بلاگ

Big decisions ahead for new leaders at West Contra Costa Unified

Guadalupe Enllana, 43, was sworn in as the new West Contra Costa Unified board member in Area 2.

Andrew Whitmore/Richmondside

In a ritual similar to ones happening in school districts across California, two new board members in the West Contra Costa Unified School District along with a reelected incumbent were sworn in at the board’s final meeting of the year — as it braced itself to take on the numerous challenges that await it in 2025.

Not unlike its larger neighbors in Oakland and San Francisco, these challenges include declining enrollments, budget deficits, and threatened deportation of undocumented immigrants affecting an unknown number of families in the district.

The district, which includes Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo and several other East Bay communities, was able to traverse its most immediate challenge — finding school board members to fill the three seats that were on the November ballot. Only one of the seats was contested, and in the other two, the candidates had no opponent, and didn’t even have to appear on the ballot.

Guadalupe Enllana, a Richmond native and community advocate, was sworn in Wednesday night to represent Area 2, which covers the Richmond area, one of the nearly dozen cities in the East Bay communities within the district’s boundaries. She beat incumbent Otheree Christian, running for his second term, with nearly 55% of the vote.

Cinthia Hernandez, who ran unopposed, replaced eight-year incumbent Mister Phillips in Area 3, which covers the San Pablo area. Incumbent Jamela Smith-Folds, who represents Pinole and Hercules in Area 1, was also sworn in for her second term, after running unopposed for the seat.

The pattern of unopposed school board seats is one that is occurring across the state. An EdSource analysis found that out of 1,510 school board races it analyzed, in nearly half of them a candidate’s name did not appear on last November’s ballot, either because no one was running for the seat or because a single candidate was running unopposed — making that person an instant winner.

One of the biggest decisions the West Contra Costa board will make is hiring a permanent superintendent. At Wednesday night’s meeting, longtime district employee Kim Moses attended her first meeting as interim superintendent, after being appointed by the board in October shortly after Superintendent Kenneth “Chris” Hurst announced he would be retiring in December after more than three years in the job. Hurst said he was leaving to take care of his mother-law, who he said was facing “serious health challenges.”

Moses, a West Contra Costa alumna who graduated from Kennedy High School in Richmond, worked in the district for 18 out of the more than 30 years she’s been in education, most recently as its superintendent of business services. She worked for years as a teacher in Oakland, and then as vice principal and principal in the district.

“I welcome our new trustees. I actually really look forward to working with both of you,” said current board member Demetrio Gonzalez Hoy. “You’re coming in at a time when the board was fairly divided, as you both know. My hope is that with this change of two new board members that it would lead to us working in collaboration.”

One of the biggest rifts this year was during a June meeting when the board failed to pass the district’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) by the end of the fiscal year in June. The LCAP is a required document that describes how funds from the state will be spent, especially on low-income students and English learners. Because the board did not approve the LCAP, they could not vote on its annual budget as the accountability plan must pass first.

It is believed to be the first time that a district has failed to approve its LCAP by the state-imposed deadline. As then-Superintendent Hurst said at the time, “This is an unprecedented event in the state of California.”

In a frenzy of activity district, county and state leaders had to work together to figure out the next steps, complicated by the fact that the state’s education code doesn’t spell out clearly what happens when a board doesn’t approve its accountability plan before June 30. After making revisions, the board was able to approve the updated plan on Aug. 28, nearly two months after the usual deadline.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the newly constituted board was able to resolve its first split vote, this one for board president. Gonzalez Hoy and another incumbent board member, Leslie Reckler, were both nominated for the position, to replace outgoing board President Smith-Folds, whose term as president had expired. Reckler was elected to the position, voting for herself along with Enllana and Hernandez. She will serve for one year.

As a mother of four children, first-time board member Enllana said she had to figure out how to navigate different programs in the district and advocate especially for her child who has special needs. It is what motivated her to run a second time to be on the board after running unsuccessfully in 2020.

“As parents, we are really left in the dark sometimes about decisions being made on the board that directly affect their children,” she said in an interview with EdSource. “I was a teen mom and at the time (and my child), having special needs, made it really difficult to navigate the (special education) department, how to advocate, and how to get the information I needed and how to ask for it.”

Enllana said her top priority is to hire a superintendent who values transparency, communicates well with the board and community, and prioritizes data-driven solutions.

“We have to make sure that every decision that we’re making on the board is student-focused, because if the students aren’t here, then we have no seat at the table,” Enllana said. “We really need to learn how to communicate with parents, and it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach.”

As a daughter of Mexican immigrants, Enllana said she’s also hoping to better reach the Spanish-speaking community and engage them in what’s happening at the district level as well as their children’s schools.

At Wednesday’s meeting, newly inducted board member Hernandez said she grew up going to West Contra Costa schools and is focused on offering more transparency to families.

