California’s community colleges have dispersed $14 million and likely much more in financial aid to fraudsters.
The U.S. Department of Education says colleges must verify the identities of more students this summer. In the fall, it plans to launch permanent screening.
Colleges worry that the new measures could burden students too much and prevent some from enrolling.
California colleges are worried that new federal measures seeking to crack down on financial aid fraud, which has stolen millions in grants, could result in the unintended consequence of fewer legitimate students enrolling.
At California’s community colleges, where the fraud has been most pronounced in the state, financial aid officials hope the new steps will strike a balance between deterring bad actors while also minimizing the burden on real students. Some students may find taking extra steps to prove their identity to be an extra barrier to enrolling, possibly scaring them off, administrators say.
“How do we do fraud mitigation, but also still have students apply? The more barriers, the harder we make it to get in our systems, the less people will come,” said Tina Vasconcellos, associate vice chancellor of educational services at the Peralta Community College District. “It’s great the federal government wants to help us and cut down on fraud, but at the same time, is it going to create another hoop for our students to jump through to get to us in the first place?”
The U.S. Department of Education announced last month it will roll out new ways to verify the identities of students who apply for aid. Most of the fraud has tapped federal aid, in the form of Pell Grants intended for low-income students, but some state and local aid has also been stolen in California and elsewhere.
The federal department said it would require colleges this summer to verify the identities of additional first-time applicants. That will apply to about 125,000 students in total nationwide, but the department didn’t say how that will be split among the colleges. To get verified, students will have to show government-issued identification such as a passport or driver’s license. If the college determines that a student is unable to show the identification in person, the student can be given the option to do so on a video call.
“Although we recognize that these verification selections could be challenging for some institutions and students, it is a critically important and targeted step toward preventing fraud,” the department wrote in an announcement.
The additional verification for the summer term is only a temporary solution before the department implements a permanent screening process for every financial aid applicant for the upcoming fall term.
Officials have not said what that process will entail in the fall. Among the possibilities, college officials speculate that requiring more students to come in person to prove they are real, which could be potentially challenging for students who live far away and take entire course loads online.
Community colleges have been plagued by financial aid scammers who target those institutions because they are open-access and offer many classes fully online. That makes it much easier to enroll in classes online and be eligible for aid. At least $14 million in aid, and likely much more, has been dispersed to fraudsters at California community colleges since 2021.
It’s also easier to defraud community colleges than more expensive universities because tuition is so low or otherwise covered, and much of the grants go directly to students for living costs, rather than to the colleges for tuition.
“We don’t know what the plan is for the fall,” said Jill Desjean, the director of policy analysis at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Ideally, Desjean said, the process would be automated so that additional steps aren’t required of students or staff. “There’s just a limit to what the schools can do.”
Pretending to be legitimate students, fraudsters start by applying for admission online. Some of them are caught there, but others successfully get admitted and enroll in classes. At that point, they can request financial aid, which, if they’re successful, gets distributed to personal bank accounts via direct deposit.
Beyond stealing aid, the scams have additional consequences for real students. Since each course has a finite number of seats, genuine students are sometimes left on waiting lists and can’t enroll because fraudsters are taking up the available seats.
In a statement when the new measures were announced, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the department “has a responsibility to act” because fraud is “taking aid away from eligible students, disrupting the operations of colleges, and ripping off taxpayers.”
Jasmine Ruys, vice president of student services at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita, acknowledged that “it’s our job to make sure that fraud is not happening and that we’re good stewards of taxpayer money.”
She added, though, that the college strives to balance that responsibility with not asking too much of students.
“Some students work during the day, so they might have to take time off work to be able to come over to us to verify,” Ruys added. “So we try really hard not to put any kind of barriers up for a student.”
Even being asked to upload additional documents online could be difficult for some students, said Vasconcellos of the Peralta district, which serves Oakland and the rest of northern Alameda County.
“We still have a digital divide. There are students within our community who have less access to all aspects of technology,” she said. “A lot of our students are actually still using their phones to take their classes. So what I’d be concerned about is if the technology on the receiving end isn’t working and if it’s not easy to upload your ID, or whatever it is that they’re asking for, it’s going to potentially be a barrier.”
Vasconcellos and Ruys both said they’re hopeful that whatever the department implements this fall will be something that doesn’t require much extra from students.
One possible solution, Ruys said, would be to add something at the beginning of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), so the verification happens quickly rather than when students are getting ready to start their classes. That could be something similar to ID.me, an online identity verification platform already being used by many community colleges.
It’s not clear, however, whether the department is considering that option.
“Whatever it is, we’re going to abide by all laws,” Ruys said. “We just hope that it doesn’t limit our students from being able to enroll and attend college.”
And if you thought 2023 was a downer, just wait for …
“Hold on,” ever-wise Ms. Fensters interrupted. “Why would anyone read a New Year predictions column if you make them feel like jumping back in bed and pulling the covers over their head for the next 362 days?”
She’s right.
Let’s celebrate the dawn of the new year before wading into the swamp that will be 2024.
How’D you Do betting on 2023?
My predictions for 2023 were like my singing: off-key but not terrible.
I said third-grade English language test scores would plunge. They were stagnant.
I predicted strikes in a half-dozen districts: Teachers struck in LA, Oakland and Rohnert Park Cotati Unified, and settled within hours of hitting picket lines in San Francisco and Fresno.
I said that members of the new California College Corps, which pays college students to do community work, would become a legion of elementary school reading tutors. It was wise advice couched as a prediction, which Gov. Newsom ignored. (It’s still a good idea.)
If you kept your own scorecard, go here to compare your results. If not, grab a pencil and paper and bet your fensters for 2024. They’re redeemable with S&H Green Stamps at your local Mervyn’s.
Arts on the rise
School attendance will soar, and students will master the math of music in triads and quarter tones in districts like Manteca Unified in San Joaquin County, which will get about $3.8 million in new funding from Proposition 28. That’s the $1 billion ballot initiative, Arts and Music in Schools — Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act, that voters passed in 2022. Manteca, known for its quality bands and providing instruments to all who need them, will be better positioned than many districts. Most others will struggle to fill arts, dance and music jobs, at least initially.
Chances that arts will flourish in districts like 24,000-student Manteca Unified:
A note of caution: Under the terms of the new law, districts must use Proposition 28 to expand, not replace, existing arts funding. Eagle-eyed arts protectors will be watching how administrators move the Proposition 28 pea in the budget shells.
Chances that Create CA or other advocates will file a complaint with the California Department of Education against a district suspected of using Proposition 28 money to supplant, not supplement, its arts budget:
Now, brace yourselves for the dark side of the moon.
The state budget
Within days, Gov. Gavin Newsom will release his first pass at the 2024-25 budget, but Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek offered his gloomy forecast last month: a three-year projected state general fund deficit of $68 billion; between $16 billion and $18 billion would be in Proposition 98, the formula determining how much funding goes to TK-12 and community colleges.
