اینترنت

بلاگ

  • ‘Students are scared’: Border Patrol raids fuel fear in schools

    ‘Students are scared’: Border Patrol raids fuel fear in schools


    Denny Sicairos, 5, at a Bakersfield protest against an extensive Border Patrol operation held last week.

    Emma Gallegos/EdSource

    Advocates have called upon school leaders to take action to protect immigrants in the wake of an extensive operation by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in Kern County last week.

    Immigrant families have been afraid to send their students to school in the wake of the extensive operation, some opting to keep them home.

    “Students are scared,” said Belen Carrasco, a middle school teacher at Bakersfield City School District, who reported an increase in student absences in her classroom over the last week. Students have told her that Border Patrol agents knocked on their doors, and in one case, detained a parent. Students are asking Carrasco for information on what they should do if agents approach them.

    One resident, Samantha Gil, said that her daughter’s immigrant friends at West High School in Bakersfield are “hidden in their houses. She is very sad for them.”

    The fear is so great that community members have been afraid to show up to school sites in rural communities where food is being distributed, according to Ashley De La Rosa, education policy director for the Dolores Huerta Foundation, a Bakersfield-based community advocacy organization.

    Advocates are encouraging immigrants to know their legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and to document any encounters with immigration officials. They are encouraging school leaders to get in touch with community groups that can provide this education or pass out cards with information about people’s constitutional rights, as Delano Union School District does. Above all, families are looking for assurance that schools are safe places that will not alert immigration authorities to their immigration status or address.

    “The parents are really looking to school districts to take action,” De La Rosa said.

    ‘There was a lot of terror’

    Firsthand accounts show that border patrol agents are broadly targeting immigrant communities, according to Rosa Lopez, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kern County. She works with the Rapid Response Network of Kern County — a group that offers a hotline for those who are a target of immigration enforcement or who may witness agents in the community.

    “What [agents] have done is terrorize communities and profile people who look brown, who look undocumented and who look like farmworkers,” Lopez said.

    The Rapid Response Network has also confirmed the presence of Customs and Border Patrol agents at gas stations and restaurants frequented by farmworkers and immigrants, pulling over farmworkers traveling to work, and even a Home Depot parking lot where day laborers look for work, Lopez said.   

    A video,shared by local NBC affiliate KGET showed a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent detaining a U.S. citizen and threatening to break the windows of his gardening truck, after slashing its tires. He was later released, KGET reported.

    Gregory Bovino, chief patrol agent of the El Centro sector in Imperial County on the Mexican border of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol called this week’s raids Operation Return to Sender.  He posted photos on social media, stating that the operation was aimed at protecting communities “from bad people and bad things.” His posts about the operation included hashtags for Bakersfield, as well as Fresno and Sacramento. The agency did not respond to questions from EdSource.

    Bakersfield City Councilmember Andrae Gonzales said families he represents in Bakersfield were being “harassed,” “intimidated” and “terrorized” by Border Patrol agents.

    “All of last week, I’ve gotten countless calls from people who wondered what to do, what their plan should be; employers who saw their employees staying home; principals and teachers upset and concerned for their students because they all were hiding,” Gonzales said.

    There was a lot of chaos, particularly on social media, about where the Border Patrol was operating and whom they were targeting. De La Rosa said there were sightings of agents near schools.

    “There was a lot of terror — or just fear — that trickled into kids not going to school,” Lopez said.

    News reports, videos and posts on social media about immigration enforcement have caused many local immigrants to question whether it’s safe to send their students to school or even leave their homes at all. 

    Residents from across Kern County showed up in Bakersfield on Friday to protest the agents’ presence, saying they were there on behalf of terrified families and friends in their community — the undocumented, those in the midst of applying for asylum, green cards or citizenship — who are concerned about federal immigration enforcement.  

    Vanessa Acevedo, one of those protesters, said her sister-in-law, who is undocumented, is afraid to go to work or leave her house for any reason and has been relying on others to take her children to school.

    Many of the areas targeted by Border Patrol agents are frequented by Latin American immigrants, but the video of a citizen being detained sent shock waves into the local Sikh community as well, according to Raji Brar, co-founder of the Bakersfield Sikh Women’s Association. 

    Many immigrants in the Sikh community have green cards or are going through the asylum process, she said. Seeing an American citizen being detained was “jarring” to them and a shocking “abuse of power,” Brar said.

    She said the local gurdwaras, or places of worship, were empty over the weekend. Some parents have told her that they’re not going to work and that they’re keeping their children home out of an abundance of caution.

    “It was a wake-up call for all of us who happen to look a little different,” Brar said.

    Preparing for the second term of Donald Trump

    As state and local school officials prepare for the second term of Donald Trump, who promised unprecedented mass deportations of immigrants, California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently released updated guidance for how K-12 schools and colleges should respond to immigration enforcement agents. Some school districts have reiterated they are “sanctuary schools” — a stance many developed during Trump’s first term — and that they wouldstrictly limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

    But the operation conducted by the Border Patrol in Kern County seemed to come ahead of the expected schedule — Trump won’t become president until Jan. 20.

    “It’s really challenging, because I think we knew this was a possibility with this new administration,” De La Rosa said. “But (last week’s operation) caught everyone off guard.”

    Last week, Bakersfield City School District sent a message to its staff reminding them of guidance from the state attorney general and also a policy its board passed in 2017 called the Safe Haven Resolution, which designates schools as “protected areas” where immigration enforcement should not occur. District spokesperson Tabatha Mills clarified that no agents have visited the district’s schools.

    De La Rosa said that Bakersfield City School District is also planning to reach out to parents concerned about immigration enforcement through the district’s community engagement liaisons.

    This week, Delano Union School District plans to pass out cards to families, referred to as red cards, that have information about the rights everyone has under the U.S. Constitution, according to Assistant Superintendent April Gregerson.

    Delano is a rural community approximately 40 miles north of Bakersfield that is heavily populated by immigrants and farmworkers. The deaths of two residents fleeing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in 2018, after dropping their daughter off at high school, led to community protests against ICE.

    An estimated 1 in 10, or 1 million, children in California have at least one undocumented parent, and approximately 133,000 children in the state’s public schools are undocumented themselves, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

    A 2018 publication by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research reported that zealous application of immigration laws causes school enrollment to drop and can set back the education of young people, including many U.S. citizens. The study found that Latino enrollment dropped nearly 10% in communities where local law enforcement collaborated with ICE.

    State leadership

    The Border Patrol’s actions in Kern County have drawn condemnation from state leaders. The California Latino Legislative Caucus released a statement saying the unannounced raids are “sowing chaos and discord.” The group urged the Border Patrol to announce their raids and to avoid sensitive areas, including schools. 

    “It is seemingly a rogue group of Border Patrol officers that just decided to take it upon themselves to hang out at where farmworkers hang out, hang out where day laborers hang out and decide to essentially round them up and do exactly what the Trump administration threatened that they were going to do,” said state Sen. Lena Gonzalez D-Long Beach.

    Gonzalez and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond have introduced a bill that aims to establish a 1-mile “safe zone” around schools and prohibit schools from allowing immigration authorities to enter a campus or share information without a judicial warrant. 

    Gonzalez, along with Thurmond, plan to reach out to educators for feedback on how best to craft and ultimately implement this bill so that families feel safe sending their children to school.

    Students who encounter any violation of their rights at their school — such as through harassment or bullying — can file a complaint through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights or the Uniform Complaint Procedure through their local district, De La Rosa said.

    She also encouraged parents who are concerned about detention or deportation to file affidavits to instruct school or health officials about who may make decisions about a student. This can be especially crucial for disabled students who have an individualized education program.