“I’m also dedicated to creating more access to our families and creating resources and making sure our families are walking with us every step of the way,” Hernandez said.

The defeat of Otheree Christian means there is now only one Black member on the board, in contrast to the three on the previous board. Of its approximately 30,000 students, nearly 60% are Latino, 14% are Asian, 11.5% are Black, and 9.1% are white. Two decades ago, nearly 30% of the student body was Black.

Louis Freedberg contributed to this story.

Source link

28/04/2025
LAUSD settles lawsuit over federal money it unlawfully denied to Archdiocese schools

Isabel Dueñas teaches her transitional kindergarten students how to read at San Miguel Catholic School in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Credit: Archdiocese of Los Angeles

The article was updated to include a statement that LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho issued on Dec.23.

Los Angeles Unified has settled a 3-year-old lawsuit with the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles over how much federal Title I funding low-income students within the archdiocese are entitled to receive. The district agreed to pay the $3 million it improperly withheld from archdiocese schools and to comply with federal regulations requiring transparency and consultation with the archdiocese it had repeatedly violated.

The agreement covered 2018-19 and 2019-20, when Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) first changed the method of determining student eligibility for Title I and cut funding by more than 90%, from $9.5 million for the eligible 13,000 students in the archdiocese to $757,000.

The LAUSD school trustees signed off on the agreement in a closed session Dec. 11 and did not publicly disclose details after announcing the vote. A district spokesperson declined comment before publication of the article.

But Paul Escala, superintendent of the Los Angeles Archdiocese schools, said the agreement sends a clear message. It “ensures that non-public school students who are eligible for these services will get them. While that may seem basic, when we’ve operated in an environment where that was not clear and was not being upheld, that is a win for kids,” he said.

Sign-up below to receive breaking news alerts from EdSource by text message.

“This recognizes that kids who attend Catholic schools in urban Los Angeles, not only are they eligible for Title I services, but in fact suffer with poverty and needs just like their public school district peers,” he said.

Since its passage in 1968, Congress extended Title I funding to poor students in private schools, including religious schools, to boost their chances for success. However, to avoid directly funding religious schools, Congress decided that districts in which private and religious schools are located should determine student eligibility and consult with the schools on which services, such as counseling, the students should receive.

Districts have a menu of methods for determining Title I eligibility. The simplest and generally most advantageous for private schools is to use census data to determine the level of poverty in a neighborhood and calculate eligibility as the proportion of low-income students that attend a private school. It’s the method most large urban districts have used, Escala said, including LAUSD and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, where Alberto Carvalho was superintendent before becoming LAUSD superintendent in 2022. That approach also meets the spirit of Title I, he said.

An incentive to deny Title I to private school kids

Under Superintendent Austin Beutner’s incoming administration, the district changed the eligibility process for 2018-19 without prior notice to require schools to document family incomes through surveys or the number of income-eligible students registered for the federal subsidized meals programs. Along with requiring more time, paperwork and verification by the schools, the district changed the reporting rules several times in a short period and failed to engage the archdiocese about its decisions meaningfully, the California Department of Education wrote in 2021 in response to a formal complaint by the archdiocese. In addition to slashing funding, the district cut the schools served to fewer than two dozen out of 116 schools in the archdiocese. According to the California Department of Education, the district cut its total share allocated to private schools from 2% and 2.6% of $291 million to 0.5%.

Districts have a financial incentive to minimize private schools’ Title I eligibility, since the federal government awards Title I funding to districts. After subtracting the amount going to private schools, a district gets to keep unallocated dollars for its own Title I students.

“There’s a moral and ethical question on the table,” Escala said at the time.

In its 58-page report, the California Department of Education called the funding cuts “totally unreasonable.” Its report concluded that LAUSD “engaged in a pattern of arbitrary unilateral decisions,” including giving archdiocese schools 12 days during a summer break to produce income surveys for families and then removing all the schools that were unable to meet the deadline. It characterized the district’s approach as a “hide-the-ball approach (that) breached both the spirit and the letter” of the law.

LAUSD appealed the ruling to the U.S. Department of Education, which largely affirmed the California department’s findings in a November 2023 ruling. It gave the district 60 days to consult with the district, as the Title I law required, and fix the inaccurate count of ineligible students. It gave the district 90 days to provide the services that it had denied.

The archdiocese returned to Los Angeles Superior Court in the spring of 2024 because, Escala said, the district dragged its feet and declined to hand over documents the archdiocese was entitled to.

The turning point in the case came on July 16, 2024, when L.A. County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kim ordered the district to turn over all relevant documents, emails and records by Aug. 20 and to pay $82,141 to the diocese in attorneys’ fees.

The documents confirmed what the archdiocese had assumed, said the archdiocese’s chief academic officer, Robert Tagorda. “For years they had insisted that they were following the law. We had suspicions that if you’re cutting us this much, it can’t be lawful. We had the documents to show we had far more low-income students than they had originally counted.”