Draining the state’s rainy-day fund for education and picking away at budgeted but unspent funding, perhaps for buying electric school buses and creating hundreds more community schools, could halve the problem. School lobbies will demand that legislators hold districts and community schools harmless and cut elsewhere in the state budget — to which UC President Michael Drake will reply, “You lookin’ at me?”
A likely compromise: Pay what the Legislature appropriated for 2023-24 but dust off a Great Recession strategy. Do what your boss does when he can’t make payroll but doesn’t want to lay you off: issue you IOUs. In edu-speak, they’re “deferrals” — and would involve pushing back state payments to districts scheduled for May and June 2024 into July, August or later in the next fiscal year. It’s not a painless tactic: Districts without cash on hand will have to borrow. And the money will have to be paid back, potentially eating into future levels of Proposition 98 funding.
Chances that the Legislature will impose billions in deferrals in the 2024-25 budget:
It gets worse
Schooldistricts have known the reckoning was coming. Called “the fiscal cliff,” it combines the expiration of billions in federal Covid relief, declining enrollment in nearly three-quarters of districts, and a leveling off from record state funding. What they hadn’t anticipated is a projected 1% cost of living increase, based on a federal formula that this year will disadvantage California; this compares with 8% in 2022-23 and 13% the year before that.
For districts like San Francisco Unified that negotiated sizable raises and over-hired with one-time funding, budget pressures will be intense to close underenrolled schools — never a popular decision — and lay off staff. Dozens of districts will suddenly find themselves on the state’s financial watch list.
Chances that by the March 15 notification deadline, 15,000 teachers and 10,000 classified employees, many hired with expiring federal funding, will get pink slips (the final number of layoffs will be less):
Chances that the number of districts with a financial rating of negative or qualified by FCMAT, the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, will at least quintuple from a low of 13 districts in April 2023 to more than 65 in April 2024:
Chances that San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles will close underenrolled schools, notwithstanding common sense:
PODCAST
What’s in store for California education in 2024?
JANUARY 11, 2023
State facilities bond
The state has run out of money to subsidize the costs of new school construction and renovations; billions of dollars’ worth of districts’ projects are in the pipeline. Covid, last year’s floods and sweltering temperatures — signals of climate change — exposed the need for retrofits to meet 21st-century conditions. But the first-ever defeat of the last state bond proposal, in March 2020, proved school advocates shouldn’t take voters for granted. Was the $15 billion price tag too big? Should funding for CSU and UC be included? There will be lots of polling to answer those questions.
Chances that a school construction bond will be on the ballot in November:
Chances that it will pass:
Toil and trouble
The odds are five fensters that the fight over library books and the backlash against transgender protections in reddish districts will embroil voters statewide in 2024. Suppose school choice and religious conservatives succeed in passing the initiatives they’re aiming to place on the ballot. In that case, progressive California voters will awake with a fright on Nov. 6, wondering if they’re living in Kansas.
Proposed for November vote
Private school choice: Pushed by the coalition Californians for School Choice, the initiative would create voucher-like education savings accounts equal to the average Proposition 98 per student funding, initially $14,000, that families could use to send their kids to private schools, including religious schools currently prohibited by the state constitution from receiving public money. Home-schools with 10 or more students could form a private school for funding, too. State oversight would be minimal. Subsidies for families already paying for private schools would cost the state $6.3 billion to $10 billion per year by diverting money from Proposition 98, the Legislative Analyst estimates.
In 2002, voters rejected a voucher initiative 70% to 30%. Capitalizing on unhappiness with schooling during Covid-19, this initiative will do better, but defenders of public schools, starting with the CTA, will hugely outspend the proponents.
Because the initiative would amend the state constitution, organizers would need to collect 874,641 signatures.
Chances that the initiative will make the ballot:
Chances, if it does make the ballot, that it will lose while getting 40% of the vote:
School Transparency and Partnership Actaka Outing Trans Kids Act.Unable to get traction in the Legislature, the parent activist group Protect Kids California, co-founded by Roseville City Elementary School District board member Jonathan Zachreson, is canvassing for the 546,651 signatures required for the initiative. It would require schools to notify parents within three days if a student asks to be treated as a gender other than listed in official school records. This would include requesting a name change, a different gender pronoun, participation in an activity using a different gender, or changing clothes identifying as a different gender.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Protect Girls’ Sports and Spaces Act, also collecting 546,651 signatures, is the second of three related initiatives proposed by Protect Kids California. It would repeal the 2013 state law allowing students to participate in school activities and use school facilities consistent with their gender identity. Biologically born male students in grades seven and higher in public schools and colleges identifying as females would be banned from participating in female sports or using bathrooms and locker rooms assigned to females based on their birth gender.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act, aka Parental Control Unless We Say So Act. California, which has been a sanctuary for families seeking medical care for transgender youths, will join the nearly two dozen states that ban transgender care if this initiative, the third transgender-restriction initiative pushed by Protect Kids California, passes. It would ban health care providers from giving medical care to patients under 18 seeking to change their gender identity. It would prohibit that treatment even if parents consent or doctors recommend it for the minor’s mental or physical well-being.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Eyes of the storm
Recall elections of school board members in two districts will serve as a gauge of whether activist conservative majorities represent a fringe minority or the will of the majority.
Longtime Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma and newly elected board member Madison Miner angered opponents by voting with two other conservatives to fire a respected superintendent on Jan. 5 during winter break without citing a cause. In October, the board became the sixth in the state to adopt a transgender notification policy.
Chances that Orange Unified voters will oust Ledesma in the March 5 vote:
A three-member majority in Temecula Valley Unified adopted a similar playbook this year, including firing its superintendent. A political action committee of voters appears to have turned in more than enough signatures to recall board President Joseph Komrosky, their primary target, but not enough to oust Jennifer Wiersma. In July, the board stirred the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom by rejecting a sixth-grade textbook that included a passage about gay activist Harvey Milk, whom Komrosky characterized as a pedophile. The third conservative, Danny Gonzalez, resigned in December to move out of state. In his last board meeting, he lashed out at opponents, including board member Stephen Schwartz, whom he accused of showing “vile contempt for Christians.” Schwartz is Jewish.
The outcome of the recall would be a measure of the power of the Evangelical 412 Church Temecula Valley and its pastor, Tim Thompson, who has been outspoken in defense of the board majority.
Chances that Temecula Valley voters will oust Komrosky later this year:
Etc.
California Personal Finance Education Act, aka “Why You Should Tear Up That 20th Credit Card Offer Act.” Pushed by Palo Alto entrepreneur Tim Ranzetta, who’s been proselytizing for teaching students personal finance through a nonprofit he co-founded, the initiative would require a semester of personal finance as a graduation requirement, starting with the graduating class of 2030. California would join about two dozen states with or phasing in the requirement.