    “Families really need reassurance from their district leaders and their elected leaders,” said De La Rosa. “If that doesn’t happen, they have a right to file a complaint and hold folks accountable.”





    Source link

  • Over $45 billion in local bonds coming to schools, community colleges

    Over $45 billion in local bonds coming to schools, community colleges


    A San Jose Unified teacher attends a rally Oct. 9 to promote candidates and a school bond measure that includes funding for staff housing.

    Credit: Photo courtesy of California Teachers Union

    This past November, hundreds of California school districts pursued local bond dollars to fix or update campuses across their communities. 

    Voters passed 205 of 267 proposed local construction bonds on the Nov. 5 ballot, including 14 of 15 for community colleges. Along with the largest number of bonds, the 77% passage rate was just shy of the historic approval rate of 79% since 2000, said Michael Coleman, founder of CaliforniaCityFinance.com, who compiled the voting results.

    That was the year voters lowered the threshold for passing school bonds from a two-thirds majority to 55%.

    Voters in major urban areas were the most receptive to bond proposals, including Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD), whose $9 billion bond was by far the biggest on the ballot; $1.15 billion in San Jose Unified, which included money to underwrite staff housing; and $790 million in San Francisco Unified. San Diego Community College District’s $3.5 billion bond proposal was the largest community college measure.

    The bond in Earlimart Elementary in Tulare County passed with the state’s highest approval of 81.6%. But in the if-only-we-had-knocked-on-more-doors category, bonds in Kingsburg Union High School District, spanning three Central Valley counties, and Elverta Joint Elementary District in Sacramento County, lost by only three votes, and in Weed Union School District, in Siskiyou County, by four votes. 

    Across the Central San Joaquin Valley, stretching from San Joaquin and Calaveras counties to Kern County, more than 40 measures were approved. 

    Enrollment is growing in some parts of the region, so voters decided on multimillion dollar measures to meet the demand, such as Clovis Unified’s $400 million bond and Sanger Unified’s $175 million measure. In both districts, 57.6% of voters said yes to meet the needs of their growing communities. 

    “We have emphasized that this bond measure is critical to keeping our schools in the great shape they are in today and to finishing the much-needed Clovis South High School,” Clovis Unified Superintendent Corrine Folmer said when voting results showed that the district’s bond measure had secured a win.

    Clovis and Sanger Unified listed finishing construction at their high schools as priorities. Estimating its student population doubling in the next 10 to 20 years, Sanger Unified is also looking to build a new elementary school to alleviate overcrowding. 

    Other school communities in the Central Valley and up and down the state approved bond money to address the deteriorating condition of aging facilities. For instance, in Fresno Unified, 64.5% of voters said yes to a $500 million bond — the largest in district history.

    In the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, all districts but one, Vacaville Unified, passed bond measures. In Los Angeles County, only Saugus Union School District’s bond failed. In Orange County, all transitional kindergarten to grade 12 school district bond measures passed, but voters nixed Rancho Santiago Community College District’s bond.

    However, voters in many predominantly rural and low-property-wealth districts, from Humboldt County in the north to Imperial County in the south, voted down bonds that would have raised taxes. This included eight small districts in San Diego County and Del Norte Unified in Del Norte County. In October, EdSource highlighted Del Norte’s struggle with mold-infested, leaky portables and hazardous playgrounds in a roundtable on Proposition 2, a statewide school construction bond that voters passed.

    “Our one-district county is strained by a lack of economy, and the community is struggling with high tax rates. This wasn’t a lack of desire for our youth, but one based on meeting basic needs for household necessities,” said Brie Fraley, a parent of four boys and active bond supporter. “The structure of bonds in California doesn’t help the neediest communities.” 

    Nearly all parcel taxes pass

    Along with construction bonds, 26 school districts placed annual parcel taxes on the ballot, and 24 passed. Parcel taxes are also property taxes, but they must be a uniform amount per property in a district — whether it’s assessed for a run-down home or a five-star hotel. Although it requires a two-thirds majority vote for approval, 92% of the parcel taxes passed in November; 17 of those renewed existing taxes. 

    Particularly popular in the Bay Area and coastal Los Angeles County, they ranged from $647 per parcel in Lakeside Union School District, a small rural district lying in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, and $369 per parcel in Woodside Elementary, near Palo Alto, to $59 per parcel in both Sunnyvale School District and Ventura Unified. 





    Source link

  • Heather Cox Richardson: Trump’s “Peace Plan” for Ukraine Is Putin’s Plan

    Heather Cox Richardson: Trump’s “Peace Plan” for Ukraine Is Putin’s Plan


    Trump has long demonstrated his admiration for Putin. No one can say exactly why Trump admires Russia’s ruthless dictator. But Trump insists that Ukraine is responsible for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. His lame efforts to broker an end to Russia’s war on Ukraine have robustly echoed Putin’s demands.

    Heather Cox Richardson analyzes how Trump has changed American policy towards the Russian war on Ukraine. Trump’s “peace plan” gives Russia everything Putin wants:

    She writes:

    After previously suggesting that the U.S. would not involve European representatives in negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff met in Paris last week for talks with Ukrainian and European officials. The U.S. presented what it called “the outlines of a durable and lasting peace,” even as Russia continued to attack Ukrainian civilian areas.

    A senior European official told Illia Novikov, Aamer Madhani, and Jill Lawless of the Associated Press that the Americans presented their plan as “just ideas” that could be changed. But Barak Ravid of Axios reported on Friday that Trump was frustrated that the negotiations weren’t productive and said he wanted a quick solution.

    Talks were scheduled to resume today, in London, but yesterday Rubio pulled out of them. The U.S. plan is now “a final offer,” Ravid reported, and if the Ukrainians don’t accept it, the U.S. will “walk away.”

    On a bipartisan basis, since 2014 the United States has supported Ukraine’s fight to push back Russia’s invasions. But Trump and his administration have rejected this position in favor of supporting Russia. This shift has been clear in the negotiations for a solution: Trump required repeated concessions from Ukraine even as Russia continued bombing Ukraine. Axios’s Ravid saw the proposed “final offer,” and it fits this pattern.

    The plan would recognize Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea and its occupation of almost all of Luhansk oblast and the portions of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts Russia has occupied. This would essentially freeze the boundary of Ukraine at the battlefront.

    Ukraine would promise not to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the post–World War II defensive alliance that first stood against the aggression of the Soviet Union and now stands against the aggression of Russia.

    Sanctions imposed against Russia after its 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine would be lifted, and the United States, in particular its energy and industrial sectors, will cooperate with Russia.

    In essence, this gives Russian president Vladimir Putin everything he wanted.

    What the Ukrainians get out of this deal is significantly weaker. They get “a robust security guarantee,” but Ravid notes the document is vague and does not say the U.S. will participate. We have been here before. After the Soviet Union crumbled in 1991, Ukraine had the third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. In exchange for Ukraine’s giving up those weapons, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia agreed to secure Ukraine’s borders. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, they agreed they would not use military force or economic coercion against Ukraine.

    Russia violated that agreement with its 2014 and 2022 invasions, making it unlikely that Ukraine will trust any new promises of security.

    Under the new plan, Ukraine would also get back a small part of Kharkiv oblast Russia has occupied. It would be able to use the Dnieper River. And it would get help and funds for rebuilding, although as Ravid notes, the document doesn’t say where the money will come from.

    There is something else in the plan. The largest nuclear power plant in Europe is Ukrainian: the Zaporizhzhia plant. It will be considered Ukrainian territory, but the United States will operate it and supply the electricity it produces to both Ukraine and Russia, although the agreement apparently doesn’t say anything about how payments would work. The plan also refers to a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine for minerals, with Ukraine essentially repaying the U.S. for its past support.

