate change crisis.

    “If these young people aren’t angry, they’re not paying attention,” Mahoney said. 

    That perspective shaped the way Mahoney responded when students organized protests in April. Mahoney agreed to participate in an open bargaining session held in the school’s Malcolm X Plaza, fielding questions from students and sharing information about the university’s investment practices.

    “I just strongly urge presidents: Approach the students with respect, even if they’re out there hollering horrible things about you,” she said. “Approach them with respect. They’re your students.”

    Kased said that by meeting with students at the encampment this spring, Mahoney and student protest leaders set a tone that allowed for the work group to continue over the summer.

    “That move provided a space for students to feel empowered, but to say, ‘Look, we may not agree with President Mahoney on everything, but we’re going to sit down,’” Kased said.

    The summer’s work group also benefited from a governance structure students developed during the spring encampment, Kased said, when students elected leaders to represent them and similarly identified faculty to act as spokespeople and liaisons in negotiations with the administration.

    People who attended the meetings said they tended to be collegial rather than confrontational, and that rare moments of tension between students and campus officials were quickly quelled.

    “These were tough discussions,” Gen said. “It’s the kind of discussion that professors aspire to have with their students in classes, quite honestly — challenging ones, where they raise tough questions, explore implications of perspectives and, most importantly, find some route for agency.”

    Gen said the discussions with students this summer echoed previous debates within the foundation’s investment committee regarding whether to divest from specific countries due to their records on human rights. The committee has avoided naming specific countries in its policies, he said, instead articulating values its investments should reflect. 

    “We have a diversity of students who are on all sides of this specific issue here, too, and we weren’t going to alienate one student group for another,” he said. “They’re all our students.”

    ‘Not about money’ 

    Some foundation investments are easier to screen than others.

    Noam Perry, who works with activists leading divestment campaigns as part of his role at the American Friends Service Committee, acted as a de facto translator between San Francisco State students and university officials this summer. 

    He said one place where the work group made progress was by identifying specific investments held in separately managed accounts, an investment vehicle tailored to the university. 

    A foundation document dated Aug. 14 says the foundation will screen out “any company deriving more [than] 5% of revenue from weapons manufacturing, involved in the private prison industry, or engaging in detention at borders” from separately managed accounts.

    But it can be harder to get a clear picture of other investment vehicles. Perry said that the foundation works with some asset managers that apply quantitative investment strategies. That means the manager buys and sells stocks dynamically — and the stock holdings change every day. 

    “That’s where conversations became really tense,” said Perry. “Because from the students’ perspective … this is unacceptable, because there’s no way that this vendor could ever be aligned with the responsible investment policy that the university is seeking. And from the university’s perspective, that’s where there’s revenue to be lost. They never said they had zero tolerance for having these companies. It’s always about minimizing exposure and reducing the risk that they’re invested in these (companies).”

    Perry said how the foundation should handle such investments in the future remains an open question. 

    Jackanicz’s Aug. 22 email to the campus said the university’s “commingled investment strategies already align strongly with core environmental, social and governance (ESG) values.” He said the foundation believes “we can engage with fund managers over time to discuss changes that could have further positive impacts.”





    Source link