With revelations of public records, the archdiocese reached out to LAUSD to resume settlement talks. Within several weeks in November, there was a deal. The terms correspond to what the U.S. Department of Education had recommended, Tagorda said. LAUSD would recalculate how much was owed in 2018-19 and apply the corrections to 2019-20. It would disclose how the Title I obligation was calculated and confer with the archdiocese on the services to be provided. The archdiocese also will be able to pool Title I money so that it can direct it to the most intensive-needs schools — a practice that LAUSD had prohibited.

The combined $3 million owed for the two years was far below what had been received the year before the district changed the eligibility method. But staff turnover in the district and the archdiocese, and incomplete records in some schools, undermined the claims, Tagorda acknowledged. The eligibility process in years since 2019-20, unaffected by the lawsuit, changed little. In 2023-24, the archdiocese received $2 million in Title I funding.

Title I rules allow districts to annually change the process of determining eligibility. Escala said the archdiocese will continue to request that LAUSD return to the proportionality method that produced more funding; LAUSD, by law, must give the rationale each year for denying it.

Escala acknowledged that the archdiocese could have chosen to litigate the case — and likely won. But the outcome would have potentially taken years and legal expenses that archdiocese schools don’t have. “We recognized that we could not afford another day, another year, another generation of students not having the ability to fairly access legally entitled services,” he said.

Tagorda said the additional money from the settlement would be used for tutoring, after-school and summer programs, and academic counseling that schools have been requesting.

In an interview with EdSource in March 2022, soon after becoming LAUSD superintendent, Carvalho said he had familiarized himself with the archdiocese lawsuit. “I’m going to resolve this issue sooner rather than later,” he said. “What I can tell you is that we need more objective, transparent tools by which we assess and fund this guaranteed federal entitlement that’s driven by poverty,” regardless of whether for a public or private school.

It took nearly three years since then, after exhausting appeals and losing one ruling in Superior Court, for the district to resolve the case. Escala said he is optimistic it will be enforced.

“When we came back to the table, it was clear that Carvalho took a personal interest to make sure we have the conditions on his side to get a settlement done. We have seen a change in approach by district staff. He is committed to abide by Title I regulations and consultation that is fair, I take him at this word,” said Escala.

“In the course of these negotiations, trust and faith had to be rebuilt. I think that we’re in a far better place than we were six months ago.”

On Dec. 23, a day after the article was published, Carvalho issued the following statement: “I am grateful for our partnership with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. I look forward to the ways we can work together in the future and serve the students of Los Angeles. Thanks to Superintendent Paul Escala for his steadfast leadership over the Department of Catholic Schools.”

Source link

27/04/2025
Jamelle Bouie: Trump Has No Interest in Governing

Jamelle Bouie, one of the most insightful columnists for The New York Times, observes that Trump has no interest in governing. He is interested in ruling. He thinks he has a mandate, even though he did not win 50% of the popular vote. He thinks his will is as powerful as law. He does not share power with Congress, and he’s testing how far he can go to diminish the courts.

Bouie reflects on Trump’s indifference to the other branches of Govenment in this newsletter:

I think it’s obvious that neither President Trump nor his coterie of agents and apparatchiks has any practical interest in governing the nation. It’s one reason (among many) they are so eager to destroy the federal bureaucracy; in their minds, you don’t have to worry about something, like monitoring the nation’s dairy supply for disease and infection, if the capacity for doing so no longer exists.

But there is another, less obvious way in which this observation is true. American governance is a collaborative venture. At minimum, to successfully govern the United States, a president must work with Congress, heed the courts and respect the authority of the states, whose Constitutions are also imbued with the sovereignty of the people. And in this arrangement, the president can’t claim rank. He’s not the boss of Congress or the courts or the states; he’s an equal.

The president is also not the boss of the American people. He cannot order them to embrace his priorities, nor is he supposed to punish them for disagreement with him. His powers are largely rhetorical, and even the most skilled presidents cannot shape an unwilling public.

Trump rejects all of this. He rejects the equal status of Congress and the courts. He rejects the authority of the states. He does not see himself as a representative working with others to lead the nation; he sees himself as a boss, whose will ought to be law. And in turn, he sees the American people as employees, each of us obligated to obey his commands.

Trump is not interested in governing a republic of equal citizens. To the extent that he’s even dimly aware of the traditions of American democracy, he holds them in contempt. What Trump wants is to lord over a country whose people have no choice but to show fealty and pledge allegiance not to the nation but to him.

What was it Trump said about Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator, during his first term in office? “Hey, he’s the head of a country. And I mean he is the strong head. Don’t let anyone think anything different,” Trump said in 2018. “He speaks, and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

He wants his people to do the same.

Source link

27/04/2025
When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?