    Ravid notes that the U.S. drafted the plan after envoy Steve Witkoff met for more than four hours last week with Putin. But the plan has deeper roots.

    This U.S.-backed plan echoes almost entirely the plan Russian operatives presented to Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort in exchange for helping Trump win the White House. Russia had invaded Ukraine in 2014 and was looking for a way to grab the land it wanted without continuing to fight.

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election explained that Manafort in summer 2016 “discussed a plan to resolve the ongoing political problems in Ukraine by creating an autonomous republic in its more industrialized eastern region of Donbas, and having [Russian-backed Viktor] Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President ousted in 2014, elected to head that republic.”

    The Mueller Report continued: “That plan, Manafort later acknowledged, constituted a ‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine.” The region that Putin wanted was the country’s industrial heartland. He was offering a “peace” plan that carved off much of Ukraine and made it subservient to him. This was the dead opposite of U.S. policy for a free and united Ukraine, and there was no chance that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who was running for the presidency against Trump, would stand for it. But if Trump were elected, the equation changed.

    According to the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee, Manafort’s partner and Russian operative Konstantin Kilimnik wrote: “[a]ll that is required to start the process is a very minor ‘wink’ (or slight push) from D[onald] T[rump] saying ‘he wants peace in Ukraine and Donbass back in Ukraine’ and a decision to be a ‘special representative’ and manage this process.” Following that, Kilimnik suggested that Manafort ‘could start the process and within 10 days visit Russia ([Yanukovych] guarantees your reception at the very top level, cutting through all the bullsh*t and getting down to business), Ukraine, and key EU capitals.’ The email also suggested that once then–Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko understood this ‘message’ from the United States, the process ‘will go very fast and DT could have peace in Ukraine basically within a few months after inauguration.’”

    According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the men continued to work on what they called the “Mariupol Plan” at least until 2018.

    After Russia invaded Ukraine again in 2022, Jim Rutenberg published a terrific and thorough review of this history in the New York Times Magazine. Once his troops were in Ukraine, Putin claimed he had annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, two of which were specifically named in the Mariupol Plan, and instituted martial law in them, claiming that the people there had voted to join Russia.

    On June 14, 2024, as he was wrongly imprisoning American journalist Evan Gershkovich, Putin made a “peace proposal” to Ukraine that sounded much like the Mariupol Plan. He offered a ceasefire if Ukraine would give up Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, including far more territory than Putin’s troops occupy, and abandon plans to join NATO. “If Kyiv and the Western capitals refuse it, as before,” Putin said, “then in the end, that’s their…political and moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed.”

    On June 27, 2024, in a debate during which he insisted that he and he alone could get Gershkovich released, and then talked about Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Trump seemed to indicate he knew about the Mariupol Plan: “Putin saw that, he said, you know what, I think we’re going to go in and maybe take my—this was his dream. I talked to him about it, his dream.”

    Now that plan is back on the table as official U.S. policy.

    Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky has said that his country will not recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea. In this determination, he speaks for the global rules-based order the U.S. helped to create after World War II. Recognition of the right of a country to invade another and seize its territory undermines a key article of the United Nations, which says that members won’t threaten or attack any country’s “territorial integrity or political independence.” French president Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders are standing behind those principles, saying today in a statement from Macron’s office that they reject Russian territorial gains under the U.S. plan. “Ukraine’s territorial integrity and European aspirations are very strong requirements for Europeans,” the statement said.

    But Trump himself seems eager to rewrite the world order. In addition to his own threats against Greenland, Canada, and Panama, in a post today on his social media site he echoed Putin’s 2024 statement blaming Ukraine for Russia’s bloody war because it would not agree to Putin’s terms. Today, Trump said Zelensky’s refusal to recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea was “inflammatory,” and he pressured Zelensky to accept the deal.

    Curiously, he felt obliged to write that “I have nothing to do with Russia…”.

    —



    Source link

  • Future farmers grow real-world skills at Cal State’s working farms

    Future farmers grow real-world skills at Cal State’s working farms


    Fresno State animal science major Toi Johnson givies a bull an oral dewormer on Feb. 20, 2025, to help prevent fungal infections like ringworm from infecting and spreading to the rest of the herd. Adjunct faculty Ryan Person oversees her while other students practice giving shots to the animal.

    Credit: Jesus Herrera/EdSource

    In the heart of California’s bountiful Sacramento Valley lies Yuba City, a small town of about 68,000 people that is rich in agriculture and community.  

    This is where Taryn Chima, a fourth-year animal science major at California State University, Chico, grew up.  

    Growing alongside her were orchards of peaches, walnuts and almonds. Born into a third-generation farm family, Chima knew she wanted to pursue a career in agriculture from a young age. In 2021, Chima began her animal science education at Chico State. 

    Of the 23 campuses of California State University, just four have a college of agriculture: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Chico State, Fresno State and Cal Poly Pomona. This also means they have working farms that provide food for their campuses and research opportunities for ranchers and farmers in areas like regenerative agriculture, which aims to keep growing systems healthy and effective.

    Students working the land

    Most importantly for the students attending these schools, working on their campus farms enriches their classroom learning with hands-on experience.

    Max Eatchel, a senior majoring in plant sciences at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, had few familial ties to farming, and instead found his passion for gardening while looking for a new hobby during the Covid-19 lockdown. 

    “I got super into all this regenerative agriculture, sustainable agriculture, permaculture stuff, and I just went deep down that rabbit hole,” said Eatchel, who has worked on the school’s organic farm for over a year. “When it came time to apply to college, I thought, ‘Why not try plant science?’”

    Until he worked on the farm, Eatchel didn’t realize how much he still had to learn in the practical application of his education. But with his graduation in June, he now feels “super prepared” for the professional world because of his hands-on experience.

    “I’ve been talking to this orchard back in Utah, and they were looking for someone who could repair tractors. I really hadn’t had any experience with that,” Etchel said. “So I just asked my boss, and he’s like, ‘Yeah, we’ll get you a shift right now.’ So it’s very fluid, and it helps you build the skills you want to build.” 

    Similarly to Eatchel, an agricultural education wasn’t in Anthony Zaragoza’s sights at all. Zaragoza got his associate degree in biology and was planning on eventually attending medical school. That was, until a revelatory six-month experience with the Western Colorado Conservation Corps gave him a new vision. 

    But even when he got to Cal Poly Pomona as an agribusiness and food industry management major, he wasn’t certain how he could turn his education into a career path. Getting his first job with the student farm eased his mind.

    “Out here in the city, we aren’t surrounded too much by a lot of agriculture,” Zaragoza said. “So it could be a little disheartening when we’re not having a chance to get out on an operation and see that what we’re learning is actually a feasible future for us.”

    Zaragoza started as a maintenance technician at the equine center and is now the harvest assistant lead, a new position in which he works with farm operations director Jeremy Mora on the business and marketing side.

    He has noticed peers in his major with the same confusion he had about how their studies translate to the working world. That is why he strongly recommends pursuing a job with the campus farms.

    “They have that passion, but they really need that connection,” Zaragoza said.

    For Chima, that connection and passion are enhanced at Chico State’s University Farm. “If I was not a part of a working farm, I would not be where I am today,” said Chima, who works as the lead student herdsman at the Chico State sheep unit, overseeing daily operations and supporting student research projects. “I’ve developed confidence, and I get to see a lot of different perspectives within the industry.”

    Growing up in Salinas, Karla Ahumada was always surrounded by agriculture and knew she wanted to pursue it as a career. The fourth-year plant science and agribusiness major at Chico State has been grateful for her hands-on experiences at the university’s farm. 

    In a class last semester, Ahumada and her classmates were each assigned a crop to grow at the farm and were graded on how well they took care of their plots.