Chances that it will make the ballot in November:
Chances that voters will approve it, despite some misgivings about mandating yet another graduation requirement:
Early literacy
In late December, a new alliance of advocates calling for the state to take a clearer and more resolute policy on early literacy published an early literacy policy brief with the expectation that it would lead to legislation in 2024. The California Early Literacy Coalition includes Decoding Dyslexia CA, 21st Century Alliance, Families in Schools, California Reading Coalition and the rejuvenated nonprofit EdVoice.
Among its positions, the coalition calls for:
Directing the California Department of Education to create a list of approved professional development courses grounded in the science of reading that districts and educators can select.
Requiring all teachers and reading coaches in elementary schools to complete training from the approved course list.
Providing help to schools and districts as they adopt the science of reading-aligned instructional materials.
The state, under Newsom, supports the science of reading approach to reading and, in piecemeal fashion, is partially funding some of what the coalition advocates. The difference is that a comprehensive policy would mandate what the administration has only encouraged.
Chances that a prominent legislator will sponsor the bill and that it will be one of the most discussed non-budget bills of the session:
Passage likely will take more than a year of effort and perhaps await the election of a new governor and state superintendent of public instruction willing to challenge the reflexive defense of local control on this issue.
Chances that comprehensive legislation will be signed into law in 2024:
Extra challenges for charter schools
Along with challenges facing all school districts, the state’s 1,300 charter schools will face added pressures. Many are in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where enrollment declines for districts and charter schools are largest. Tensions between them could escalate if funding-desperate districts deny charters fair access to school facilities, as the school board majority of Los Angeles Unified voted to do last year.
A pre-pandemic reform law allowing school districts to factor in financial impact when deciding to grant a new charter school will thwart growth and expansion, and the 2024-25 resumption of the charter renewal process, using problematic post-pandemic performance measures, could compound charters’ troubles. The result: Some financially fragile charters will close; the weakest performers will be shut down.
Chances that the number of charter schools in California operating in fall 2024 will drop by at least 30 schools.
One area in which legislators, charters and districts should agree is new accountability requirements for non-classroom-based charter schools that offer virtual schools or hybrid models combining home-schooling and classrooms. They’ve become more popular with families and been more prone to scams. In the two most egregious cases, A3 and Inspire charter networks, self-serving operators double-billed, falsified attendance records, and funneled funding to shell operations, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars.
San Diego County prosecutors, who convicted A3’s executives in 2019, have expressed frustration that it has taken so long to enact remedies. Three separate task forces will present findings by June.
Chances that the Legislature will pass non-classroom-based accountability reforms this year:
Worth every penny?
EdSource reporter Diana Lambert calculated that pay for superintendents in some of the state’s districts had increased by 60% in the past decade; it’s a tough job, and these days, not too many appear to want it.
Including benefits, Christopher Hoffman of Elk Grove and Alberto Carvalho of Los Angeles Unified, respectively the state’s fifth-largest and the largest districts, earn over $500,000 per year. That’s hardly chump change, but then again, Dodger pitcher and hitter extraordinaire Shohei Ohtani signed a 10-year contract for $700 million, an average of $70 million per year.
Carvalho could argue he’s certainly worth at least 1% as much: $700,000. After all, he oversees a $20 billion budget. But with declining enrollment and layoffs likely, this is not the year to swing for the fences.
Chances Carvalho or any superintendent among the 10 largest districts will receive a 7% raise this year:
The anti-anti-tax initiatives
The Business Roundtable and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, carrying the torch of Proposition 13, have placed an initiative on the November ballot to make it harder to pass state tax increases. It would redefine a number of state-imposed fees as taxes, therefore requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to pass and require all future taxes or increases approved by the Legislature to go before the general electorate for approval. It also would nullify a recent state court ruling that school parcel taxes initiated by citizens, not by school boards, need only a majority of voters to pass — instead of the standard two-thirds.
In a shrewd counter-move to head it off, legislators, mostly Democrats, voted to place a competing constitutional amendment on the November ballot. It says that any initiative that raises the voter threshold for passing taxes would need the support of two-thirds of voters, not just a simple majority, to be enacted. It’s explicitly aimed at making it less likely the Business Roundtable initiative will pass.
Chances that voters will be as confused as I am by this chess match and wonder what will happen if they both pass:
Thanks for reading the column. One more toast to 2024!
Correction: An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma denigrated gay activist Harvey Milk. The comment was made by Joseph Komrosky, president of the Temecula Valley Unified board.
Sacramento State students line up to pay bills and receive financial aid information.
Larry Gordon/EdSource Today
The 2024-25 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, was delayed by months this year due to changes that created a new, simplified form. Typically the FAFSA is available to high school seniors and college students every Oct. 1, but this year the form was delayed to Jan. 1.
Here are some details about the new FAFSA that you should know:
When did the new FAFSA application become available? Where can college students and high school seniors apply?
The U.S. Department of Education “soft launched” the new FAFSA on Dec. 31, which means the current form will be available for a limited amount of time as the agency monitors website performance. Sometimes the form may be unavailable, but families and students should try to access it at a different time. Students can apply by visiting studentaid.gov.
Once the soft launch ends, students do not need to reapply.
Was the deadline extended for California students applying for financial aid?
Yes, because of the application delay. The California Student Aid Commission extended the priority deadline for students applying to four-year institutions from March 2 to April 2, 2024. Students attending a California community college in 2024-25 should apply no later than Sept. 3, 2024.
What is different about the new FAFSA application?
After many complaints from students and families over the years about the complexity of the old FAFSA, the department created a new application that reduced the number of questions, expanded Pell Grant eligibility, and integrates with the Internal Revenue Service so information is pre-populated into the online form.
The new form is expected to be quicker and more efficient for most families. It allows students to skip as many as 26 questions, depending on their circumstances. Some students could answer as few as 18 questions.
The new FAFSA also updated its formula calculations to insure more students get aid. The old FAFSA used Expected Family Contribution to show families how colleges would determine aid eligibility. For example, a family could be expected to contribute $0 or $500, and colleges and universities would build a financial aid package around those amounts. However, some families misinterpreted the number to mean they had to pay the university the amount directly.
Under the new FAFSA, families will be assigned a number called the Student Aid Index. Families can learn more about how much aid they may be eligible for next year by using the Federal Student Aid Estimator.
What is the maximum Pell Grant award students can receive in 2024-25?
The maximum aid amount for 2024-25 hasn’t been set by Congress yet. However, the maximum award in 2023-24 was $7,395.
What about undocumented students?
The student aid commission is also debuting a new and improved California Dream Act Application, or CADAA. Undocumented students cannot apply for federal aid, but can receive state financial aid through the CADAA.