Alison Yin for EdSource

During a recent work trip to another state, I ran into an acquaintance I’d met a few times at education conferences. After our initial chit-chat about jet lag, they brought up a sentiment I’ve increasingly heard lately: Surely I must be glad to do education work in California, where equity isn’t a bad word; where diversity is championed, and state leaders are quick to defend the programs, practices and policies that support students of color.

It’s becoming harder to fix my face when I hear these words. Rhetoric is one thing, actions and data are another. And in a state where the current trajectory won’t have all Black students at grade level in math until at least 2089, I worry that our focus on saying the right words is taking the place of doing the right thing.

Before I get written off as too angry, let me be clear that there are absolutely things to celebrate in California’s approach to education. But here is where the conundrum lies for me. Why is it that California pursues so many positive steps forward in education, but continually sidesteps significant action that would lead to tangible results for Black students?

EdTrust—West’s report “Black Minds Matter 2025: Building Bright Black Futures,” comes a decade after we originally issued a call to action for California leaders by launching the Black Minds Matter campaign in 2015. We found a big disconnect between the dreams and aspirations of Black students and the opportunities our education systems give them to succeed. Black students are more likely to attend schools with novice teachers. Black students have the lowest high school graduation rate in California. Fewer Black students are going to college after high school than 10 years ago, and Black students are still underrepresented at California State University and the University of California. On nearly every indicator we analyzed, the education systems charged with caring for our students fail to support Black students. Wouldn’t you be angry if these were your kids or family members?

Our reports, policy work, and that of other researchers and advocacy organizations show how many efforts proclaimed as supportive to Black students are performative and piecemeal, or watered down or abandoned altogether, like the changes made to the Black Student Achievement Program in Los Angeles and the quashing of 2023’s Assembly Bill 2774.

This work, and some of our previous statements about the pace of progress in the state, have pissed people off. It confounds me that some folks in power are more upset about the ways we describe the data on how schools and colleges are doing for Black students than they are about how schools and colleges are doing for Black students. We have to remember that there are real people behind these data points.

Some folks told us not to share this data and advocate strongly for Black students right now. The political climate is too tenuous to speak up for Black students, they said. We need to fly under the radar rather than speak loudly and boldly, they said. It is not lost on me that the individuals suggesting this quieter path are well-intentioned. However, as professor Shaun Harper points out, now is precisely the time for organizations and educational institutions “to showcase DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) activities to confirm that they are not the racist, divisive, discriminatory and anti-American activities that obstructionists erroneously claim”.

California may be in the crosshairs, but we are also at a crossroads.

The dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education is being framed as returning education to the states. So, let’s take them up on that in ways that not only reaffirm our values verbally, but also through new, bolder actions.

Many of our recommendations are not new, except one: We need a California Commission on Black Education Transformation. Our current education infrastructure is failing far too many Black students. As we outline in our report and will continue to share in upcoming materials, we are not proposing that this commission act as another task force, but rather that it serves as an entity with power and authority around resources and accountability measures. We need an overhaul, and now —when states are being told they are empowered to lead on education — is the time to do it.

What I reminded the colleague I saw at the recent conference is this: The fight for racial justice has always been an uphill battle, even in California. Yet what we have in California — or at least what I am hoping we have — are leaders who will not only not back down, but will embrace the call to be bold.

I’ve advised college students and been an adjunct professor. I would never tell a student to temper their expectations for themselves. I would never say to a student not to fight for what is right because it is hard. I hope California doesn’t, either.

•••

Christopher J. Nellum, Ph.D., is executive director of EdTrust—West, a nonprofit organization advancing policies and practices to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in the California education system.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

27/04/2025
How three teachers and a little kid taught me that phonics and meaning complement each other

A kindergarten student raises her hand in a dual-language immersion class.

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

My post doc after finishing my degree in 1984 was teaching first grade at the bilingual elementary where I had done dissertation research. As I headed out into the real world, a widely admired literacy professor advised, “Just make sure everything you have them read is deeply meaningful.” Sounded about right.

It took me nearly three years to realize how not right that was.

The first hint

I had seen in my research that kindergarten classrooms at the school were almost devoid of children’s direct experiences with print. It was all about “readiness” and “developmental appropriateness.”

So, one of my teacher colleagues and I did a small study using photocopied booklets (“libritos”) we wrote and illustrated for kindergartners in Spanish reading. We thought using engaging little booklets, with opportunities for kids to memorize, “pretend-read,” enjoy, and talk about the little books would help “prepare the ground” for learning to read.

The study went well, and there was great enthusiasm. But we found no differences on any measure of pre-reading or emergent reading between the kindergartners using the libritos and the overall performance of the four comparison classrooms.

A dive into the data, however, showed that not all comparison classrooms were alike.