    Since freshman year, Ahumada has also been offered paid research positions at the university farm. “It is something very unique about our farm, that we can cater to students pursuing both industry and academic focuses,” Ahumada said. 

    At Fresno State, agriculture education sophomore Emma Piedra works in the dairy unit doing milking and maintenance while also learning veterinary skills. The milk is used to produce cheese and ice cream sold by the school. 

    She has no plans to go into the dairy industry after graduation. Rather, Piedra wants to use her time at the farm to help improve her knowledge about how it works and give her future students connections to work there, just as her teachers did for her. 

    “Ever since getting into dairy, I’ve wanted to help students raise dairy heifers someday when I’m a teacher. So this has given me a lot of hands-on experiences of what to do and how to help them,” Piedra said. 

    Another Fresno State student is putting this thinking into practice at the neighboring swine unit. Hannah Williamson is a student manager and graduate teaching assistant while finishing her final semester of her agricultural science masters in animal reproduction. 

    Williamson grew up around the swine unit alongside her father, a professor at Fresno State. Though she worked in a few different farm units during her undergraduate years, it was her experience as a teaching assistant for the swine lab class that helped her realize she wanted to follow in her father’s footsteps and teach at the college level.

    As for students considering taking some agricultural courses, she said, “I will say that the more you get involved, the better it is for you, because it opens a lot more doors. You have a lot more opportunities.”

    Operating, financing student farms

    Though each of these farming operations is different, they all give students experience in numerous areas of agricultural production, from cultivation and conception to marketing and accounting.

    The schools have lab classes where professors can make use of the facilities for the general student population. Research opportunities and paid student positions help students gain advanced knowledge and hands-on skills.

    “We hear often from employers that they really like our students because they can actually do stuff,” said Jim Prince, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s associate dean of the College of Agriculture.

    The San Luis Obispo campus has a range of farms and production facilities, including a vineyard, beef production and ornamental operations, among others. This may sound expensive to operate, and though Prince says it is a “complex mix” of funding, most of the farms are self-supported through their food production businesses.

    Among the products they sell are cheese, ice cream, jam, meat, organic produce, plants and wine. Most of these are available through their online shop as well as the campus markets, and some are available through local retailers. The organic produce is sold directly at local farmers’ markets and during the farm’s U-pick hours.

    The Chico State University Farm has a similar mix of financial support. It consists of 14 units and employs 18 full-time staff and 40 students. 

    All four universities were each awarded $18.75 million in a grant from California’s 2022-23 budget. For Chico, $11.5 million of that is funding the Agricultural Teaching Center and Farm Store, which is expected to be operating by this fall, according to College of Agriculture interim associate dean Kevin Patton. Amid statewide CSU budget cuts, Patton believes this money will not be touched.

    Chris Van Norden graduated from Cal Poly Pomona with a plant sciences degree and continued working on the campus farm until he became the agronomy farm coordinator, overseeing 125 acres. His brother, Bryan, also an alum, runs the orchard, organic farm and sales. 

    California agricultural production variety is extremely diverse, and Van Norden said their 700 acres of farms are well-suited to familiarize the student assistants with a wide range of career possibilities.

    “We’ve got (year-round) overlapping egg production, vegetables, permanent trees (and) subtropical, growing everything possible in California,” Van Norden said. “And showing the students that, ‘Hey, you could do any of this with agriculture,’ it’s a … giant, wide spectrum of agricultural potential.”

    Vincent Roos, the farm operations manager at Fresno State, emphasized the school’s unique position in the Central Valley, which allows for the growth of nearly 400 different crops.

    He noted the importance of hands-on experience in preparing students for diverse agricultural careers.

    “In other words, they can take anything, any kind of circumstances that you’re in, and make it work,” Roos said.

    Jesus Herrera is a third-year journalism student at Fresno State; Layla Bakhshandeh is a senior at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo majoring in journalism and graphic communication; and John Washington is a senior journalism student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. All are members of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • Trump attacks a key strategy for California schools: Flagging racial disparities in discipline

    Trump attacks a key strategy for California schools: Flagging racial disparities in discipline


    Fremont High School students in Oakland Unified use restorative justice circles to welcome newcomers, get to know each other and build bridges between different cliques and ethnic groups.

    Credit: Tatiana Chaterji / Oakland Unified

    Top Takeaways
    • Trump executive order challenges the concept that race-neutral policies can be discriminatory.
    • Administration said focus on equity in discipline has harmed student safety, while advocates say it’s an excuse to roll back civil rights protections.
    • Experts say executive order threatening to withhold funding from schools doesn’t have much bearing on California schools — for now.

    The Trump administration has taken aim at a key assumption of federal civil rights enforcers and California’s school discipline strategy: that large racial disparities are a red flag for discrimination.

    Trump’s executive order, released Wednesday, attacks the concept of disparate impact — the idea that a policy that may seem neutral actually harms a racial or ethnic group. The order calls this approach to discipline, championed by both the Biden and Obama administrations, a “risk to children’s safety and well-being in the classroom.”

    “Their policies placed racial equity quotas over student safety — encouraging schools to turn a blind eye to poor or violent behavior in the name of inclusion,” U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement.

    The previous Trump administration rescinded Obama-era guidance from the Department of Education, which warned it would initiate investigations based on reports of racial disparities in discipline. 

    The executive order takes this a step further by threatening state agencies and districts that fail to comply with the Trump administration’s “colorblind” interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against racial discrimination.

    The introduction of the California School Dashboard, the state’s school accountability website, raised public awareness of suspension rates and other indicators of school performance. The dashboard designates the performance of every district and every school as well as their student groups — including racial groups — in one of five colors. No statewide student group’s suspension rate was red, designating the worst performance, but 674 schools — 7% of 9,671 schools — had that designation. They may have been designated for state assistance to determine the cause of high suspension rates. They would also have to commit to lowering suspensions as part of their district’s annual accountability plan.

    Suspensions in California have dropped dramatically over the last decade, but disparities remain: 8.6% of Black students were suspended in 2023-24, compared with 2.7% of white students.

    California has also taken action and banned schools from suspending students solely for “defiance.” Many advocates claimed it was a “catch-all” justification to punish students, particularly students of color, for smaller infractions, like refusing to take their hat off. The state banned the practice for K-3 students in 2013, expanded it to K-8 in 2019 and, this school year, expanded it to high school students.

    Los Angeles Unified School District pioneered this policy to reduce suspensions. In 2013, its school board passed the School Climate Bill of Rights. A district spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource that the district follows state law and district policy regarding student discipline.

    “Race is not a consideration in the application of student discipline policies at the district,” the statement said. 

    Carolyn Gorman, an analyst with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, says California is at risk of losing funding for schools with its policies on willful defiance that reference disparate impact.

    But other experts disagree.

    Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said the executive order is no surprise. “I expected them to write about it, but it’s so vague, it’s important to wait for the guidance to see, really, what they are trying to say.”

    “It’s one of those threats that I would advise districts to ignore,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney at Public Advocates.

    Affeldt points to recent court rulings that blocked Trump from enforcing an executive order he signed in January that promised to withhold funds from schools that have diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.

    It is not illegal to simply have a racial disparity in discipline statistics, Affeldt notes. Instead, disparities serve as a red flag that triggers an investigation to examine whether certain policies or practices are discriminatory and violate civil rights.

    Daniel Losen, a civil rights attorney, education researcher and former director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, called the executive order “fear-mongering — making up unproven harms to discourage folks from considering the possibility that maybe their school policies are inequitable.”

    “They are hoping that people think that looking at racial differences is unlawful, even though the law requires that we address disparate impacts” of education policies, he said.  “And those regulations, which have been in effect since the ’60s, have not been rescinded.”

