“Mother’s Day hike in Dumbarton Oaks Park with Amaryllis, Bobby, Kick, and Jackson, and a swim with my grandchildren, Bobcat and Cassius in Rock Creek,” Kennedy captioned an online photo putting him at the scene of the grime.
“Rock Creek has high levels of bacteria and other infectious pathogens that make swimming, wading and other contact with the water a hazard to human (and pet) health,” the park’s department states on its website.
Swimming in D.C.’s rivers and streams has been banned since 1971 due to “high amounts of fecal bacteria from combined sewer overflows.” Signs at Rock Creek Park specifically tell visitors to stay out of the water to prevent illness.
Kennedy’s decision-making skills have been called into question, even by members of his own family.
“When RFK Jr decided to run [for president in 2024], he didn’t call me to ask for help because he knew I would oppose his candidacy due to his misguided stands on issues, his poor judgement and tenuous relationship with the truth,” said his nephew Stephen Kennedy Smith, according to NBC News.
Dozens of Nobel Prize winners and thousands of medical professionals warned that the political scion, who has no medical training, wasn’t fit to run the nation’s health programs. His conspiracy theory-based skepticism on vaccines has repeatedly raised red flags.
Kennedy’s own health has also raised concerns.
In April 2024, the New York Times reported that he once testified a parasitic worm ate part of his brainand died inside his head. He also said he’s been diagnosed with mercury poisoning, likely caused by eating fish carrying the dangerous metal.
Doctors with experience treating such ailments reportedly said patients can suffer permanent damage from those afflictions. Kennedy told the Times that wasn’t his experience.
He has not addressed his decision to swim in Rock Creek.
Students who are missing too much school might be facing mental health issues, poverty and housing insecurity — issues that might seem daunting if not impossible for the school system to tackle by itself.
But relatively simple strategies, such as improved communication with parents via phone calls, emails or postcards, can be effective while costing little, according to a panel convened by EdSource on Wednesday called “Getting students back to school: Addressing chronic absenteeism.” Communication alone can motivate parents to improve their children’s attendance — and it can also help schools understand the causes of chronic absenteeism.
“Engagement is mostly free,” said Jessica Hull, executive director of communication and community engagement for Roseville City School District in Placer County. “It doesn’t take any money to sit and listen to the barriers that exist for our families.”
Researchers and educators know what a serious problem chronic absenteeism is, but parents don’t, according to Amie Rapaport, co-director of the Center for Applied Research in Education at University of Southern California (USC). Rapaport calls this the “parent/expert disconnect.”
“If parents don’t know that their children are struggling in school, then they’re not going to be seeking intervention or support for their child,” Rapaport said.
That appears to be what is happening. Rapaport’s research as part of a new USC report on school absenteeism found that fewer than half of the parents of chronically absent students were worried or concerned about it. But research has found that chronic absenteeism can cause a cascade of academic problems for students throughout their schooling.
The pandemic played a role in diminishing parents’ belief that school attendance is valuable, according to Thomas S. Dee, professor of education at Stanford University Graduate School of Education. He said this “norm erosion” has been a national phenomenon.
“Over the past few years, we’ve seen nearly 20 years of test score gains evaporate,” Dee said. “We’ve seen an accelerating youth mental health crisis that’s attested by a declaration from the American Academy of Pediatrics, (and) a rare public health advisory from the U.S. Surgeon General.”
Schools are still seeing the effects of the pandemic on their students, even as federal funding to address those problems is drying up, Dee noted. For schools to address this crisis, they need interventions that are easy to scale and don’t cost a lot of money — and have research to back it.
“I think if I were to encourage people to leave today’s webinar with one piece of information, it’s that most promising (intervention) is low cost, scalable parent engagement through outreach, through texting, through postcards,” Dee said.
The way that educators frame the problem to parents is important, according to Hull. That can mean celebrating when a student who has been absent returns to school. But it can also mean explaining why missing a couple of days each month can take a toll on a student. Avoiding jargon or confusing language is also key.
When confronted with a chronic absenteeism rate that soared to 26% from a prepandemic level of 6%, Roseville City School District began a campaign to educate parents about the importance of attendance. One piece of that was designing an infographic, in parents’ home language, that explained what chronic absenteeism is and the consequences of too many unexcused or even excused absences.
Dee said that the state could also play a role by integrating data about attendance with a text messaging system, for instance, alerting parents that their student is missing too much school.
“But California’s a place that’s put a heavy emphasis on local control, and so it’s down to our many districts and schools to navigate those challenges,” Dee said.
Some schools might see that certain issues — such as school safety, transportation or economic or health barriers — are especially prevalent in their communities, Dee said. Understanding what those issues are from the community is important. That, too, requires parent engagement.
Communication needs to be a two-way street, according to Jennifer Hwang, a Los Angeles Unified parent. LAUSD educators initially brushed Hwang’s concerns aside when she told them her son was struggling with attendance, due to anxiety and neurodivergence. Hwang wishes that her school had simply listened to her concerns when she first raised them.
“It took a while for me to just go in constantly, reach out to the teacher and reach out to the school. If that initial reaction would have been much more helpful, then I don’t think that he would have been as absent as he was,” Hwang said.
Zaia Vera, an education consultant with Sown To Grown, credits conversations with students for inspiring a novel way of addressing attendance. Students said they were struggling with money and that they needed adults who cared about them. So Oakland Unified conducted an experiment while Vera was the head of social-emotional learning.