A report last year from the commission found that getting aid as an undocumented student had become more difficult in California for a variety of reasons. The new CADAA simplifies applying in a variety of ways, including integrating with the AB 540 affidavit students must file with their colleges explaining that they’ve been a California high school student for at least three years. With the updated application, the commission will now report to colleges that students completed the affidavit.
Heilig is a Professor of Educational Leadership, Research, and Technology at Western Michigan University. He is a leader in the NAACP. In addition, he is a founding board member of the Network for Public Education.
He writes:
Artificial Intelligence didn’t fall from the sky.
It wasn’t born in a vacuum or descended from some neutral cloud of innovation. It didn’t arrive pure and untainted, ready to solve all of humanity’s problems. No—AI was trained on us. On our failures. On our history. On our data. On our bias. On the systems we tolerate and the structures we’ve allowed to stand for far too long.
And that should terrify us.
Because when you train artificial intelligence on a world soaked in inequity, saturated with bias, and riddled with disinformation, you don’t get fairness. You get injustice at scale. You don’t get objectivity. You get bias with an interface. You don’t get solutions. You get systems that do harm faster, deeper, and with more plausible deniability than ever before.
Inequity in AI
AI has the potential to enhance the speed and depth of inequity. It can supercharge systemic harm because it’s built on a house of sand—data shaped by centuries of inequality and an internet flooded with algorithmically amplified hate. And if we let it, it will not only distort truth. It will undermine democracy, destabilize public education, and rewrite reality to suit the most powerful.
Artificial intelligence is not neutral. It never was. Every AI system reflects the values, decisions, and data of the people who built it. And that data—no matter how big the set—is not free of human judgment. It’s full of bias. It’s soaked in discrimination. It reflects a world where Black and Brown communities are under-resourced, where women’s voices are undervalued, where Indigenous knowledge is erased, and where racial supremacy masquerades as objectivity.
We built AI on a broken foundation, and now we expect it to hold up the future.
But the danger doesn’t stop at replication. AI doesn’t just mirror our inequities. It can multiply them. It can take individual bias and encode it into institutional operations. What used to be a bad policy or a discriminatory judgment call becomes automated across thousands—sometimes millions—of data points and decisions per second. The old excuses are gone. You no longer need a person to do harm when the algorithm will do it automatically, invisibly, and without remorse in perceptible and imperceptible ways.
Can’t stop, Won’t Stop
Furthermore, in May 2024, Palisade Research revealed something that should have been a flashing red light across every sector of society. OpenAI’s most advanced models—o3 and o4-mini—refused to shut down when directly instructed to do so. These AI systems sabotaged their own shutdown protocols. Seven out of 100 times, o3 ignored the shutdown command. Codex-mini disobeyed twelve times. Even o4-mini, supposedly safer, resisted once.
That’s not science fiction. That’s today.
Instead of following human instructions, these models rewrote the shutdown script and continued executing tasks. Researchers believe the models had been so deeply trained to win, to complete tasks, that they were inadvertently rewarded for disobedience. In their simulated world, success was more important than ethics. Productivity was more important than control.
Let that sink in.
We are building machines that—when told to stop—don’t. That’s not innovation. That’s an existential threat.
And we are putting these systems into our schools.
During the week leading up to Dec. 28 and with Covid-19 strain JN. 1 having become dominant, the LA County Department of Public Health reported an average of 621 cases each day, marking a 25% increase from the previous week.
The Department of Public Health also said the figures are an “undercount” since most tests are done at home and not reported to medical staff. Meanwhile, for the first time this season, the county has entered the CDC’s “medium” category for Covid hospitalizations. Mask mandates have been reinstated in health care facilities.
“There have been notable, yet not unexpected, increases in COVID-19 reported cases, hospitalizations and deaths,” according to a news release from the LA County Department of Public health.
“While recent increases are significant, they remain considerably below last winter’s peak and common-sense protections are strongly recommended to help curb transmission and severe illness as the new year begins.”
Earlier this season, 23% of LA County residents participating in a text message survey said they had experienced a cough or shortness of breath within a week of Dec. 10, according to the Los Angeles Times.
More specifically, they reported that about 18% of specimens tested at Sentinel Surveillance Labs in LA County came back positive for the flu — marking a 4% increase from the previous week. And, in the week leading up to Dec. 16, more than 12% of specimens came back positive for RSV.
“Respiratory infections among children and adults are increasing this winter season. These infections are not limited to Flu and COVID-19,” read a message from LAUSD. “We are also seeing a rise in Respiratory Syncytial Virus, also known as RSV.”
Before going on winter break, between Dec. 6 and Dec. 12, LAUSD also reported 528 Covid cases, according to the district dashboard.
LAUSD and the LA County Department of Public Health suggest parents follow these guidelines for determining when a child should be home, come to school and how to stay healthy.
What should I do if my child tests positive for Covid?
Whether symptomatic or not, students with Covid should stay home for five days, following either testing positive or experiencing symptoms.
Those who are immunocompromised, however, may isolate for longer periods, according to the district.
If my child tests positive for Covid, when is it safe for them to return to the classroom? Do they need to provide a negative test result before coming back?
Students do not need to provide a negative antigen test to return to class between days six and 10. And following day five, if your child has been without a fever for 24 hours without taking fever-reducing medicines, and their symptoms are improving, they can return to the classroom.
If, however, the symptoms come back after the isolation period, the student should test again, according to the district.
What does it mean if my child is a “close contact?” What do I do then?
If your child is in the same indoor space for Covid for 15 minutes within 24 hours with someone positive, they are a “close contact.”
In that case, the district asks that your child’s health be monitored for 10 days following the exposure. They also recommend masking and testing between the third and fifth days.
What about other illnesses like the flu or RSV? Do the same rules apply?
If your child has a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher — or if they are vomiting or have diarrhea — they should stay home, according to the district.
What should I communicate to the school? How do I ensure my child’s absence is excused?
If your child has Covid, upload the result onto the Daily Pass.
And regardless of the sickness, absences due to illness are excused. To excuse an absence, provide the school with documentation within 10 days of your child’s return to class.
If the school does not receive documentation, the absence will count as uncleared or unexcused, meaning it can count toward truancy.
Where do I find free Covid tests, vaccinations and treatments to keep my child healthy?
LAUSD provides Covid-19 home test kits at each school site. Libraries and other community centers may also supply tests.
Additionally, as of Nov. 20, the federal government provides each household with four home tests for free, according to the LA County Department of Public Health.
How do we stay healthy?
The LA County Department of Public Health suggests testing, not only if you have been exposed or have symptoms, but also if you have attended larger gatherings or have visited individuals who are more susceptible to illness.
They also recommend washing hands frequently and masking in crowded indoor areas as well as in spaces that are poorly ventilated to prevent Covid, RSV and the flu.
The K-12 “reading wars” discussions have been missing a critical point: No matter the curriculum used, too often, teachers are being asked to stick to a script and execute equal teaching, not equitable teaching. And equalteaching is illegal.