    Losen explored nationwide data on suspensions in his 2020 report “Lost Opportunities: How Disparate School Discipline Continues to Drive Differences in the Opportunity to Learn.” He concluded that the lack of instruction time from suspensions, combined with lost access to mental health services and the stigma of punishment “for breaking a rule, no matter how minor their misconduct,” causes racially disparate harm.

    Those sharp disparities, he wrote, “also raise the question of how we can close the achievement gap if we do not close the discipline gap.”

    Sixth grade teacher Thomas Courtney said he is concerned about the message that an order from the country’s highest office sends to teachers about addressing racism. He worries that it may reinforce a perception among a largely white workforce of teachers that students of color are to blame for the rise of misbehavior in classrooms.

    “The scapegoat is brown and Black children and the fact that they’ve been getting away with murder in your classroom — that’s how this is going to be interpreted,” said Courtney, who teaches humanities and English at Millennial Tech Middle School in San Diego.

    He worries some teachers will read the order and say, “I can finally write suspensions on all those Black kids causing all these problems in my class.”

    Looking at discipline through the lens of disparate impact tends to highlight one glaring fact: Black students — boys in particular — are far more likely to be disciplined. 

    “It’s historically egregious that it is Black males in particular who get referred much more often, suspended much more often, expelled much more often,” Affeldt said.

    Order is an ‘opening salvo’

    This executive order may have little immediate legal effect, but experts expect to see much more from the administration on the topic of discipline.

    “If they say, do not treat kids differently based on race, that should be fine. But they could go further to say that the Office of Civil Rights can investigate only individual circumstances, and cannot assume a disparate impact based on suspension data,” said Petrilli, of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

    “They could go looking for principals who would say they did not discipline students because of mandates to reduce the number of suspensions,” he said.

    Or they could find teachers who say that restorative justice in lieu of suspensions, without staff training and administrative support, doesn’t work. As Brian Foster, a retired California teacher, wrote in a comment to EdSource, “When there are no real consequences to bad behavior, it spreads. Behavior is excused and pushed right back into the classroom unresolved, degrading the real learning of all other students.”

    Courtney, who wrote a commentary for EdSource on the topic, worries that this executive order could represent an “opening salvo” in an effort to turn the practice of restorative justice into a politically toxic concept, as critical race theory was. Restorative justice focuses less on punishment and more on strengthening a school’s culture through righting wrongs, solving disputes and building relationships.

    Trump’s executive order doesn’t mention restorative justice practices, but it does refer to a joint letter in 2014 by the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. That letter notes that strategies such as conflict resolution, restorative practices, counseling and positive interventions may be used.

    Affeldt also expects to see more from the administration on the topic of disparate impact — both inside and outside of schools. He says conservatives have been pushing for a case that would outlaw disparate impact theory. He calls it a “moonshot” for the movement to get a case that would invalidate California’s take on racial discrimination.

    “That’s a real stretch,” Affeldt said, “but that’s their game plan, and they’re trying to tee it up.” 

    EdSource reporter Mallika Seshadri contributed to this story.





    Source link

  • Let the latest scramble begin for California school construction money

    Let the latest scramble begin for California school construction money


    Construction site at Murray Elementary in Dublin Unified in 2022.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    The record 205 school districts that passed construction bonds in November will spend 2025 vying for matching money from a $10 billion state bond that will meet only a small portion of the demand for financial help. 

    Novices at navigating state agencies, especially small districts, may find the process of claiming a share of state funding will be lengthy, complex and potentially overwhelming, said Julie Boesch, administrator for small school district support for the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. Boesch singlehandedly shepherded a renovation project through the funding process as superintendent and principal of Maple Elementary, a one-school district in Kern County.

    “Putting out requests for qualifications and for proposals to hire consultants, architects, construction management and then to determine what kind of funding you can get — there are just so many things that have to happen,” she said. “There were times when I, as superintendent, was spending 90% of my time just on facilities.”

    The success of Proposition 2, the construction bond for schools and community colleges, with 59% of support, was a vote of renewed confidence in public schools and a rebound from March 2020, when voters defeated a $15 billion bond amid anxiety over the Covid pandemic.

    “They understood the need for this,” said Rebekah Kalleen, a legislative advocate with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), an organization of school districts and construction and architectural firms that led the effort to pass the proposition. “The funding opportunities will go a long way to ensure that projects are robust and that we’re able to make the repairs and the upgrades that we need.” 

    New money, old projects

    Proposition 2’s passage will inject a welcome $10 billion on top of the $45 billion in bonds approved for school and community college districts. However, $3.7 billion — less than half of the $8.5 billion allotted to TK-12 districts under Proposition 2 — may be available for local projects approved in November.

    That’s because as much as $4.8 billion in unfunded projects with preliminary approval from the last state bond will get priority. This extensive backlog dates back to Proposition 51, which voters passed in 2016. Funding from that bond ran dry several years ago, but under state law, districts could apply through Oct. 31, a week before the vote on Proppsition 2. They could reasonably assume that state funding would eventually become available from the next bond.

    “Because there is so much more demand than there is funding, it’s safe to say that there’s always a long pipeline of projects awaiting allocations,” said Sara Hinkley, California program manager for the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley, which researches school facilities.

    Districts submitted plans with preliminary approval for more than 1,000 unfunded projects. These include projects valued at $1.46 billion for new construction and $3.42 billion for modernization. The latter category includes renovations, system upgrades, repairs, and replacement of portable classrooms more than 20 years old and permanent buildings over 25 years old.

    One line ends, another forms

    After Proposition 2 money runs out, the remaining projects will form a new line of unfunded projects awaiting state money whenever voters pass the next state bond.

    “It is a fair question whether voters understood the degree of the funding backlog and the fact that so much of the Proposition 2 funding would already be spoken for by the time they were voting on their own local bonds in November,” Hinkley said. “What this all really emphasizes is that we are constantly playing catch-up with facilities funding, not coming anywhere close to meeting the actual needs of districts.”

    It’s unlikely that all the pending projects will successfully run the gauntlet of state agencies for final approval, although it’s not possible to know how many now.

    What follows is a primer on steps districts must take to be eligible for matching money under Proposition 2. 

    How will Proposition 2 money be divided?

    Under the ballot language that the Legislature passed, Proposition 2 will be apportioned into several categories. It’s too soon to know how funding the previous bond’s unfunded projects will affect Proposition 2 categories.

    • $1.5 billion for community colleges. The Legislature and the governor will select specific projects based on recommendations of the community colleges.
    • $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
      • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
      • $3.3 billion for new construction
      • $600 million for career and technical education facilities
      • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
      • $115 million to remove lead from school drinking water

    When can districts apply?

    Over the next eight months, the Office of Public School Construction will revise rules to differentiate Proposition 2 from previous state construction bonds. Changes include requiring districts to submit a five-year master plan with an inventory of classrooms, square footage and auxiliary facilities at each school.  

    Proposition 2 also will set aside 10% of modernization and new construction money for districts with fewer than 2,500 students. But that provision notwithstanding, what hasn’t changed is a first-come, first-served distribution system that can favor property-wealthy districts and large districts, such as Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) which can afford to employ permanent facilities staff to push their projects to the front of the line.

    Kalleen of CASH and others familiar with state facilities grants urge districts to start submitting applications for priority projects now and not wait for more state guidance, in order to avoid getting left behind and ending up on the next waiting list.

    “Districts are already planning and looking at their projects and submitting without yet knowing what the regulations will look like because there’s so much pent-up demand for state support for facilities funding,” Kalleen said. “Projects are funded based on the date that they’re received by the Office of Public School Construction. So as long as you meet those eligibility criteria, they’re funded in the order that they’re received.”