For 10 weeks, the district provided mentors and $50 a week to encourage students to improve their attendance. It paid off with improved attendance that continued well beyond the experiment.
“The key finding here was that the money incentivized the students to come to school, but it was the relationships that they built that kept them there, and coming back,” Vera said.
Research demonstrates that good relationships with teachers are key for encouraging students to come to school — and so are factors such as the school environment and the quality of instruction, Dee said.
But Dee cautions schools to not get too overwhelmed trying to tackle all the problems that can exacerbate chronic absenteeism, especially at a time when school finances are tight.
“The notion that (schools) should do all the things seems really problematic,” he said. “I’m seeing things like, ‘Well, maybe to promote attendance, you should fix housing and security or solve the American health/healthare system.’ I think that’s great advice for a state legislator or federal legislator, but not appropriate for districts and schools.”
California state legislators passed a bill Wednesday requiring school districts to ban or restrict student smartphone use on campuses during school hours.
Assembly Bill 3216, renamed the Phone-Free School Act, requires that every school district, charter school and county office of education develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.
“Extended studies have demonstrated that the use of smartphones in classrooms can detract from students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying,” said the authors’ statement. “In consideration of California’s deficiency when it comes to academic performance, as compared to other states, it is imperative for the legislature to take action to resolve this issue.”
The Phone-Free School Act was authored by a bipartisan group of Assembly members that includes Republican Josh Hoover and Democrats Josh Lowenthal and Al Muratsuchi.
The legislation comes as states, school districts and individual schools are increasingly banning cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices on campuses in an effort to curb classroom distractions, bullying and addiction to the devices.
At least five other states, including Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio have similar laws in place.
It is likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation into law. He sent a letter to school district leaders earlier this month urging them to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use this school year. Excessive smartphone use increases anxiety, depression and other mental health issues in children, he said.
The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, resulting in some students doubling their recreational screen time, according to research. This has led to concerns about addiction to the devices.
This legislation builds on a previous law passed in 2019 that gave school districts the authority, but did not require them, to regulate smartphones during school hours.
Assembly Bill 3216 allows school districts to enforce their cellphone policies by limiting student access to their smartphones. Currently, some schools enforce phone bans by requiring students to check them into “cellphone hotels” or stow them in locked pouches that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet.
Many schools with cellphone prohibitions confiscate phones until the end of the school day if students flout the rules.
The legislation allows for some exemptions. Students will not be prohibited from using their phones if there is an emergency, when they are given permission by school staff, when a doctor says that the student needs the phone for medical reasons or when a smartphone is required in a special education student’s individualized education program.
The legislation also prohibits school officials and staff from accessing or monitoring a student’s online activities.
School districts are required to have “significant stakeholder participation” in developing their cellphone policy to ensure it is responsive to the needs of students, teachers and parents, according to the legislation. The policies must be updated every five years.
Adopting cellphone policies could collectively cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state analysis of the legislation. Because it is a state mandate, the costs could be reimbursed by the state.
Santa Ana Unified board President Carolyn Torres, right, and board member Rigo Rodriguez speak at the board meeting on August 27, 2024. Both sit on the district’s Select Committee on Ethnic Studies.
Credit: YouTube / Santa Ana Unified
The hearing on the case has been rescheduled to Friday, Oct. 25 at 10 a.m. in Orange County Superior Court. The court gave no reason for the change. Updated Sept. 16.
Santa Ana Unified staff memberson a steering committee led by two school board members expressed antisemitic views while designing new ethnic studies courses, newly released legal documents reveal.
The comments have tainted the new courses, which were written out of public view, in violation of state law, according to the motion asking a state court to invalidate the courses.
“The students of Santa Ana will be taught damaging, biased views about Jews and Israelis — views that the State has expressly warned school districts against teaching,” the 31-page document reads. “Once these biases are imparted onto impressionable youth, they cannot so easily be undone.”
Attorneys for two nationally known Jewish legal groups — the American Jewish Committee and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law — are asking the court to throw out four ethnic studies courses that they say are biased against Jews and that the school board passed in violation of the Brown Act, which requires open meetings with advance notice to the public. They want a court to order compliance with the Brown Act as a condition for working further on ethnic studies curricula.
The attorneys uncovered prejudiced remarks through depositions, affidavits, documents,text messages and emails that the district turned over in response to subpoenas.
One ethnic studies steering committee member, identified in the memorandum as “Employee 1,” referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist [Z]ionists” to whom the District should not “cave” in a text to another district employee. In a deposition, Employee 1 called the Jewish Federation “racist Zionists.”
Employee 1 referred to the lone Jewish member of the steering committee in a chat as a “colonized Jewish mind,” as well as a “pretender,” a “f—— baby,” and as “stupid” because of the person’s reservations about some of the committee’s work.
In an online chat, the Jewish member wrote this summary of what he heard when he and the other members were preparing to meet with the Jewish Federation: “Jews greatly benefit from White privilege and so have it better,” and “We don’t need to give both sides. We only support the oppressed, and the Jews are the oppressors.”
The Jewish member continued, “When I very respectfully said that those comments were personally offensive and racist, (name redacted) told me to ‘check my tone’ so as not to “ruin the spirit and mood of the room.”
The lawsuit focuses on the work of the ethnic studies steering committee. Since its inception in March 2020, school board members Carolyn Torres and Rigo Rodriguezhave served on the committee; one veteran administrator said they ran it “like a dictator.” They enlisted only staff members to the project who agreed with their views. They “consisted of a narrow and insular group of individuals who were close to the board members and were ‘handpicked’ to promote a ‘very pro-ethnic studies’ vision, without any “naysayers,” the complaint said.