While scores were low in two of them, the other two, taught by teachers new to the school, had scores that were off our charts. Many of those kindergartners were actually … reading.

I had to visit. What I saw was shocking: classes like well-oiled machines. Kids in small groups rotating efficiently as a bell signaled the end of each 15-minute block.

One group with the teacher doing directed fast-paced instruction on letters, sounds and combining them to read syllables, then words (for the Spanish readers) or cvc words (like “dad” or “pal,” for the English readers), then short phrases or sentences.

Another group on the rug playing literacy games or looking at books. Another engaged in an aide-directed activity, such as dictation. Another working independently, copying then illustrating words or phrases posted on an easel.

This did not fit the child-centered conception of kindergarten I brought with me from graduate school. But children were productively engaged. And those darned study results.

We re-ran the study the following year, using new and better stories and illustrations (upgraded to “Libros”) and involving only Libros classrooms and the two classrooms that did so well the year before. We basically got the same results. In fact, testers commented that children from the two teachers I’d visited were really “into it,” eager to show what they could do with print. Children in the Libros classrooms were more wary.

The second hint

I was teaching first grade while doing this study, and students who had been in these teachers’ classes came into my class the following year. These kids could read. Their reading was syllable by syllable and robotic—e.g., “Pe. pe. da. la. pe. lo. ta.” (“Pepe gives the ball”) but I was able to fix this by using a prompt I’d learned when observing Reading Recovery in New Zealand: “Read it like you’re talking” (“Léelo como si estuvieras hablando”), pointing out the words meant something, and they should read that way.

(I gave the feedback about robotic reading to the two kindergarten teachers. The following year, their kids came in reading like champs.)

These kids had a firm grip on the “alphabetic principle” and decoding. Moving them quickly to more challenging and interesting reading material was pure joy. Students from other kindergarten classrooms … not so much.

The third hint

I had a small, diverse group learning to read in English. They had very little in the way of literacy foundations, so it was up to me to lay them. Still working on the “make sure everything they read is meaningful” premise, I struggled. So did they.

One of my English readers was a diminutive boy who had trouble “getting it.” He tried and was conscientious, but letters and words remained mysteries. One day he was not in class. His family had moved to a nearby district. I was sorry to see him go; he was bright and inquisitive. But I admit (embarrassedly) to being relieved.

A month later, he reappeared. “Ohhh,” I thought, but put on a happy face and welcomed him. “Hey, how you doing? Where you been?” I asked. He told me he had gone to another school, but his family had decided to move back. He didn’t seem to mind. But neither was he particularly enthused.

When reading time came around for the English reading group, he got the reading book he’d been using, opened it, and started reading. I did a double take. “Where’d you learn to read?” I asked.

“My teacher taught me at the other school,” he answered. My teacher taught me at the other school. Daggers to the heart.

“So, what did you do at your other school?” I asked, trying to be as nonchalant as he. “I practiced my spelling words.” “And what else?” I asked. “And learned my letters and read in my book.” He was reading. And better than anyone else in the group.

Fourth — and nailed it

In the last two years of my brief first-grade teaching career, I got a post-doctoral fellowship to pursue my research while continuing to teach half-time. This required finding another teacher to share a classroom.

Our first meeting was not auspicious. She was dedicated to phonics first, while I was still — albeit now a bit wobbly — in the “make it meaningful” camp.

She took Monday, Tuesday and alternating Wednesdays; I had the other Wednesday, then finished the week.

She would handle letters, sounds, phonics, and decoding; I would focus on comprehension, generally trying to make the best of what I was sure would be meager literacy gruel she served up.

Despite our mutual suspicions, we made it work.

I soon saw her foundational focus early in the week helped kids get the foothold needed to read accurately and with confidence. She likewise saw when she returned on Mondays that our students were reading and writing in ways qualitatively different from what she had seen when she taught her own classroom in prior years. Our kids were moving ahead at a fast, but unforced, pace.

Many landed in that happy place I later came to know as “self-teaching”, what teachers sometimes refer to as “the light goes on.” Children suddenly understand the rules of the reading road, and they progress rapidly as new letters, sounds and spelling patterns become absorbed into a growing understanding of how to read. By the end of that year and the next one with our second crop of first graders, we had our kids get further than either of us had ever accomplished individually. I told this story to someone a few years back who said we had created a demonstration site for Scarborough’s rope, a reading-education metaphor that visually depicts the interconnected strands needed for skilled reading.

Whatever it was, we had each learned some lessons.

•••

Claude Goldenberg is Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Education, emeritus, in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and a former first grade and junior high teacher.

This commentary is adapted from an essay originally published on his Substack, We must end the reading wars … now.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

27/04/2025
EdSource’s Best of 2024: Our favorite Education Beat podcast episodes

EdSource’s “Education Beat” podcast gets to the heart of California schools by highlighting stories from our reporters with voices of teachers, parents and students.