    Districts won’t have to finish their master plans to initially apply for state funding, although they will have to complete them before receiving state money. They’ll have an opportunity to amend their proposals after the state revises regulations this summer.

    Districts that have already completed a master plan with a needs assessment and established priorities “will be ahead of the game,” said Karla DeLeon, senior director-education for Dahlin Architecture, with three offices in California.

    A small shift toward needs-based funding

    Instead of submitting one application for all of their construction work, districts must apply for each project. The state’s share — at least 50% of the cost for new construction and 60% for a modernization project — will be funded uniformly on a per-student basis. 

    For an elementary school, for example, the per-student funding for 2024 was $15,770, meaning that building a classroom for 25 students would be $394,250 of base funding. (The per-student amount differs depending on whether a student is in elementary, middle or high school.) The per-student dollar amount is the minimum districts will qualify for, as there could be additional funding through supplemental grants if the project includes certain features.

    But for the first time, the state will slightly increase funding for high-poverty, low-property-wealth districts. Huge differences in districts’ taxable property values create disparities in how much they can charge property owners for repairing and building school facilities. To narrow the gap, the state will provide up to 5 percentage points more matching money for qualifying projects based on the proportion of students who are low-income, foster youth, and English learners and, to a lesser extent, on a district’s property wealth per student.

    A district could receive a 65% state match for renovations, reducing its contribution to 35%; the maximum contributions for new construction would be 55% state and 45% district.

    “The total funding for the project would, in the eyes of the state, remain the same; it’s just more would be on the state’s dime, less on the school district’s dime,” Kalleen said.

    Advocates for changing the system say the bonus funding won’t make enough difference to help many districts fully repair or replace subpar and antiquated buildings. The new system “does not meaningfully address the serious equity concerns that we and others have raised about the distribution of state funds,” wrote the Center for Cities + Schools, an institute at UC Berkeley, in an analysis. 

    How soon will local bond and Proposition 2 money be available? 

    When the state and local money becomes available depends. Bonds are loans that are usually paid back over 25 to 30 years. Working with their financial teams, districts will time their borrowing to align with their construction schedule and minimize property tax increases. 

    The increases cannot exceed a statewide bonding limit of charging property owners more than $40 per $100,000 of assessed property value for school facilities. For many small, low-wealth districts, this is a major obstacle to funding school improvements. For property-wealthy districts, it’s not an issue.

    State funding to districts will be disbursed in batches over the next several years. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that paying for Proposition 2’s interest and principal will cost the state’s general fund about $500 million per year over 35 years.

    What else is new under Proposition 2?

    Proposition 2 includes other new features affecting TK-12 districts:

    Along with reserving 10% of new construction and modernization funding for districts with fewer than 2,500 students, small districts can receive 5% of a project’s funding to hire architects, engineers and project managers. This should help them speed up the application process.

    The state has a financial hardship provision funding the full cost of a project for a district that lacks the property tax base to pay for it. Proposition 2 triples the maximum tax base qualifying from $5 million to $15 million in assessed value.

    Proposition 2 does not set aside funding for classrooms specifically equipped for transitional kindergarten (TK), as advocates had hoped, but it does permit districts to seek supplemental funding for TK in a school project. Districts can also seek supplemental money to pay for updating or constructing “essential facilities,” including kitchens, cafeterias, and undersized gyms, and installing energy conservation and efficiency measures like solar panels, outdoor shade areas and more efficient heating and air conditioning units.

    What will the application process be like?

    Districts face a multiagency and multiyear process with hoops to jump through and deadlines to meet before they can receive state funding. All must submit project plans to at least two state agencies before their plans can go to the Office of Public School Construction for a review for funding.

    The Division of the State Architect, a group of architects and engineers, will ensure compliance with building codes, structural requirements and safety standards.

    The Department of Education ensures “educational adequacy” — whether the facility complies with the state’s education code, meets classroom space requirements by subject and grade as well as how its design handles the needs of special education students, English learners, intervention services and accommodates community events, parking and outdoor activities. Depending on the site location, approval may be needed from the state Department of Toxic Substances Control or review under the California Environmental Quality Act.   

    DeLeon of Dahlin Architecture recommends turning to experts to guide the process. “You will want a solid team of support to manage all of the balls in the air within the time limits.”

    Boesch said her most important advice to districts is to seek pre-approval meetings with state agencies. “Most districts avoid these, because they assume ‘they’ll just tell us to do something different, and it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission,’” she said. “Truly, it’s not. It’s easier to ask permission and move forward instead of having to go back and undo something that may have been done incorrectly.”

    Kalleen said districts can expect the process to take six months to a year for approval from the Office of Public School Construction, depending on the size of the project, and an additional two years or longer to receive funding from the State Allocations Board.

    Boesch agreed. “At an absolute minimum, in a perfect world, it really would be two years,” she said, to receive funding, but more likely three or four.

    “The backlog is so large that state funds often get to districts after projects have already been completed,” Hinkley said. “Districts that do not have sufficient local funds to cover a project’s costs while waiting for the state backlog are at an enormous disadvantage.”





    Source link

  • Carol Burris: With Religious Charters, the Charter Lobby’s Chickens Have Come Home to Roost

    Carol Burris: With Religious Charters, the Charter Lobby’s Chickens Have Come Home to Roost


    Carol Burris is the executive director of the Network for Public Education. She was a high school teacher and principal in New York State, where she was honored by the state principal’s association as principal of the year. She is a tireless advocate of public schools and an equally tireless opponent of privatization.

    She writes:

    On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a pivotal case concerning whether a charter school can teach a religious curriculum. The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond addresses Oklahoma’s St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s attempt to become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. 

    This case was always intended to go to the Supreme Court, testing the limits of the separation of Church and State. What is surprising, however, is who has entered the fight against St. Isadore. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), which has never met a charter school it did not like, has filed an amicus brief against its existence. This is unexpected from an organization that has supported charter schools run by for-profit corporations, virtual schools with poor outcomes, and even micro-schools, claiming that different models provide needed choice and innovation. When public money is allocated to religious private schools via vouchers, the charter lobby is either supportive or silent in the name of “choice.”

    The reason for their present opposition is self-interest. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “a decision to allow religious charter schools will throw charter laws into chaos nationwide, resulting in significant financial and operational uncertainties.”  Nina Rees, the former long-time CEO of the organization, lamented that a ruling in favor of St. Isadore “could also jeopardize the myriad federal and state funding streams they [charters] currently qualify for—funding that the sector has fought hard to secure and continues to fight for on the premise that students attending public charter schools are entitled to the same funds they would receive in district schools.”

    On what basis, then, will SCOTUS make its decision? At the heart of the case is whether charter schools are state actors or state contractors providing educational services. The Oklahoma State Virtual Charter Board argues that merely because the state legislature declares a charter school “public,” it does not transform it into a public school. Furthermore, even if charter schools are state actors for some functions, they might not be state actors for purposes of the First Amendment, specifically regarding curriculum matters.

    There is precedent for their argument.

    In 2010, both a federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, determined, in an employment case, that an Arizona charter school was not a “state actor” and thus a wrongful termination lawsuit could not be brought forth by a former teacher.  “This case presents the special situation of a private nonprofit corporation running a charter school that is defined as a ‘public school’ by state law,” the three-judge appeals court panel said in its unanimous Jan. 4 decision in Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center. The court concluded that the corporation running the charter school (private non-profit or for-profit corporations run most charter schools) was not a state actor but a contractor providing a service.