Torres, the current board president, is a seventh-grade teacher and longtime ethnic studies advocate. Rodriguez is an associate professor in the Department of Chicana/o and Latina/o Studies at CSU Long Beach. Both were deposed in this lawsuit.
Torres is not cited in the complaint with making antisemitic remarks. The complaint said Rodriguez “freely shared in his deposition his reductive belief that Jewish Americans are ‘racialized as under the White category,’ whichis why they do not belong in the ethnic studies curriculum.
The committee has adopted a “liberated” ethnic studies orthodoxy, the complaint said, that “classifies Jewish people as white — regardless of their actual skin color or historical perceptions of Jews as nonwhite — and the Jewish people as oppressors.”
The “liberated” perspective frames ethnic studies as a struggle against white supremacy, capitalism and the legacy of European imperialism, in which Israel is a modern outpost. The liberated approach was woven into the first draft of the state’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Framework, but the State Board of Education criticized it and ordered it rewritten in 2019.
When it passed Assembly Bill 101 in September 2021, mandating that all high school graduates take an ethnic studies course for a diploma, the Legislature stated that districts should not include unadopted content from earlier drafts of the framework. The Newsom administration and state Attorney General Rob Bonta have reiterated that warning in guidance to districts.
Despite this rebuke, Santa Ana’s steering committee “created a curriculum animated by the rejected draft of the Model Curriculum, including portions that were removed due to bias,” the complaint said.
Behind closed doors
For years, the steering committee worked, as one member put it, “under the radar” to avoid scrutiny from the public, especially Jews.
When it came time to present two ethnic studies courses to the full school board, two senior district officials in text messages suggested scheduling the approval on a Jewish holiday so that Jews would not attend. “We may need to use Passover to get all new courses approved,” one suggested. The other official responded, “That’s actually a good strategy.”
The select committee has no community members, and the district has not published the names of the staff members on the committee. However, one active member is Roselinn Lee, a curriculum specialist for the district who was among State Board of Education’s appointees to an advisory committee for the ill-fated first draft of the state model curriculum framework. After the state board ordered it rewritten because of bias, Lee and the other advisers, primarily CSU and UC ethnic studies faculty members, disavowed the framework and denounced “the pressures and influences of white supremacist, right-wing, conservatives” in a letter to the state board. They created the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium as an alternative.
Santa Ana’s school board subsequently hired the Xicanx Institute for Teaching and Organizing (XITO), a consultancy group, to train teachers in the district’s ethnic study courses. Its leader, Sean Arce, is a team member of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. The complaint characterizes his social media postings as “an extended anti-Israel and extremist screed,” including an April 11, 2022, Facebook post that denounces “Zionist control of the CA Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.”
At a meeting earlier this week, the Santa Ana board renewed a contract with XITO for $80,633 for 11 days of professional development training in ethnic studies.
Redacted names
Attorneys for the complainants have redacted the names of select committee members who made antisemitic remarks from exhibits that have been made public. Marci Miller, an attorney for the Brandeis Center, said, “We sued the district itself, and we want the focus to be on the district, not on these individuals. We don’t want individuals attacked by the public, because obviously what they did was outrageous and heinous. However, that is not what we’re suing for.”
In a statement this week, the district denied allegations that it violated the Brown Act and that it approved materials for teachers that negatively portrayed the state of Israel and the Jewish community. It will defend its actions approving ethnic studies courses at the September hearing, it said. “The District denies these claims and will present counterarguments and facts to the Court for consideration and is optimistic that the Court will ultimately find in favor of the District.”
The complaint said that three Jewish community groups reached out over two years to express interest in the select committee’s work and support for the state’s model ethnic studies curriculum. Board members and the select committee ignored all the inquiries, it said.
The Jewish community, the attorneys for the complainants wrote, “was seen simply as a roadblock to their vision rather than a stakeholder and constituency that deserved to be heard.” Orange County, with Santa Ana as its second largest city, had 87,000 Jewish residents in 2020. In 2022, the county had 3.12 million residents.
The complainants argue the select committee falls under the Brown Act, because the school board created it indefinitely as a legislative body with no end date. The complaint said that the committee has met monthly and set agendas but did not publish them or open meetings to the public, in violation of the law.
Approved with no discussion
The strategy of secrecy kept the public in the dark. State law under AB 101 requires school boards to present proposed ethnic studies curricula twice, first at an information hearing intended to encourage discussion and then for formal consideration at a second board meeting.
The select committee presented the World Geography and World Histories ethnic studies courses to the school board in spring 2023. The board treated the item perfunctorily; there was no discussion, public comment or presentation by the select committee. It consisted of “merely reading the titles of the courses. The entire ‘presentation’ was over in less than thirty seconds,” the memorandum said.
The school board then approved the courses at its April 25, 2023 meeting without discussion after one member of the Jewish community who “heard about the courses and could attend the meeting in time to make a public comment” objected. Only subsequently, after they learned about the content, did Jewish residents show up at meetings to urge the board to change its mind, to no avail.
The Jewish community “had expressed their concerns throughout the process, unaware that the process was taking place behind closed doors by this secretly run committee,” said Miller. “There was no way of knowing what was coming to the board and that it would be essentially rubber-stamped when it got there.”
“There is reason to require that meetings have to be open to the public,” said Miller. “When the Brown Act is not followed, people can be free to impose their ideology. When nobody is watching, people will be left to their own prejudices.”