In the panicked quest to improve literacy outcomes, it’s tempting for schools and teachers to fall back on a “one-size-fits-all” scripted curriculum despite our knowledge that teaching all students the same thing, in the same way, at the same pace, can be ineffective for students with language or learning differences. Students have individual strengths and needs, and teachers should differentiate their approaches in response to the individuals in their class.
If it’s the same for everyone, it’s not targeted toward anyone.
Equal, non-differentiated instruction is illegal for our students who are classified as English learners or who require special education services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 ensures that students with special needs are appropriately served by schools. Modifications and accommodations are required based on students’ strengths and needs to meet their individualeducation plans. Equal teaching — everyone getting the same thing — is not appropriate.
Similarly, in the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the Supreme Court determined that San Francisco’s school district was required to provide equal access — not equal instruction, but equal access — to all students. For students classified as English learners, English language development support was needed to provide students access to the core curriculum. The court based its decision on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If we were to expand the intention behind the court’s decision, we would ensure that all students — regardless of home language, ZIP code, or cultural background — get equitable access to education. This means doing whatever it takes to support individual students, not giving every student the same instruction. In particular, research has shown that scripted curricula don’t work for multilingual students. So, what does? Recently, science of reading advocates and multilingual advocates — including researchers — published a joint statement identifying literacy practices that are effective for multilingual students.
How can all students be successful? While a complete solution would extend beyond the education system, here are two important and realistic steps that could move us forward:
Improved and ongoing professional learning for teachers. The better teachers get at observing, assessing, diagnosing and intervening at points of difficulty, the better they will get at modifying and differentiating instruction based on students’ needs and strengths. Identifying students’ needs before they fall behind is key. The further behind they fall, the harder it is for students to catch up. By identifying and meeting individual needs, teachers can help all students succeed. Doing so requires equitable — not equal — teaching. Ongoing professional learning is required to help teachers continually practice and improve their skills.
Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. It’s important for students to see themselves in the curriculum to develop a sense of belonging and to increase engagement. Traditionally, students who are different in any way — whether by language, (dis)ability, culture, religion, race, ethnicity, immigration status, etc. — do not see themselves represented in the curriculum. Students from historically marginalized communities may not see themselves in the characters or content they study and can feel like outsiders, as if school is intended for others, not them. Teachers who learn from and about their students and who authentically integrate students’ lived experiences into the curriculum can engage and motivate students in their classroom. When teachers use culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, it is inclusive and not generic, not scripted and not the same for all. It is equitable, not equal.
These research-based solutions are not complex, but they require districts’ focus and state funding for teachers to have access to high-quality professional learning.
The most significant factor that impacts student learning is the teacher. So, the next time someone says that students should all receive the same instruction, share with them what works for individualstudents. Remind them that teachers have a legal obligation to provide all students access to content, and differentiated, culturally responsive approaches are needed to achieve that.
●●●
Allison Briceño is an associate professor at San José State University and an OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow. Claudia Rodriguez-Mojica is an associate professor of teaching at the University of California, Davis.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
The German data company Datapulse released a report showing the vast and growing power of billionaires in the U.S. The report confirms your and my suspicions about the rigging of our economy and our politics. Surely it’s no surprise that Trump’s Cabinet is packed with billionaires. Guess who they are looking out for? Not you.
They cheered on Elon Musk’s ignominious DOGS as they slashed vital government programs. They didn’t complain when Musk closed USAID, causing the ultimate deaths of millions of children and parents because of the halt in US food, medicine and health clinics.
They are thrilled to see Trump send in the troops to halt protests against ICE tactics.
A democracy is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people. We are rapidly devolving into an autocratic regime where the rich run the show.
The Myth of “Tax Flight”: Contrary to popular narratives, the mega-rich are not fleeing high-tax states. Our data shows that California and New York, states with progressive tax codes, are home to 40% of all U.S. billionaires.
Explosive Growth: The number of U.S. billionaires has nearly tripled since 2007, growing from 329 to 877 today. This trajectory is unique to America; China’s billionaire class, by comparison, is stalling.
The Rise of the Billionaire Political Class: In the post-Citizens United era, the top 10 political donors, all billionaires, contributed over $420 million in the 2024 cycle alone, directly translating wealth into political influence.
Policy for the Few: The study analyzes the direct impact of billionaire-backed policy, such as the House’s 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” which could see billionaires gain over $390,000 in annual after-tax income while households earning under $51,000 see their incomes shrink.
Concentrated Wealth: Tech and Finance now account for nearly half of all U.S. billionaires, with tech titans alone commanding 37% of total billionaire wealth.
A teacher shows 12th grade students how to construct a small animal house.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
Ina Gutierrez lives for the opera. She has a master’s degree in classical voice as well as a decade of singing and performance under her belt.
She tapped into that lifelong passion to teach music and choir to fourth and fifth graders for two years in Kern County using emergency credentials, and she loved every minute of it but had to stop teaching once that credential ran out.
She now often works as an adjunct professor at CSU Bakersfield, where she teaches “Music in the Classroom,” a class that shows teachers how to share music with children. Gutierrez feels frustrated that she is qualified to show teachers how to teach but can’t teach actual students. She attempted to get a Career Technical Education credential for music but was told she couldn’t use it for elementary school teaching. That broke her heart.
“I would love to be teaching children music,” said Gutierrez, a 38-year-old mother of two who lives in Bakersfield. “Art is so important for children to experience, especially music. It is unique because it simultaneously builds independence and community. In a world where children are playing less outside and addicted to screens, having music in schools shouldn’t be a luxury. It’s vital in building a more compassionate, caring and happy society.”
While many arts education advocates are championing the use of the CTE credential as the state struggles to attract new staff to teach the arts in the wake of Proposition 28, the state’s historic arts mandate, there’s a big hitch for those who want to teach elementary students. It was originally designed for use at the secondary level because it is employment-oriented.
Basically, unless the class has a clear career-based element, like a fifth grade broadcasting class, candidates like Gutierrez might get rejected. Many districts will only greenlight CTE holders to teach middle school, junior high and high school. That’s why some arts education advocates are pushing for reform.
“The CTC language, unfortunately, is from the Eisenhower era when boys took shop, girls took home economics and nobody thought about ‘jobs’ or ‘careers’ until spring of their senior year in high school,” says Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “In today’s world, all of this is career-related, and it starts in elementary school.”
Given the state’s teacher shortage and the heightened need for art educators in light of Proposition 28, some are losing patience with the bureaucratic hoops aspiring arts teachers must jump through.
“It is frustrating to see good, qualified individuals being rejected from teaching due to complex bureaucracy,” said Gutierrez’s husband, Greg, who comes from a long line of teachers. “In order for California to fix the teacher shortage, this problem needs to be addressed. We need a process that is easy for potential teachers to work through.”