    In some states, where districts are the only authorizers of charter schools, charter schools likely fully meet the “state actor” test. That was the original intent of the charter movement—schools within a district free of some restraints to try innovative practices. However, only a few states still embrace that model, thanks to the relentless pressure from organizations like NAPCS, which have provided St. Isadore with more than enough fodder for its arguments. Over the years, charter trade organizations have successfully lobbied for looser charter laws, expanded charter management organizations, and vigorously defended for-profit corporations like Academica and Charter Schools USA, which use nonprofit schools as a façade. In short, they have made charter schools as “private” and profitable as possible. 

    Remember how charter schools could secure Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds during COVID-19 when public schools could not? Charter trade organizations, including NAPCS, encouraged charter schools to leverage their corporate status, resulting in the sector securing billions of dollars. Some even provided talking points for justification.

    The truth is that charter schools have used their private status when it is in their interest, even as they secure an advantage from the public label. And that is why they have only themselves to blame if the chicken comes home to roost and the sector is thrown into chaos. If that results in a shake-up of the charter industry and a return to truly public charter schools in most states, that may not be a terrible outcome. 



    Source link

  • Community college bachelor’s degrees stall for years amid Cal State objections

    Community college bachelor’s degrees stall for years amid Cal State objections


    Santiago Canyon College is one of seven community colleges in the state that have yet to get final approval for bachelor’s degrees they proposed in 2023.

    Courtesy of Santiago Canyon College

    Rudy Garcia was excited when he learned that his local community college, Moorpark in Ventura County, planned to offer a bachelor’s degree in cybersecurity and network operations.

    A father of four and the only source of income for his family, Garcia believed getting the degree would help him advance in his career in IT support. He had come to realize that more senior jobs typically required a bachelor’s degree. 

    Getting that degree at nearby Moorpark was appealing, especially because he had already finished an associate degree in cybersecurity at the college. 

    Rudy Garcia has two associate degrees from Moorpark College and hopes to enroll in a proposed bachelor’s degree program in cybersecurity.
    Rudy Garcia

    “Being able to add that to my resume, it would help me get a better job, better benefits and everything,” he said.

    But in the two years since Moorpark first proposed the degree, the college has still not received final approval. It’s one of seven degrees across California that received provisional approval from the state community college chancellor’s office in 2023 but remain in limbo because California State University has flagged them as duplicative of its own programs. The two sides have yet to come to a compromise.

    A 2021 law allows the state’s community college system to approve up to 30 new bachelor’s degrees annually, so long as the degrees support a local labor need and don’t duplicate what any of CSU’s 23 campuses or the University of California’s nine undergraduate campuses offer. 

    Since the passage of that law, many community colleges have successfully launched new degrees: Thirty-two new degrees are now fully approved across the state, joining 15 that already existed as part of a pilot. Some of the most recently-approved degrees include drone and autonomous systems at Fullerton College, emergency services administration at Mission College in Santa Clara and water resource management at San Bernardino Community College.

    But due to disagreements over what constitutes duplication, some degree proposals have stalled.

    Resolution, however, could be coming soon. The seven degrees delayed since 2023 are currently being reviewed by WestEd, a nonprofit research organization that was selected to serve as a neutral, third-party evaluator.

    Some local community colleges have been under the impression that WestEd would render final decisions on the programs, but that is not the case, a spokesperson clarified. Instead, WestEd will evaluate the programs and share an analysis with the community college system’s board of governors that will “help inform the review process,” the spokesperson said. 

    The spokesperson shared the additional details about WestEd’s role on Tuesday morning. WestEd had previously declined an interview request prior to publication of this story. 

    Colleges have been told to expect the reviews from WestEd as early as this month, though it could take longer.

    Officials with the systemwide chancellor’s offices for both the community colleges and CSU also declined interview requests.

    For the community colleges, getting a verdict will be welcomed as they have grown increasingly annoyed that their degrees are being delayed. 

    “My frustration is on behalf of the students that are missing out on this opportunity,” said Jeannie Kim, president of Santiago Canyon College in Orange County, which got preliminary approval for a degree in digital infrastructure and location services. “We talk a really loud game about student success and being student centered. But right now, preventing these kinds of degrees from going forward is not student centered.”

    Although officials from CSU campuses declined to be interviewed, memos obtained by EdSource through a Public Records Act request show that those campuses cited a number of reasons for objecting to proposed degrees. 

    In some cases, CSU campuses objected only to a few courses where they believed there was overlap. For example, CSU San Bernardino’s objection to San Diego Mesa’s proposed physical therapy assistant degree came down to three upper-division courses focused on biomechanics, nutrition and exercise physiology that would be part of the Mesa program. San Bernardino staff argued those courses duplicate classes that they offer as part of a bachelor’s degree program in kinesiology. 

    San Diego Mesa officials believe they may have been able to find common ground if they had more time to negotiate. Their only live interaction with San Bernardino staff was a 30-minute Zoom meeting last year, according to Cassandra Storey, dean for health sciences at Mesa. “We never really had the discussion on those three courses,” Storey said. “I would like to think that we could have a conversation and negotiate this.”

    Other proposals faced stronger objections. Moorpark faces duplication claims from seven CSU campuses over its proposed cybersecurity program. One campus, CSU San Marcos in San Diego County, wrote in a memo that the proposal “substantially overlaps” with its own cybersecurity degree. “Almost all cybersecurity issues are directly or indirectly related to network operation. The proposed program description is a typical cybersecurity degree,” San Marcos staff wrote.

    In the view of Moorpark officials, however, there are fundamental differences between its degree and what San Marcos offers. Whereas degrees like the one offered at San Marcos prepare students for engineering and computer science careers, Moorpark would train students to be technicians and work in cybersecurity support, said John Forbes, the college’s vice president of academic affairs.

    “We understand we need more engineers in this world across every type of engineering, and we need good computer scientists that understand coding,” Forbes said. “But our labor force also needs the people that aren’t authoring and designing and engineering. They need the technicians that are using this stuff.”

    Moorpark’s program would not be a calculus-based STEM degree, he added. The San Marcos degree does require a calculus course and other math classes as prerequisites. 

    That itself is a positive for students like Garcia. If he were to attempt a CSU bachelor’s degree, he would essentially have to start over and take several lower-division courses to be eligible to transfer to a CSU campus and potentially pay more in tuition. At Moorpark, he would need only upper-division credits to get his bachelor’s degree and have to pay $130 per credit. On average, community college bachelor’s degrees in California cost $10,560 in tuition and fees over all four years, much less than attending a CSU or UC campus. Much of Garcia’s tuition would also get covered by financial aid, he said. 

    “So that’s a big plus for me,” he said.

    The other major selling point for Garcia is that the Moorpark campus is just a short drive from his house. He’s hoping it will get approved soon and he can start taking classes in the fall. 

    “The college is like four exits from my house,” he said. “I would totally jump on that.”

    Some students are place bound and can’t attend colleges outside their hometown, the community colleges emphasize. But the law does not mention location, allowing CSU campuses to bring objections even if they aren’t located in the same region as the college proposing the degree. 

    Moorpark, for example, has faced objections from CSU campuses other than San Marcos, including Sacramento State and three San Francisco Bay Area campuses: Cal State East Bay, Sonoma State and San Jose State. 

    Those campuses may be worried about losing potential students to community colleges. Sonoma State in particular has seen its enrollment plummet in recent years. Staff at San Jose State, where enrollment has flattened, wrote in a memo that they are concerned the Moorpark program would “draw from the same pool of students” as their bachelor’s degree in engineering technology. 

    Forbes said he understands those worries but believes they may be misguided. “We are big fans of the CSU system, and we want our students to be successful there, and we’re doing everything we can to help them on the transfer end. But for this program, these are not students who would be going to CSU,” he said. 

    Forbes and other community college officials around the state are eager for resolution. “We’re hopeful, with the smart people we have in California, that rational minds can come to the table and figure out a better path forward,” Forbes said.