To prevent scenarios like the one depicted in Santa Ana, the Legislative Jewish Caucus joined Assemblymembers Rick Zbur, D-Los Angeles, and Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, in authoring legislation that would strengthen AB 101’s public disclosure provisions. Assembly Bill 2918 would have required school districts to create a committee of teachers, parents and representatives of community organizations “with experience assisting children build cultural awareness and understanding” to review proposed ethnic studies curricula and materials. Districts would also have to notify parents how they could participate in the review or comment on the proposed courses and materials.
Faced with strong opposition from UC and CSU ethnic studies faculties and the California Teachers Association, the authors pulled the bill this month and said they would continue negotiations for a new bill next year.
Maya Pettiford posing in front of a San José State University sign.
Credit: Courtesy of Maya Pettiford
Going to college has always been my goal. From a very young age, there was no question in my mind that I would end up attending a four-year university. Throughout my years of schooling, high school specifically, I made sure to work hard. I turned in homework on time, studied late and, most importantly, tried my best to soak up the advice given to me to prepare for college.
I relied heavily on the words of teachers and advisers to learn what I should expect from college, because after all, why would they lie?
Now going into my third year at San Jose State University, it is clear that some of the advice I received did help me. For example, some teachers warned me against taking a gap year because it is extremely easy to lose the academic mindset even with just one year off.
However, I can confidently say that in the long run, a lot of the advice was misguided.
Myth: Cellphones will not be tolerated in college.
Many of my high school teachers treated cellphones like they were worse than the devil. The fear of sending a text to my mom during class or having a reminder notification for my doctor’s appointment go off at the wrong time was torture. Teachers would even take your phone as you entered class to ensure no one was sneaking a text under the tables or behind a laptop.
In high school, teachers are allowed to take your phone. They often told us this was to prepare us for college.
In reality, I have used my cellphone more in the past two years of college than during my entire high school experience. I have yet to meet a professor who has an aversion to cellphones. In most of my classes, my phone is required. Having a cellphone is interchangeable with having a laptop. I have on many occasions taken quizzes on my phone and used it to communicate on group student projects. You go from hiding a phone in your lap during a high school class to being told it is mandatory in college.
Myth: Professors are cold and heartless creatures
In high school, some teachers made it seem as though asking for a deadline extension or understanding of a family situation would be as pointless as pleading with a brick wall. From what I was told, I fully prepared myself to meet professors who couldn’t care less about me or the role they played in my academic future.
This could not be further from the truth. Almost all of my professors thus far have been kind and understanding of the fact that life happens. I have professors from my first semester of college that I still talk to even now. I often drop by during office hours simply to catch up. Plus, I have gotten quite a few extensions with no hassle.
Myth: College will be harder than high school.
I prepared myself for having to study for endless hours, taking tests that would surely be anxiety-inducing and following a schedule that would make a hamster wheel look relaxing. I was terrified that I would crumble under the pressure.
The truth is, the freedom you get in college could not be more different than high school. In high school, you go from waking up at the crack of dawn to be in classes for at least six hours a day, five days a week, to having maybe two or three classes a day in college that are barely more than an hour long. Yes, there are exceptions, and some classes are longer or harder than others, but with a well-thought-out schedule, college can be way less stressful than high school. I have learned that it is all about your perspective and how you choose to spend your time.
High school felt like a never-ending loop, the same thing day in and day out. Going to college is like being handed the control board of your life. Whether you choose to take a part-time job or hang out with friends at football games, it’s up to you because you are in control.
I am happy to report that not everything I was told in high school was bad. Some of it was great.
After two years in college, the best advice I would pass on to any incoming freshman is that a 7 a.m. class at college is NOT the same as a 7 a.m. class in high school. Waking up that early gets harder, especially for classes without mandatory attendance.
Avoid early morning college classes at all costs. Thank me later.
•••
Maya Pettiford is a third-year journalism student at San Jose State University and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.
We welcome guest commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our commentary guidelines, and contact us.
Video: Parents and a Head Start teacher express concern about potential budget cuts to the program.
Head Start supporters were relieved when President Donald Trump did not include funding cuts to the early education program in his proposed 2026 budget, released May 2. But that does not mean Head Start will emerge from budget negotiations unscathed.
Saving head start
This is Part I of a two-part package examining the challenges facing Head Start. Watch for Part II tomorrow.
The program, run locally by schools and nonprofit organizations, serves more than 750,000 children nationwide from low-income families, from birth to 5 years old. It also offers dental screenings and free school meals for children, and child care and job support for parents.
Head Start has been targeted by Trump since his first term, when he tried to cut its funding by 25%. Earlier this year, the administration indicated it wanted to eliminate all funding — $12.3 billion — for the 60-year-old program. Supporters fear cuts could still come.
“There is still significant concern around Head Start funding,” said Melanee Cottrill, executive director of Head Start California. “While the president’s skinny budget does not eliminate the Head Start program, it also does not propose an actual funding level. We have a long way to go in the budget process, and Head Start funding could still be reduced.”
Cuts would impact child care, jobs
California Head Start programs expect to receive $1.5 billion in federal funding for the 2025 fiscal year. That funds services for 73,476 children at 2,219 sites, according to an EdSource analysis of Head Start data.
“Ultimately, if Head Start were to be defunded, we would have 80,000 kiddos without care and 26,000 employees without jobs,” Cottrill said. “Of course, those 80,000 parents who just lost their child care would potentially also lose their jobs, their ability to go to school, to do all the things that they’re doing to try and become more productive members of the society.”