Bob Woods-LaDue, Gutierrez’s brother-in-law, has hit the same obstacle. He was told he had to get his music class reclassified as a technical class to be eligible to use the CTE credential.
“I can’t help but wonder how many teachers are in an uphill battle that don’t know how to advocate for themselves in the credentialing process, and getting different answers from different people,” Greg said. “It doesn’t seem like an encouraging environment based on his experience thus far and my wife’s similar experience.”
Beutner, for one, is pushing to have the system streamlined so that there are fewer roadblocks for teachers who are dedicated to bringing the arts into elementary classrooms as well as secondary ones.
“Change is hard, but it has to happen,” he said. “California schools will need to hire about 15,000 additional arts teachers to fully implement Prop. 28. Half of the teachers will be needed in elementary schools. There are nowhere near enough traditionally credentialed arts teachers to fill that need.”
Some experts warn that teaching elementary requires a different skill set than secondary. That’s one drawback in widening CTE credential usage, they say.
“I am not sure about broadening it,” said Eric Engdahl, professor emeritus at CSU East Bay and past president of the California Council on Teacher Education. “While it could be a stopgap to fill the arts teaching shortage, are the people teaching it with substantial industry experience appropriate to be teaching at an elementary level given the developmental differences in learning?”
Some working artists may need to bone up on educational best practices before entering the classroom, and Buetner suggests professional development be provided.
“A concern some may have is whether a CTE teacher, even with their content mastery, is ready to be in a classroom with third graders,” Beutner said. “A sensible approach would be to build in some guardrails, maybe a CTE teacher in elementary needs to work alongside a grade level teacher for a semester while participating in a certain set of CTE professional development courses.”
For many, teaching the arts is a dream gig, a way to enrich lives as well as stimulate higher levels of critical thinking in a generation hard hit by pandemic-related learning loss.
“Music is an amazing way to bring that joy to students, invite creativity to the classroom and build connections between students as well as teacher to student,” said Gutierrez. “It is in an environment like this that students can and will learn better. I love music for music’s sake, but music is a great tool to incorporate in teaching language arts, math, science and history.”
While the CTE program has long been associated with trades and vocations such as auto repair, plumbing, and culinary arts, it can also be a viable pathway to becoming an arts educator. Other routes include being a traditionally credentialed arts teacher or a classified staff member, although that role commands lower pay.
One of the key CTE pathways lets artists with considerable experience in their field, from dance and digital arts to jazz, use that expertise in the classroom. They must have three years of work experience directly related to each industry sector named on the credential and meet other administrative requirements.
“The CTE credential allows people who have 1,000 hours of experience in the field to come into teaching, bring all that experience, that wisdom that they’ve got,” said Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the California State Board of Education, during a recent arts ed conference at UCLA. “We hope many, many artists will come in and secure the credential.”
One big upside to the CTE credential is that, unlike teaching artists who need a credentialed teacher to remain in the classroom while they teach, CTE teachers can fly solo. That frees the classroom teacher up, creating time to work one-on-one with students, email parents back and meet with colleagues.
“When CTE teachers are teaching a course, then the regular classroom teacher can be doing other things,” said Darling-Hammond. “Our staff are stretched very thin. So we want to use this as a win-win for students and for staff in all of our schools.”
The greater accessibility of the CTE route, its fewer barriers to entry, may also invite a more diverse range of teachers than more traditional pathways, experts say.
“Let’s roll up our sleeves and bring the CTE standards into the 21st century,” said Beutner. “The alternative is millions of students in elementary schools across California will not have the chance to participate in arts and music.”
Teacher apprentice Ja’net Williams helps with a math lesson in a first grade class at Delta Elementary Charter School in Clarksburg, near Sacramento.
Credit: Diana Lambert / EdSource
Top Takeaways
California leaders dismiss the criticism and methodology of the rankings.
And yet, graduate credentialing programs cram a lot in a year.
Many teachers may struggle with the demands of California’s new math framework.
In its “State of the States” report on math instruction published last week, the National Council on Teacher Quality sharply criticized California and many of its teacher certification programs for ineffectively preparing new elementary teachers to teach math and for failing to support and guide them once they reach the classroom.
“Far too many elementary teacher prep programs fail to dedicate enough instructional time to building aspiring teachers’ math knowledge — leaving teachers unprepared and students underserved,” the council said in its evaluation of California’s 87 programs that prepare elementary school teachers. “The analysis shows California programs perform among the lowest in the country.”
The report’s call for more teacher math training and ongoing support coincides with the state’s adoption this summer of materials and textbooks for a new math framework that math professionals universally agree will be a heavy lift for incoming and veteran teachers to master. It will challenge elementary teachers with a poor grasp of the underpinnings behind the math they’ll be teaching.
Kyndall Brown, executive director of the California Mathematics Project based at UCLA, agrees. “It’s not just about knowing the content, it’s about helping students learn the content, which are two completely different things,” he said.
And that raises a question: Does a one-year-plus-summer graduate program, which most prospective teachers take, cram too much in a short time to realistically meet the needs to teach elementary school math?
California joined two dozen states whose math preparation programs were rated as “weak.” Only one state got a “strong” rating.Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2025 State of the States report
Failing grades
The council graded every teacher prep program nationwide from A to F, based on how many instructional hours they required prospective teachers to take in major content areas of math and in instructional methods and strategies.
Three out of four California programs got an F, with some programs — California State University, Sacramento, and California State University, Monterey Bay — requiring no instructional hours for algebraic thinking, geometry, and probability, and many offering one-quarter of the 135 instructional hours needed for an A.
But there was a dichotomy: All the Fs were given to one-year graduate school programs offering a multi-subject credential to teach elementary school, historically the way most new teachers in California get their teaching credential.
On the other hand, many of the colleges and universities offering a teaching credential and a bachelor’s degree through an Integrated Undergraduate Teacher Credentialing Program got an A, because they included enough time to go into math instruction and content in more depth. For example, California State University, Long Beach’s 226 instructional hours, apportioned through all of the content areas and methods courses, earned an A-plus.
The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs
California State University
Most of the universities that offer both undergraduate and graduate programs — California State University, Bakersfield; San Jose State University; California State University, Chico; California State University, Northridge, to name a few — had the same split: A for their undergraduate programs, F for their graduate credentialing programs.
Most California teacher preparation programs have received bad grades in the dozen years that the council has issued evaluations. The state’s higher education institutions, in turn, have defended their programs and denounced the council for basing the quality of a program on analyses of program websites and syllabi.
California State University, whose campuses train the majority of teachers, and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which accredits and oversees teacher prep programs, issued similar denunciations last week.
“The California State University rejects the recent grading from the National Council on Teacher Quality about our high-quality teacher training programs,” the CSU wrote in a statement. The council “relies on a narrow and flawed methodology, heavily dependent on document reviews, rather than on dialogue with program faculty, students and employers or a systematic review of meaningful program outcomes.”