    This article was corrected on Jan. 21 to include further detail and clarification about WestEd’s role in the review process.





    Source link

  • How to protect children from wildfire pollutants | Quick Guide

    How to protect children from wildfire pollutants | Quick Guide


    La entrada a un aula se ve en la Escuela Preparatoria Palisades después del incendio de Palisades en el vecindario Pacific Palisades de Los Ángeles el 14 de enero de 2025.

    Crédito: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    In the aftermath of L.A.’s most destructive wildfires, air quality experts warn that families should be prepared for the “disaster after the disaster” — toxic pollutants, smoke and ash that contaminate the air for months, or even years, to come. 

    “People at higher risk include children, older adults, pregnant individuals and those with heart or lung conditions or weakened immune systems,” said Dr. Muntu Davis, health officer for Los Angeles County, in a smoke advisory issued through last Sunday. “Predicting where ash or soot from a fire will travel, or how winds will impact air quality, is difficult.” 

    As local leaders focus on rehousing some of the more than 100,000 people forced to evacuate, public health leaders emphasize that families, including educators and students, must also protect themselves from the long-term health effects of wildfires, especially those living or working near burned areas. 

    What pollutants are in the air?

    The Palisades and Eaton fires — classified as wildland-urban interface fires, and now the largest urban fires in the country’s history — have spread a host of particulate matter, toxic pollutants and carcinogenic materials from fire and smoke-damaged urban structures, according to experts. 

    Short- and long-term exposure to particulate matter, one of the main pollutants from wildfires, can cause respiratory problems such as coughing, wheezing, difficulty breathing, bronchitis and reduced lung function, as well as cardiovascular problems such as heart failure, heart attack and stroke, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.  

    Household items, electrical wires and building materials damaged by fire contain dangerous and toxic compounds such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and xylenes, along with heavy metals such as lead, chromium and arsenic, some of which can travel over 150 miles from the sites of the fires, according to data from previous wildfires. These toxic pollutants, which are commonly found in ash and debris from burned structures, can cause severe long-term illnesses such as cancer, liver problems, respiratory problems, heart disease and learning disabilities. 

    Even if you live or work near the fires, it is imperative to limit children’s exposure to areas still polluted with debris, experts say. 

    How can I know if the air quality is safe for my family?

    The air quality index uses air monitoring devices to measure the amount of particulate matter (microscopic particles that can lodge in the lungs) in various populated areas. Families can see the level of exposure for their particular locations on the map — from good (green) air quality to hazardous (maroon) air quality — and when to limit outdoor exposure and wear a protective mask accordingly. 

    • AirNow.gov measures real-time, reliable data for particulate matter present in smoke and dust. 
    • Fire.airnow.gov measures the main type of particulate matter present in smoke and depicts areas of major concern around the fires. 

    Air quality index does not measure everything

    “The AQI (air quality index) does not measure the contaminants and pollutants we care deeply about,” said Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics. 

    In fact, pollutants such as dioxins — known to cause severe liver, endocrine, immune and developmental problems — can chemically bind to and travel in the air with smoke particles without being detected by monitoring devices. 

    “You can look at AQI and see that there’s only particulate matter in an area today,” Williams said. “Problem is, these toxic compounds have adsorbed (latched) onto the particulate matter there, which is how, for example, the health impacts from (9/11) spread so far.” 

    Experts caution that while the index accurately measures particulates, it does not depict the presence of larger toxic chemicals from fires — such as asbestos from old homes, plastic, lead and copper — which increase the risk of acute and chronic health problems. Families should take extra precaution if they see or smell smoke, ash or live in and around neighborhoods with dangerous air quality levels.  

    How are children affected by these pollutants?

    Children are at a higher risk of negative health outcomes such as acute respiratory infections, asthma and decreased lung function due to air pollution and smoke inhalation. One study found particulate matter from wildfires to be 10 times more harmful to children than particulate matter from non-wildfire sources. Inhaling toxic pollutants has also been linked to severe chronic respiratory, cardiovascular, immune and endocrine illnesses in children. 

    Acute symptoms of smoke inhalation include coughing, wheezing, difficulty breathing and chest tightness, eye burning, chest pain, dizziness or lightheadedness and exacerbated symptoms for children with pre-existing conditions like asthma. Children from low-income neighborhoods are also at higher risk of experiencing these symptoms due to higher rates of air pollution near their homes. 

    How do I stay protected from wildfire smoke?

    Children and adults should wear masks and limit outdoor activity near wildfires for at least two weeks after the fire is out, according to experts from the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. 

    When outside, children and adolescents should wear a tight-fitting KN95 mask, N95 mask or P100 respirator. For young kids, only KN95 masks come in children’s sizes. 

    Make sure the mask is certified by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has two straps and tightly fits over the nose and under the chin. Surgical masks, dust masks, bandannas and other makeshift masks do not protect from wildfire pollutants. 

    Free N95 masks are available for pickup at Los Angeles public libraries, Los Angeles recreation centers, Los Angeles senior centers and local nonprofits. And Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) students also have masks available at school, according to a district spokesperson.   

    Keep outdoor exposure to a minimum and, if possible, run an air conditioning system with a clean, high-efficiency air filter at home to prevent smoke and ash from entering indoors. If your child’s school has reopened, check that it has proper air filtration systems installed. If they do not have proper ventilation, contact your school district or a local clean air advocacy group, such as Coalition for Clean Air, to advocate for upgrades. In the meantime, schools can also pick up free air purifiers from donation sites across the county. 

    Schools in and around evacuation zones should also limit or cancel outdoor activities such as recess. 

    If your home has been affected by the fires, avoid bringing polluted ash and dust back to spaces shared with children. Remove shoes at the doorway, and wash and change out of clothing before you have contact with children.

    If your child has problems breathing, refuses food and water or experiences other health problems potentially related to smoke inhalation, remove them from a smoke-contaminated place and seek medical help immediately. 





    Source link

  • Federal Judge Partially Blocks Trump DEI Ban

    Federal Judge Partially Blocks Trump DEI Ban


    The Trump administration claims that it wants to reduce federal intervention into the nation’s public and private institutions. But it intervenes forcefully in both public and private sectors to punish anyone with different views. It has threatened to withhold federal funding for research from universities unless the targeted universities allow the federal government to supervise its curriculum, its hiring policies, and its admissions policies. And he threatened to stop the funding of any K12 school that continues DEI programs.

    The Trump regime has created a nanny state.

    From Day 1, Trump made clear that he would ban practices and policies intended to diversity, equity, and inclusion. He threatened to withhold federal funding of schools that ignored his order to eliminate DEI. He has taken complete control of the Kennedy Center, so as to block DEI programming, and he has appointed a woman with no credentials to remove DEI from the Smithsonian museums.

    Who knows how the African American Museum will survive Trump’s DEI purge.

    ABC News reported that a federal district judge has halted the DEI ban, at least in schools associated with one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, the NEA.

    ABC News reported:

    The Trump administration’s attempt to make federal funding to schools conditional on them eliminating any DEI policies erodes the “foundational principles” that separates the United States from totalitarian regimes, a federal judge said on Thursday.

    In an 82-page order, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty partially blocked the Department of Education from enforcing a memo issued earlier this year that directed any institution that receives federal funding to end discrimination on the basis of race or face funding cuts.

    “Ours is a nation deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned,” Judge McCafferty wrote, adding the “right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is…one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”

    “In this case, the court reviews action by the executive branch that threatens to erode these foundational principles,” she wrote.

    The judge stopped short of issuing the nationwide injunction, instead limiting the relief to any entity that employs or contacts with the groups that filed the lawsuit, including the National Education Association and the Center for Black Educator Development.



    Source link