Mia Barajas plays outside at the Sharon Neese Early Learning Center in Sacramento on April 23, 2025.Credit: Randall Benton / EdSource
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, full-day child care costs between $6,552 and $15,600 a year, which is prohibitive for many families.
The current lack of access to child care costs California about $17 billion in lost productivity and economic output each year, according to state legislators in a letter to California members of Congress last month urging them to protect Head Start.
“Cuts to Head Start would exacerbate that loss,” the letter stated.
Lifting families out of poverty
Job opportunities for parents could also be lost if counseling and job training provided by Head Start go away.
Many teachers in the Head Start program operated by the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA), for example, started their careers in the program’s apprenticeship program, while earning required early childhood education credits and a college degree.
Timeisha Seymore credits Head Start for helping her attain an associate degree and a full-time job as a registered behavioral technician at a local elementary school. Seymore took classes, provided by SETA, in the same building that houses the Sharon Neese Early Learning Center that her two children attend.
If the Head Start program closes, Seymore said she would lose her child care and might have to pay for child care, cut her work hours or quit her job to care for her children.
Funding is problematic
Uncertainty over continued funding of the program — including a temporary freeze of federal funding in February — resulted in some California staffers receiving notices warning them they could lose their jobs, Cottrill said.
The program employs 26,000 people in California and 250,823 people nationally.
Unreliable funding is particularly concerning for Head Start programs, which receive five-year grants that must be renewed annually. Programs work on a reimbursement model that requires them to submit receipts and invoices. Programs can only draw down three days of funding at a time, Cottrill said.
Ra’Mir Cooks plays with plastic bowls at the Sharon Neese Early Learning Center in Sacramento.Credit: Randall Benton / EdSource
“So that’s where these programs — if those draws are delayed — are having challenges,” Cottrill said. “And these draws have been delayed for some folks because there is a new requirement that they add additional justification to the draw-down request, but there hasn’t been any guidance.”
At least four Head Start programs have closed because of funding uncertainty, including programs in Washington, Wisconsin, New York and Florida, said Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association.
Shuttering regional offices
Head Start programs were affected again in April when the Trump administration closed five regional offices of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which administers the program, and laid off its staff. Program leaders had no one to answer questions about their grants or how to fill out new required forms.
California programs are still seeing the detrimental effects of regional office closures, especially when processing specialized supplemental grants, Cottrill said.
Two California Head Start programs with grants up for renewal on May 1 didn’t receive their grant letters until April 30, Cottrill said. One program director was on her way to fire her staff when the letter arrived.
The uncertainty is making Head Start employees nervous.
“I think we have a very dedicated staff, who put their heart and soul into working in this program,” said Karen Griffith, deputy director at SETA. “So, I don’t think people want to leave, but I hear the anxiety in their voices and in their questions.”
Head Start has its critics
Support for Head Start has been strong over the years, but recently, it has been criticized by some who say the program isn’t effective and that some programs do not appropriately supervise children. The conservative Heritage Foundation has called for its elimination as part of its Project 2025.
Going Deeper
May 2017 – President Trump proposes cutting Head Start funding by 25% for fiscal year 2018, but Congress increases it by $610 million instead.
January 2025 – The Trump administration freezes Head Start funding temporarily.
February – A federal website temporarily malfunctions, locking some centers out of funding.
April- The Trump administration indicates it wants to eliminate all federal funding for Head Start.
April – Mass layoffs in the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which administers Head Start, results in the closure of five regional offices.
May 2 – President Trump’s proposed budget does not include cuts to Head Start.
– Associated Press
The Head Start Impact Study, published in 2019, and often cited by critics, found that the academic gains of Head Start diminished by third grade. The findings have been disputed by other researchers, however.
The initial research didn’t consider the impact of Head Start on children being cared for in a suboptimal environment, said Ariel Khalil, a professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, nor did it take into account research that shows that positive effects can emerge beyond third grade.
The value of Head Start depends largely on the needs of the student and their family, Khalil said.
“If you come into the Head Start program, and you have a very rich home environment and your parent has already taught you many of the things you’re going to learn in Head Start, maybe Head Start doesn’t have the biggest added value,” she said. “ But, as you can imagine, there’s lots of variation in the home environments of children who participate in Head Start.”
Research shows that the positive Intergenerational impacts of the program include higher educational attainment, lower participation in crime and higher employment, she said.
“If you don’t account for these long-term impacts, you’re really undervaluing the value of this program.” Khalil said.
Supporters fight back
Allies lined up in support of the program last month, after a leaked early draft of the president’s proposed budget showed the elimination of Head Start.
National Head Start leaders rallied alumni, parents and program staff, asking them to email members of Congress to urge them to protect the program. About 300,000 heeded the call, Sheridan said.
On April 28, parents and Head Start providers teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union to file a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services. The suit asked the court to stop the defunding of Head Start and to set aside department actions that could contribute to the program’s demise, including the layoff of Health and Human Services staff and the closure of regional offices.
Last week, after the release of the final proposed budget, Sheridan said he is optimistic that Congress will prioritize Head Start, given its historical bipartisan support and its impact on children and their families.