Here are 10 of our favorite podcast episodes from 2024. Take a listen:

50 years later: How Lau v. Nichols changed education for English learners

In the 1974 case Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that schools must take steps to make sure students who do not speak fluent English can understand what is being taught in their classrooms, whether through additional instruction in English as a second language or bilingual education. Here’s the story of how this case began and how it changed education, from the perspective of a teacher:

How can we get more Black teachers in the classroom?

A growing body of research shows that having a Black teacher increases students’ scores on math and reading tests and increases the chance that they will graduate from college. California has been trying to recruit and retain Black teachers for years, but they’re still under-represented. Hear from a Black teacher about what’s keeping her peers from getting to and staying in the classroom:

How can California teach more adults to read in English?

Almost one-third of adults in California can do little more than fill out a basic form or read a very simple piece of writing in English. Many of them are immigrants. Experts say programs aimed at addressing poor literacy reach only a fraction of adults who need help. One way to reach them is to bring classes directly to the workplace. This episode highlights the story of one janitor:

Student journalists on the front lines of protest coverage

As a wave of protests on university campuses called for a ceasefire in Gaza and for universities to divest from companies with military ties to Israel, student journalists emerged as crucial sources of information. Increasingly, student journalists are doing this work under the threat of arrest and violence.

How puppets can help kids learn to make believe

When teachers noticed that children in Oakland preschool and kindergarten classrooms were not engaging in imaginative play or interacting with each other as much after the pandemic, staff at Children’s Fairyland, a local theme park, turned to an old favorite — puppets.

School district is sued over broken windows, mold, overheating classrooms and missing teachers

The West Contra Costa Unified School District promised back in 2019 that Stege Elementary School would get a complete redesign and remodel, to attract more students and more experienced teachers and turn around low test scores, high suspension rates and chronic absenteeism. But now, a group of teachers, staff and parents are suing the district, alleging that it failed to address severely poor building conditions and teacher vacancies. What happened?

Should cellphones be banned from all California schools?

This year, state lawmakers passed a bill to require public schools to restrict student cellphone use. A parent shares how she’s seen cellphones affect student interaction and increase bullying, and what she thinks about the efforts to restrict them:

Music education sets up low-income youth for success

Rigoberto Sánchez-Mejía has been taking music lessons with Harmony Project, a nonprofit music education organization in Los Angeles, for 12 years, since he was 5 years old. He credits them with putting him on a path to college and giving him a tool to calm down when life is too stressful.

What is California doing — or not doing — about lead in school drinking water?

Oakland Unified School District began this school year with some unsettling news: The drinking water in the district’s schools had dangerously high levels of lead. But lead testing hasn’t been required in California schools for the last five years. That means Oakland Unified is unusual among California school districts in that it knows that there’s a lead problem at all.

16- and 17-year-olds make history by voting in school board elections in two California cities

This November, 16- and 17-year-olds in two California cities, Berkeley and Oakland, were able to vote in school board elections. A high school junior reflects on the significance of this moment and the importance of civic engagement for teenagers:

Source link

27/04/2025
Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done

Michael Tomasky is a veteran journalist who is the editor of The New Republic and editor in chief of Democracy. He has written for Newsweek, The Daily Beast, The American Prospect, and The New York Review of Books.

When reading the article, it’s important to remember that the President is not supposed to enrich himself while in office. It’s illlegal.

Tomasky writes:

He’s using the White House to get rich from anonymous investors—and it’s hardly even a news story.

Imagine that Joe Biden, just as he was assuming office, had started a new company with Hunter Biden and used his main social media account to recruit financial backers, then promised that the most generous among them would earn an invitation to a private dinner with him. Oh, and imagine that these investors were all kept secret from the public, so that we had no idea what kinds of possible conflicts of interest might arise.

Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Take a minute, close your eyes. Let yourself see Jim Jordan’s face go purple in apoplexy, hear the moral thunder spewing out of Jesse Watters’s mouth, feel the shock (which would be wholly justified) of the New York Times editorial board as it expressed disbelief that the man representing the purported values and standards of the United States of America before the world would begin to think it was remotely OK to do such a thing. The media would be able to speak of nothing else for days. Maybe weeks.

Yet this and more is what Donald Trump just did, and unless you follow the news quite closely, it’s possible you’ve not even heard about it. Or if you have, it was probably in passing, one of those second-tier, “this is kind of interesting” headlines. But it’s a lot more than that. As Democratic Senator Chris Murphy noted Wednesday: “This isn’t Trump just being Trump. The Trump coin scam is the most brazenly corrupt thing a President has ever done. Not close.”