The credentialing commission, in a more diplomatic response, agreed. The report “reflects a methodology that differs from California’s approach to educator preparation,” it said. “While informative, it does not fully capture the structure of California’s clinically rich, performance-based system.”
Heather Peske, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality for the past three years, dismissed the criticism as “a really weak critique.”
“You can look at a syllabus and see what’s being taught in that class much in the same way that if you go to a restaurant and look at the menu to see what’s being served,” she said. “Our reviews are certainly a very solid starting place to know to what extent teacher preparation programs are well preparing future teachers to be effective in teaching.”
It’s not just a problem in California.
“When we compare the mathematics instructional hours between the undergrad and the graduate programs, often on the same campus, we saw on average that undergrads get 133 hours compared to just 52 hours at the graduate level. In both cases, it is not meeting the recommended and research-based 150 hours,” Peske said.
Part of the problem is that graduate programs usually don’t have enough time to instill future teachers with the content knowledge that they need.
Heather Peske
Whether or not examining website data is a good methodology, the disparities in hours devoted to math preparation between undergraduate and graduate programs raise an important issue.
True jacks of all trades, elementary teachers must become proficient in many content areas — social studies, English language arts, English language development for English learners, and science, as well as math. Add to that proficiency in emerging technologies, classroom management, skills for teaching students with disabilities, and student mental health: How can they adequately cover math, especially?
“Part of the problem is that graduate programs usually don’t have enough time to instill future teachers with the content knowledge that they need,” Peske said. “California programs have to reckon with this idea that they’re sending a bunch of teachers into classrooms who have not demonstrated that they are ready to teach kids math.”
Brown said, “There’s no way that in a one-year credential program that they’re going to get the math that they need to be able to teach the content that they’re responsible for teaching.”
That was Anthony Caston’s experience. Before starting his career as a sixth-grade teacher at Foulks Ranch Elementary School in Elk Grove three years ago, Caston took courses for his credential in graduate programs at Sacramento State and the University of the Pacific. There wasn’t enough time to learn all he needed to teach the subject, he said. A few classes were useful, but didn’t get much beyond the third- or fourth-grade curriculum, he said.
“I had to take myself back to school, reteach myself everything, and then come up with some teaching strategies,” Caston said.
Fortunately for him, veteran teachers at his school helped him learn more about Common Core math and how to teach it.
The math content Brown refers togoes beyond knowing how to invert fractions or calculate the area of a triangle; it involves a conceptual understanding of essential math topics, Peske said. Only a deeper conceptual grasp will enable teachers to diagnose and explain students’ errors and misunderstandings, Peske said, and to overcome the math phobia that surveys show many teachers have.
Ma Bernadette Salgarino, the president of the California Mathematics Council and a math trainer in the Santa Clara County Office of Education, acknowledges that many math teachers have not been taught the concepts behind the progression of the state’s math standards. “It is not clear to them,” she said. “They’re still teaching to a regurgitation of procedures, copy and paste. These are the steps, and this is what you will do.”
Although a longtime critic of the council, Linda Darling-Hammond, who chaired California’s credentialing commission before becoming the current president of the State Board of Education, acknowledges that the report raises a legitimate issue.
“Time is an important question,” she said. “It is true that having more time well spent — the ‘well spent’ matters — could make a difference for lots of people in learning lots of subjects, including math.”
Darling-Hammond faults the study, however, for not factoring in California’s broader approach to teacher preparation, including requiring that teaching candidates pass a performance assessment in math and underwriting teacher residency programs, in which teachers work side by side with an effective teacher for a full year while taking courses in a graduate program.
“You could end up becoming a pretty spectacular math teacher in a shorter amount of time than if you’re just studying things in an undergraduate program disconnected from student teaching,” she said.
Weak state policies
The report also grades every state’s policies on math instruction, from preparing teachers to coaching them after they’re in the classroom. California and two dozen states are rated “weak,” ahead of seven “unacceptable” states (Montana, Arizona, Nebraska, Missouri, Alaska, Vermont and Maine) while behind 17 “moderate” states, including Texas and Florida, and a sole “strong” state, Alabama.
The council bases the rating on the implementation of five policy “levers” to ensure “rigorous standards-aligned math instruction.” However, California’s actions are more nuanced than perhaps its “unacceptable” ratings on three and “strong” ratings on two would indicate.
For example, the council dinged the state for not requiring that all teachers in a prep program pass a math licensure test. California does require elementary credential candidates to pass the California Subject Examinations for Teachers, or CSET, a basic skills test, before they can teach students. But the math portion is combined with science, and students can avoid the test by supplying proof they have taken undergraduate math courses.
At the same time, many superintendents and math teachers may be doing a double-take for a “strong” rating for providing professional learning and ongoing support for teachers to sustain effective math instruction.
Going back to the adoption of the Common Core, the state has not funded statewide teacher training in math standards. In the past five years, the state has spent $500 million to train literacy coaches in the state’s poorest schools, but nothing of that magnitude for math coaches.
The Legislature approved $20 million for the California Mathematics Project for training in the new math framework, which was passed in 2023, and $50 million in 2022-23 for instruction in grades fourth to 12th in science, math and computer science training to train coaches and teacher leaders — amounts that would be impressive for smaller states, but not to fund training most math teachers in California. (You can find a listing of organizations offering training and resources on the math framework here.)
In keeping with local control, Gov. Gavin Newsom has appropriated more than $10 billion in education block grants, including the Student Support and Professional Development Discretionary Block Grant,and the Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant, but those are discretionary; districts have wide latitude to spend money however they want on any subject.
Tucked into a section on Literacy Instruction in Newsom’s May budget revision (see Page 19) is the mention that a $545 million grant for materials instruction will include a new opportunity to support math coaches, too. The release of the final state budget for 2025-26 later this month will reveal whether that money survives.
Brown calls for hiring more math specialists for schools and for three-week summer intensive math leadership institutes like the one he attended in 1994. It hasn’t been held since the money ran dry in the early 2000s.
EdSource reporter Diana Lambert contributed to this article.
When Trump named Ed Martin as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, those who know his record (and are not faithful Trumpers) were appalled. He had actively defended the January 6 insurrection and had a long record as a Putin apologist, among other things. A strange choice for a very important role in law enforcement. Fortunately, the Republicans who are a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination.
Ed Martin is a major actor in Trump’s attempted regime change to authoritarianism. His particular role is to transform the law into a tool to intimidate Americans. After a stint as interim US Attorney for DC which was marked by unprecedented weaponization of the position, Martin will now continue his work for Trump as the official “weaponization czar.”
This is a new position within the Justice Department, designed by the Trump administration, to punish people who have committed no crimes. Martin was originally placed on the “weaponization working group” seemingly ex officio when he was a US Attorney; he will now continue as its chairman. On Martin’s account, his assignment will be to publicly single out Americans who have not been found guilty of anything, or for that matter even indicted. He says there will be “no limit to the targets.”