Patricia Marshal-Lopez reads to 4-year-olds Judah Sohal, right, and Lavania Hardin at the Sharon Neese Early Learning Center.Credit: Randall Benton / EdSource
Regardless, Head Start leaders continue to lobby legislators and to encourage supporters to send emails urging their support. The National Head Start Association hopes to collect 100,000 signatures on a letter to Trump urging him to protect and invest in Head Start. The letter had more than 50,000 signatures last week, according to Sheridan.
California Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, D-Sunnyvale, was among a bipartisan group of state legislators that sent a letter to California members of Congress last month, asking them to protect the program. Three-quarters of the state’s legislators signed the letter.
“I think we are very much on guard,” said Ahrens, who had his first taste of fresh fruit and visited a doctor for the first time as a Head Start kid in San Jose.
Last week, Ahrens suggested lawmakers work together to make state and federal budgets more efficient, instead of targeting programs aiding the poor.
“We’re not going to be able to balance the national debt on the backs of poor children, on the backs of working families,” he said.
Instead, with leaders of three other legislative ethnic caucuses also expressing support, they have introduced a bill to strengthen and broaden existing anti-discrimination protections based on race and ethnicity to include new wording to apply to national identity and religion.
The Assembly Education Committee will hold a special hearing on Assembly Bill 715, introduced by Assemblymembers Rick Zbur, D-San Francisco, and Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, on Wednesday afternoon at 1:30. That is the final day for moving forward any bill for possible passage this year.
“AB 715 demonstrates solidarity among California Legislative Diversity Caucuses to resolutely stand with the Jewish community to adopt meaningful legislation to root out hate in our classrooms,” Zbur said in a statement.
The bill would add teeth to the uniform complaint process in schools and create a state-level antisemitism coordinator to oversee compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
It also would apply anti-discrimination protections to content taught in class and to the contractors who write the courses’ lesson plans and train teachers. Although the bill does not mention ethnic studies, it presumably would apply to groups affiliated with the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, which compares Israel’s repression of Palestinians with European colonialists’ subjugation of people of color in Africa and Asia, and white American settlers’ mistreatment of Native Americans. Many of the complaints and lawsuits charging antisemitism have been against schools and districts that use the Liberated Ethnic Studies course content.
Zbur said that school districts have ignored or delayed responding to complaints by Jewish families of bias and a hostile school environment. “Families should not have to file lawsuits,” he said.
The key sections lay out broad intentions; the exact language is still being negotiated, Zbur said, and will be added as amendments to the bill in the coming weeks.
The Jewish Caucus’ prior bill, to replace the current ethnic studies voluntary framework with academic standards, would have faced years of contention and low odds of passage. It was opposed by the California Teachers Association and ethnic studies faculty at California State University and the University of California, who have created alternatives to the state-approved framework. The bill would have applied only to high school ethnic studies, not all courses and grades.
The chairs of the Legislative Black Caucus, the Legislative Latino Caucus and the Asian American and Pacific Islander Caucus signed a statement endorsing AB 715. However, many groups that oppose the ethnic studies standards bill are gearing up to fight AB 715.
“Repackaging censorship under the guise of combating antisemitism does a disservice to the very real fight against hate. We already have laws protecting students from discrimination. AB 715 would effectively silence educators and erase Palestinian voices,” Hussam Ayloush, CEO of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wrote in a statement.
In 2021, the Legislature passed legislation requiring that all high schools offer a semester-long course in ethnic studies, starting in fall 2025, and for all students to take it for a high school diploma, beginning in 2029-30. But the law requires state funding to take effect, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has not proposed any funding, and indicated he would not do so in the 2025-26 state budget. Since AB 715 also would create a state mandate, it’s unclear whether Newsom would sign it.
Last week, the Trump administration’s draft executive order to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into K-12 schools made national headlines. The order, still in flux, would direct federal agencies to embed AI in classrooms and partner with private companies to create new educational programs. The move comes as China, Singapore and other nations ramp up their AI education initiatives, fueling talk of a new “AI space race.” But as the world’s biggest players push for rapid adoption, the real question for American education isn’t whether AI is coming — it’s who will shape its role in our schools, and on whose terms.
AI is not simply the next classroom gadget or software subscription. It represents a fundamentally new kind of disruptor in the education space — one that doesn’t just supplement public education but is increasingly building parallel systems alongside it. These AI-powered platforms, often funded by public dollars through vouchers or direct-to-consumer models, can operate outside the traditional oversight and values of public schools. The stakes are high: AI is already influencing what counts as education, who delivers it and how it is governed.
This transformation is happening fast. For example, in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) the district’s ambitious “AI friend” chatbot project, meant to support students and families, collapsed when its startup partner folded, exposing the risks of investing public funds in untested AI ventures. Meanwhile, major tech firms are pitching AI as a “tutor for every learner and a TA for every teacher,” promising to personalize learning and free up educators’ time. The reality is more complex: AI’s promise is real, but so are its pitfalls, especially when it bypasses local voices and democratic control.
The rise of AI in education is reshaping three core principles: agency, accountability and equity.
Agency: Traditionally, public education has empowered teachers, students and communities to shape learning. Now, AI platforms — sometimes chosen by parents or delivered through private providers — can shift decision-making from classrooms to opaque algorithms. Teachers may find themselves implementing AI-generated lessons, while students’ learning paths are increasingly set by proprietary systems. If local educators and families aren’t at the table, agency risks becoming fragmented and individualized, eroding the collective mission of public schooling.
Accountability: In public schools, accountability means clear lines of responsibility and public oversight. But when AI tools misclassify students or private micro-schools underperform, it’s unclear who is answerable: the vendor, the parent, the state, or the algorithm? This diffusion of responsibility can undermine public trust and make it harder to ensure quality and fairness.