Trump announced this week that the top 220 buyers of his $Trump (strump, as in strumpet) meme coin between now and mid-May will be invited to an exclusive dinner on May 22 (“a night to remember”) at his golf club outside Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that in the days since the announcement, “buyers have poured tens of millions of dollars” into the coin; further, that the holders of 27 crypto wallets have acquired at least 100,000 coins apiece, “stakes worth about a million dollars each.” Holders of crypto wallets are anonymous, if they want to be, so the identities of these people (or businesses or countries or sovereign wealth funds or whatever they might be) are unknown and will presumably remain so until the big dinner or, who knows, maybe for all time.

It’s also worth noting that Trump launched this meme coin just a few days before inauguration. Its value quickly shot up to around $75. It steadily declined through the first month of his presidency, and by early April, as Americans grew weary of a president who was tanking the economy, it had fallen to $7.14.

Mind you, a meme coin is a thing with no intrinsic value. It’s just some … thing that somebody decides to launch based on hype because they can get a bunch of suckers to invest in it. As Investopedia gingerly puts it: “Most meme coins are usually created without a use case other than being tradable and convertible.” It should come as no surprise that some meme coins are tied to right-wing politics. Elon Musk named his Department of Government Efficiency after his favorite meme coin, dogecoin (which, in turn, was indeed named after an actual internet memein which doge is slang for a Shiba Inu dog).

So, to go back to my opening analogy—this isn’t even like Joe and Hunter Biden starting a company from the White House. A company is a real thing. It makes a product or provides a service. It files papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It pays taxes. It employs people. Assuming that it’s a good corporate citizen and that it exists at least in part to solve some problem or offer the public some innovation, it contributes to the general welfare.

Not so a meme coin. It’s just a hustle. It may make certain investors rich, but it does the world no good whatsoever.

So stop and think about this. First, Trump, preparing for the presidency, purportedly busy thinking about how many millions of people he’s going to deport and how he’s going to bring “Jina” to its knees and how he’s going to hand eastern Ukraine to Putin and how he’s going to cut Meals on Wheels, for Chrissakes, takes time out from all that to stop and think: Now, how can I profit from returning to the White House? So he launches, naturally, the griftiest Christmas present ever.

It starts out great. Then its value drops by 90 percent. So in April, while he’s illegally deporting legal U.S. residents to El Salvador and roiling the world’s financial markets, he stops and takes the time to think: Hey, what happened with my meme coin? I had better figure out a way to goose this grift. So he comes up with this dinner. As well as showing just how tawdry his mind is, how he just automatically and intrinsically thinks it’s his right to make a buck from the presidency, it’s unspeakably corrupt. (One small silver lining here is that after peaking Wednesday at almost $15, it’s now under $12.)

Who knows who these “investors” are? Will we ever know? Inevitably, on May 22, people will be invited to that dinner. Will we know the guest list? Will the list be sanitized? Will a few Russian oligarchs be among the top 220 but send surrogates to keep their identity hidden?

This doesn’t create the “appearance” of corruption or set up the “potential” for conflict of interest. It is corruption, and it’s a standing conflict of interest. Patently, and historically. Chris Murphy is right: This is the most corrupt thing any president has ever done, by a mile.

What are the others? Watergate? It was awful in different ways, but of course Trump is worse than Richard Nixon in all those ways too. Teapot Dome? Please—a tiny little rigged contract, and it didn’t even involve Warren Harding directly, just his interior secretary. Credit Mobilier? Run-of-the-mill bribes by a railroad company, again not involving President Grant directly, just his vice president.

And yes, I’ve been thinking this week of the Lincoln Bedroom scandal. In 1995–96, the Clintons invited a lot of people to spend a night in the famous chamber. Many of them made large donations to the Democratic Party. It was unseemly. But it wasn’t illegal. And it certainly didn’t line the Clintons’ personal pockets. But if you were around at the time, you remember as I do the swollen outrage of Republicans about how relentlessly corrupt the Clintons were.

Today? Crickets.

Finally: Before we leave this topic, I want you to go to GetTrumpMemes.com and just look at those illustrations of Trump. There’s a big one in the middle of him with his fist raised, echoing the image from his attempted assassination. Then off to the right, there’s Trump seated at the head of a dining table.

In both, he looks about 50. The artist has airbrushed a good quarter-century off his face, in terms of jowl fat and wrinkles and accumulated orange pancake. And in the dominant, middle image … what do we think Trump’s waist size is, about 46, 48? This Trump is about a 34. Maybe even a svelte 32. It’s hysterically funny. These are probably the most creepily totalitarian images of Trump I’ve ever seen, and yes, I understand, that’s a big statement. But even Stalin’s visual hagiographers didn’t try to make him look skinny.

I digress. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize here. This May 22 dinner is a high crime and misdemeanor. A president of the United States can’t use the office to enrich himself in this way, from potentially anonymous donors for whom he might do favors. This is as textbook as corruption gets.