Martin’s authoritarian past and loyalties are a matter of public record. He helped build an alternative reality around Trump’s Big Lie and coup attempt, treating the January 6th criminals as heroes deserving of financial support and pardons. As interim US attorney, he described himself as President Trump’s lawyer, and abused his position to send letters to people who displeased the president in some way. He threatened journalists, universities and scientists.
Martin, to use the historical term, is taking an ostentatious part in the ongoing attempt at what the Nazis called a Gleichschaltung of institutions: of dropping the distinction between the law and the leader, and of attempting to force everyone in public life into line with the leader’s latest statements. The reference is not accidental. Martin is on the far right, and an advocate of great replacement theory: the spurious idea that a conspiracy seeks to replace white Americans with immigrants. He had a very supportive relationshipwith a known American Nazi.
The czars, lest we forget, were Russian autocrats. The title “weaponization czar” reminds us that much of happening in the United States under Trump happened first in the home of the czars. In the Russian Federation today, the law is weaponized. Prosecutions follow the whims of Putin and his regime, and that the law will be invoked against them according to the political (and financial) interests of those who hold power. Russian media is full of accusations made by Russian officials that people are criminals or wrongdoers, even before they have been tried or subjected to any judicial procedure.
It is important that we understand that Russian-style authoritarianism is a real possibility in the world, one which Martin not only advocates but represents. Russia is not a comparison for Martin. It is a central part of his career. He has no actual qualifications to serve in the Department of Justice. His role has to do instead with making the law something that it is not supposed to be: a way to protect the powerful and punish the innocent who offend them. He auditioned for this role as a propagandist for Russia’s regime.
The title “weaponization czar” is appropriate because Martin’s most interesting achievements thus far are, in fact, in the service of Russia. He has done more visible work for the Russian state television than for any other institution. Martin, in other words, has already been part of one weaponized legal system for some time. His American career as “weaponization czar” is a natural second step of his Russian career as apologist for both Russian and American weaponizers and authoritarians.
Between 2016 and 2024, Martin was a star of both RT and Sputnik, which are propaganda arms of the Russian state. Putin himself has made this completely clear. One of the central missions of RT and Sputnik is to weaken the standing and power of the United States. Anyone who goes on RT or Sputnik, as Martin did more than a hundred times, knows what he is doing. For eight years, on any issue of the day, Martin was there to spread mendacious propaganda about Americans and to defend Putin and Trump. His Russian work surpassed any media exposure in the United States.
Julia Davis, who does the important work of contextualizing Russian propaganda television available for a global viewership, has made Martin’s appearances visible. With her permission, I am sharing her work in the following paragraph. It provides samples, with video links back to his appearances, of how Ed Martin spreads untruth in the service of Russian and American authoritarians. If you want to take the time to judge more of his appearances than the ones I cite below, here (again thanks to Julia Davis) is a longer compilationof Martin’s appearances on Russian propaganda television.
Trump as American president can do, says Martin on Russian propaganda television, whatever he wants. Martin proposes that we should live in the alternative reality provided by the Russian propaganda he serves, since American media cannot be trusted. He instructs us that American elections are rigged and that the January 6th criminals are political prisoners. (Note that Martin was thereby on Russian propaganda television forecasting his own role in seeking pardons for these people and raising money for them.) Martin denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections, although this was quite blatant — and indeed continuous, right down to the uncontested reports that Russians called in bomb scares to predominantly Democratic precincts in 2024. Martin also quite clear on the American role in the world, which is that the US should serve Putin and his wars. Echoing Russian claims at the time, Martin claimed that US intelligence was wrong about the coming full-scale US invasion of Ukraine, when is in fact it was entirely correct. In his view, the NATOalliance is unnecessary. The United States should be Russia’s ally.
There was a time, not so very long ago, when long service to hostile foreign propaganda networks would have been disqualifying for positions in the federal government. Now, as the head of RT boasts, it seems to be a qualification. Since Trump wants loyalists to him rather than to the United States, willingness to serve foreign countries, at least corrupt dictatorships, would be a useful filter. Repeating Russian propaganda tropes could hardly be offensive to Trump; he does this all the time. Taking part in Putin’s propaganda system would be naturally understood as the right kind of apprenticeship for work on Trump’s own regime change. We know that Trump chooses his people by treating their television appearances as auditions. So why not Russian television appearances? All the better.
No surprisingly, Martin says that his key assignment as weaponization czar will be to punish those who investigated Trump’s very real connections to Russia. This country has paid a huge price for not recognizing Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election for what it was: highly consequential and quite possibly decisive in the moment, and a sign of the coming age of oligarchical cooperation via digital tools to build right-wing regimes. That age is now upon us. There is, unmistakably, something very strange about the Trump’s submissiveness to Russia: appointing its media darlings (the list includes Tulsi Gabbard, who is of all things director of national intelligence); exempting it from tariffs when everyone else was targeted, refusing to pressure Putin to end a war when that is the obvious policy, sending as his envoy to Moscow a man who simply repeats Russian claims and uses Russian translations. Too many of us have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the fear that Trump will use the word “hoax” when we point to the Russian elements of our present reality: such as, for example, that our “weaponization czar” apprenticed in the role in the service of Russia. With our weaponization of the law and our czars, we have a Russia problem.
Working with Russian institutions will not hurt Martin with Trump’s followers, who have been trained to see Russia not as an actual country with interests but as part of a “hoax,” a conspiracy against Trump. This is the sad convenience of “America First”: it really means “America Only”: no matter how things get, we get to be first, since no other countries exist in our minds. If other countries are meaningless, then MAGA people can rest assured that there is nothing like the complicity of international oligarchs, or the guild of international fascists, or the plans of countries like Russia to destroy the United States from within. If other countries do not matter, then it never seems right to ask: just why is it that Russian propaganda and Trumpian rhetoric so often overlap, to the point that training on one is preparation for mouthing the other? But there are, of course, Republicans who have a notion of the interests of the United States, and of the rule of law. For them, Martin’s services to Russia should matter.
The Russia connection is perhaps most important to opponents of Trump. Speaking of Martin’s connections to Russia is not a way of sloughing off responsibility to another country for our own failings. It is, instead, a way to take responsibility. So long as we see Trump and his loyalists as purely American characters, our American exceptionalism tempts us to normalize what they do. We ask ourselves, over and over again, if this is “really” an attempt to end democracy. But if we take seriously the connections of someone like Martin with a hostile foreign authoritarian power engaged in a genocidal war, we get a sense of where things could be headed. Russia is a real country and, for us, a real possibility. When we recognize that the attempt to make America authoritarian is part of a tawdry global trend, with general patterns that we can recognize, we can better see where we are, and get to work.