Equity: AI has the potential to personalize learning and expand access, but its benefits often flow unevenly. Wealthier families and districts are more likely to access cutting-edge tools, while under-resourced students risk being left behind. As AI-powered platforms grow outside of traditional systems, the risk is that public funds flow to private, less accountable alternatives, deepening educational divides.
It’s tempting to see AI as an unstoppable force, destined to either save or doom public education. But that narrative misses the most important variable: us. AI is not inherently good or bad. Its impact will depend on how — and by whom — it is implemented.
The U.S. education system’s greatest strength is its tradition of local control and community engagement. As national and global pressures mount, local leaders — school boards, district administrators, teachers, and parents — must drive how AI is used. That means:
Demanding transparency from vendors about how AI systems work and how data is used.
Prioritizing investments in teacher training and professional development, so educators can use AI as a tool for empowerment, not replacement.
Insisting that AI tools align with local values and needs, rather than accepting one-size-fits-all solutions from distant tech companies or federal mandates.
Building coalitions across districts and states to share expertise and advocate for policies that center agency, accountability, and equity.
As Dallas schools Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde put it, “It’s irresponsible to not teach (AI). We have to. We are preparing kids for their future”. But preparing students for the future doesn’t mean ceding control to algorithms or outside interests. It means harnessing AI’s potential while holding fast to the public values that define American education.
The choices we make now — especially at the local level — will determine whether AI becomes a tool for equity and empowerment, or a force for further privatization and exclusion. Policymakers should focus less on top-down mandates and more on empowering local communities to lead. AI can strengthen public education, but only if we ensure that the people closest to students — teachers, families and local leaders — have the authority and resources to shape its use.
The world is changing fast. Let’s make sure our schools change on our terms.
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.
Children complete a grammar worksheet in Spanish at a dual-language immersion program in a Glendale elementary school.
Credit: Lillian Mongeau/EdSource
California published a guide for how districts should serve English learners seven years ago. It’s called the English Learner Roadmap Policy, and it’s largely seen as groundbreaking.
But many districts still haven’t used that road map to change their practices, advocates say.
“It’s not systemic across the state,” said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser to Californians Together, a coalition of organizations that advocates for English learners. “You can go to school districts and ask teachers, ‘Have you ever heard of the road map?’ And they look at you like you’re from Mars. They’ve never heard of it.”
Lawmakers are now pushing to fully implement the road map, by passing Assembly Bill 2074, introduced by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, and David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista. If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bill will require the California Department of Education to create a state implementation plan for the English Learner Roadmap with goals and a system to monitor whether those goals are met.
The department will have to first convene an advisory committee, made up of district and county offices of education, teachers, parents of English learners and nonprofit organizations with experience implementing the English Learner Roadmap Policy. The department will have to submit the final implementation plan to the Legislature by Nov. 1, 2026, and begin reporting on which districts, county offices of education and charter schools are implementing the plan by Jan. 1, 2027.
A lack of funding changed the scope of the bill. An earlier version would have also created three positions in the state Department of Education to develop, plan and then support districts to implement the English Learner Roadmap Policy. However, those positions were cut from the bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee due to costs. A separate bill that would have created a grant program to implement the road map, Assembly Bill 2071, failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee, because there was no money allocated in the budget.
You can go to school districts and ask teachers, ‘Have you ever heard of the road map?’ And they look at you like you’re from Mars. They’ve never heard of it.
Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser, Californians Together
The California English Learner Roadmap Policy was first approved by the California State Board of Education in 2017 as a guide for school districts, county offices of education and charter schools to better support English learners.
For many, the road map represented a pivotal change in the state’s approach to teaching English learners. It was adopted just months after voters passed Proposition 58 in 2016, which eliminated restrictions on bilingual education put in place by Proposition 227 in 1998. In stark contrast to the English-only policies in place under Proposition 227, the road map emphasizes the importance of bilingual education and bilingualism and of recognizing the assets of students who speak other languages, in addition to emphasizing teaching that “fosters high levels of English proficiency.”
Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL, a nonprofit organization that trains teachers and district leaders and promotes bilingual education, called the English Learner Roadmap a “comprehensive, visionary, research-based policy.”
“It’s aspirational. It’s very much written for a future state, when California can center the student population that is so much at the core of who we are as a state and yet has this history of being treated as an afterthought or a box at the end of a curriculum,” said Hurwitz. “And nonetheless the state needs an implementation plan. Things don’t get done unless we have methodical plans.”
The Legislature has twice created grant programs for districts to get help implementing the English Learner Roadmap Policy. In 2020, the California Department of Education (CDE) awarded $10 million to two grantees, Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education, each of which worked with other organizations, county offices of education and school districts. In 2023, the department awarded another $10 million to four county offices of education, in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange counties.
These programs, however, were optional, and not all districts participated in the training or assistance.
“We feel it’s really necessary for CDE to be very vocal and in the center of stating how important the English Learner Roadmap is, and how important it is to implement,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. “When CDE says the road map is a priority, it begins to filter down to the districts. But we’re not really hearing that it’s that important from CDE.”
Graciela García-Torres, director of multilingual education for the Sacramento County Office of Education, said the English Learner Roadmap brings her hope, as a former English learner herself and as a parent.
“As a parent, I also see that it supports me in my endeavor to have children that grow up bilingually, knowing their culture and language is just as beautiful and important as English,” García-Torres said.