New York Times and Washington Post, put your best investigative reporters on this and place their stories on your front pages. MSNBC, hammer on this—you haven’t been. Democrats, talk about this every day, several times a day. Do not let Trump’s sewer standards jade us. Make sure the people know.

Source link

27/04/2025
EdSource’s Best of 2024: Our favorite feature stories

In the past year, EdSource has highlighted the work of fascinating people, innovative programs and impactful policies that contribute to the broad picture of education in California.

As the year comes to an end, the EdSource staff shares some of their favorite stories of 2024.

Source link

27/04/2025
EdSource’s Best of 2024: Our most read stories

Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

In the past year, EdSource has continued to carry out its mission to highlight critical issues in public education across California. As we close out 2024, we look back at the most-read stories of the year as selected by you, our readers.

Source link

27/04/2025
Don’t want to close underenrolled schools? Here’s how to make the math work

Protesters rally against school closures outside the Oakland Unified School District office in September 2019.

Andrew Reed/EdSource

This commentary was originally published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

As enrollments drop, city after city is facing pressure to close half-empty schools. Fewer kids means fewer dollars. Consolidating two schools saves money because it means paying for one less principal, librarian, nurse, PE teacher, counselor, reading coach, clerk, custodian … you get the idea. Low-enrollment schools end up on the chopping block because they’re the ones that typically cost more per pupil.

But there is another way to cut costs without closing underenrolled schools.

First, it’s worth noting that small schools needn’t cost more per pupil. Our school spending and outcomes data include examples of small schools all across the country that operate on per-pupil costs comparable to their larger peers — some even delivering solid student outcomes.

But here’s the catch: These financially viable small schools are staffed very differently than larger schools.

There’s a 55-student school near Yosemite that spends about $13,000 a student—well under the state average. How do they make it work? One teacher teaches grades two, three, and four. There’s no designated nurse, counselor, or PE teacher, and rather than offer traditional athletics, students learn to ski and hike.

A quick glance at the many different financially viable small schools across different states reveals that staff often wear multiple hats. The principal is also the Spanish teacher, or the counselor also teaches math.

Also common are multi-level classrooms. When my kids attended a small rural high school, physics was combined with AP Physics, which meant both my 10th and 12th graders were in the same class, but with different homework.

Sometimes schools give kids electives via online options, send students to other schools for sports, or forgo some of these services altogether. Some have no subs (merging classes in the case of an absence). Sometimes the schools partner with a community group or lean on parents to help in the library or coach sports.

Done well, smallness can be an asset, even with the more limited services and staff. Whereas a counselor might be critical in a larger school to ensure that a student has someone to talk to, with fewer students in a small school, relationships come easier. Teachers may have more bandwidth to assist a struggling student.

What isn’t financially viable? A school with the full complement of typical school staff but fewer kids. These aren’t purposely designed small schools, rather they’re underenrolled large schools (sometimes called “zombie schools”). Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, has a slew of tiny schools spending over $30,000 per pupil. Such schools vary in performance, but all sustain their higher per-pupil price tag by drawing down funds meant for students in the rest of the district. In the end, no one wins.

With so much aversion from parents to closing schools (witness, for example, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, Oakland, Pittsburgh or Denver) we might expect more districts to adopt these nontraditional staffing models as a way to save costs and keep families happy.

In some cities, it’s the charter schools that are offering just that: smaller nontraditional programs that make it work without extra subsidies.

Some will argue that nontraditional schools (including charters) won’t work for every student. Districts must take all comers, including English learners, families needing extra supports, those wanting a full athletics program, specialty autism services, and so on. That said, the idea here is that larger districts needn’t offer those services in every school, provided they’re available elsewhere in the district.

But it’s these larger districts that are the most wedded to the uniform staffing structure. It’s so deeply embedded in job titles and union rules, as well as program specifications and more.

Tolerating small nontraditional schools would mean letting go of some of that rigidity and accepting the idea that schools can be successful without all those fixed inputs. And it might mean reducing some staff who believe their roles are protected when enshrined in a staffing formula. On the flip side, if the school in question has higher outcomes, and the choice is to close it or redesign its staffing structure to transform it into a more intentionally small school, parents and students may accept that trade if it means preserving the school community.

It would also mean changing budgeting practices so that what gets allocated is a fair share of the dollars per pupil—in contrast with allocations based on standardized staffing prescriptions.

The last decade saw a big push for inputs-based models, including “every school needs a counselor” or “every school needs a nurse.” As enrollments continue to fall, these inflexible one-size-fits-all allocations stand in the way of keeping small schools open.

None of this is to say that every school should remain open. Many will inevitably close. But for some of those that deliver solid outcomes for their students, perhaps now is the right time to rethink the typical schooling model.

This commentary was originally published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

•••

Marguerite Roza is Ddrector of the Edunomics Lab and research professor at Georgetown University, where she leads the McCourt School of Public Policy’s Certificate in Education Finance.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

27/04/2025