García-Torres said the Sacramento County Office of Education has worked hard to help districts implement the road map, but a state implementation plan and more funding are needed.
“I’m afraid that without another grant or an implementation plan, it may go back to being pretty words on the page,” García-Torres said.
Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County superintendent of schools, said the English Learner Roadmap has made a big difference in some districts.
“Some of the things I’ve seen changing is the philosophy around English language learners and really moving from this deficit mentality, of ‘these are children who can’t speak English,’ to really celebrating the fact that they’re speaking multiple languages,” said Duardo.
She said having clear goals and requiring districts to report how they’re implementing the plan will be crucial, so that the state can see where districts are struggling and how CDE can help them.
“There are always going to people who feel like this is one more thing that you’re placing on us and it doesn’t come with funding attached to it,” said Duardo. “Districts are struggling. They don’t have their extra pandemic dollars, they didn’t have a very big COLA, and just finding the resources to implement anything can be a challenge.”
Megan Hopkins, professor and chair of UC San Diego’s department of education studies, said many states struggle with implementation of guidance around English learners. She said a statewide plan for implementing the road map is needed, in part because many teachers and administrators don’t think English learner education applies to them.
“English learners are often sort of viewed as separate from, or an add-on, to core instructional programs. I think what happens is people are like, ‘Oh, that’s nice, but it’s not related to what I do over here in math education,’ when in fact it is,” said Hopkins.
Aleyda Barrera-Cruz, executive director for multilingual learner services at the San Mateo-Foster City School District, south of San Francisco, said she has attended professional development sessions on the English Learner Roadmap Policy with EL RISE!, the coalition led by Californians Together, and read through every guidance document they’ve written about the road map.
“Where it gets tricky is sometimes things are written in a way that are not very implementation friendly. They’re written in a very theoretical way like, ‘These are the recommendations,’ so we as districts have to decide what that would look like in our district. There’s a lot of room for interpretation,” Barrera-Cruz said.
She said principals and teachers sometimes interpret the guidelines in different ways at different schools. She would like to see CDE make it very clear how to do things like teaching English language development (teaching English to children who do not know the language), including examples of lesson plans and videos of best practices in the classroom.
“I’m working with a very diverse group of educators. Some have learned this in their teaching credential program; some have not,” Barrera-Cruz said.
Elodia Ortega-Lampkin, superintendent of Woodland Joint Unified School District, near Sacramento, said superintendents and school board members need training to understand why the English Learner Roadmap is needed.
“People watch what you value and the message you send,” Ortega-Lampkin said. “It’s very hard for a principal to do this on their own without the district support. It’s got to come down from the top, including the board.”
She said Woodland Joint Unified required all administrators and teachers to attend training about the English Learner Roadmap. They also have to use the road map when writing their mandatory annual school plans for student achievement.
“It was not an option. It was an expectation. If we have English learners in Woodland and we’re serious about helping them succeed, we need to use a framework that is research-based and provides support for districts. Instead of piecemealing, it’s all in one to help guide those conversations in our schools,” Ortega-Lampkin said.
Before training with the English Learner Roadmap, Ortega-Lampkin said not everyone understood how to teach English language development, often referred to as ELD.
“It was hard to get everyone to buy in and teach ELD. We don’t have that anymore. It’s not a discussion. People just know that ELD needs to happen. I think it’s helped change the mindset and build a better understanding,” Ortega-Lampkin said.
The National Education Association analyzed Trump ‘s proposed budget and finds that it contains deep cuts and massive support for privatization by promoting vouchers and charter schools. The proposal mirrors Project 2025 by turning Titl 1 for low-income students and IDEA funding into block grants that can be converted to vouchers. The overall goal is to undermine public schools and cut funding.
FY2026 Budget Request Slashes Education Funding, Shortchanges Students
…………………………………………………………………….……….
President Trump’s FY2026 “skinny” budget request to Congress, released on May 2, cuts non-defense domestic spending by 22.6%. The Department of Education sustains a $12 billion reduction, a cut of approximately 15.3%.
! Since the President’s budget does not list specific funding requests for every federal program, the 46-page document is a “skinny” budget. Congress ultimately has the power of the purse, but the proposal is a clear signal of the White House’s priorities: a massive 24 percent cut to U.S. domestic spending, and, privitazing our nation’s public education system.
The narrative says the budget “maintains full funding for Title I,” but the numbers tell a different story. Title I and 18 unidentified programs are combined to create a single block grant, dubbed the “K-12 Simplified Funding Program,” then that block fund is cut by $4.535 billion cut.
All seven Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs are combined to create a single block grant called the “Special Education Simplified Funding Program.” The approach perpetuates the current shortfall—the federal government now covers 13% of special education costs, far short of the 40% Congress promised when the law was passed.
Programs slated for elimination include English Language Acquisition (Title III) and the Teacher Quality Partnership, which addresses the teacher shortage through deep clinical practice.
The budget shifts costs to states and institutions of higher education to reduce the federal investment in today’s students—our nation’s future leaders and workforce—as much as possible.
Regrouping specific, separate programs into block grants, in theory gives states more flexibility on how the money is spent. In reality, block grants usually lead to less funding and less accountability for our most vulnerable students. As the strings attached to the funding are cut, many states could maneuver block grant funds over to private school voucher programs.
Amidst these cuts, the proposal calls for investing $500 million, an increase of $60 million, to expand the number of charter schools across the country. Charter schools, along with private school vouchers, drain scarce resources for traditional public schools.
