برچسب: About

Texas: Governor Abbott Celebrates His Big Voucher Win and Lies About It
Governor Gregg Abbott signed his big voucher bill into law yesterday, repeating promises he has made that are most certainly false. He claimed that vouchers will put Texas on a path to being the number one school system in the nation. Several other states have large voucher programs–e.g., Florida, Arizona, and Ohio–and none of them is the number one rated school system in the nation.

If anything, vouchers and charter schools break up the common school system that states pledge in their constitutions to support. Public schools are one system, regulated by the state, subject to elected local school boards. Charter schools are another, lightly regulated by the state, some for-profit, some as corporate chains, managed by private boards. Voucher schools are a third system, almost entirely deregulated, not required to accept all students, as public schools are. Voucher schools are not required to have certified teachers, as public schools are. Voucher schools are exempt from state testing. Most voucher schools are religious schools, managed by their religious leader. Private and religious schools choose their students.

Vouchers have been a big issue since the early 1990s. The first voucher program was launched in Milwaukee in 1990. The second started in Cleveland in 1996, ostensibly to save poor kids from failing public schools. Neither Cleveland nor Milwaukee is a high-performing district.

What we have learned in the past 30-35 years about vouchers is this:
1. Most students who use vouchers were already enrolled in nonpublic schools.
2. The students who transfer from public to private schools are likely to fall behind their peers in public schools. Many return to public schools.
3. The public does not want their taxes to be spent on religious schools or on the children of affluent families. In nearly two dozen state referenda, voters defeated vouchers every time.
4. The academic performance of students who leave public schools to attend nonpublic schools is either the same or much worse than students in public schools.
5. Vouchers drain funding from public schools, where the vast majority of students are enrolled. This, the majority of students will have larger classes and fewer electives to subsidize vouchers.
6. Vouchers are expensive. Arizona is projecting a cost of $1 billion annually. Florida currently is paying $4 billion annually.
To learn more about the research, read Joshua Cowen’s book The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers (Harvard Educatuon Press).

Governor Abbott surely knows these facts, but he determined that vouchers were his highest priority. Certainly they make him the champion of parents who send their children to private and religious school. All will be eligible for a subsidy from the state. And Abbott delivered for the billionaires who funded his voucher campaign.

Edward McKinley of the Houston Chronicle wrote:

Gov. Greg Abbott signed a $1 billion school voucher program into law Saturday, cementing the biggest legislative victory of his decade in office before a huge crowd including families, legislators and GOP donors.

Abbott framed the ceremony as the climax of a multiyear effort by himself and advocates around the state, and touted the state’s new program as the largest to ever launch in the nation.

“Today is the culmination of a movement that has swept across our state and across our country,” he said, using the speech to call out parents in the crowd who had already pulled their students from “low-performing” public schools to put them into private ones. “It’s time we put our children on a pathway to have the number one-ranked education system in the United States of America.”

He put pen to paper at a wooden desk in front of the Governor’s Mansion, as a gaggle of children stood around him wearing their private school colors and logos. Someone shouted, “Thank you, governor!” before the crowd of nearly 1,400 people erupted in applause. Abbott pumped his fist in the air.

The ceremony marked a major moment for the third-term Republican, who threw his full political weight and millions of campaign dollars into a push for private school vouchers, overcoming a legislative blockade that had lasted for decades. The bill he signed into law will give Texas students roughly $10,000 a year that they can put toward private school tuition, tutoring, textbooks and other expenses…

Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath and Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass mingled in the crowd. Yass contributed more than $12 million to Abbott’s campaign last cycle, as the governor sought to unseat anti-voucher Republicans in the 2024 primary election.

Abbott was joined on stage by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dustin Burrows and the House and Senate authors of the bill. Also in attendance were private school leaders, including Joel Enge, director of Kingdom Life Academy.

After Abbott’s address, Enge told the crowd he founded his Christian school after working in public schools in a low-income area of Tyler and watching children fall behind. His speech had the feel of a sermon.

“Children who have been beaten down by the struggles in the academic system that did not fit the system will now be empowered as they begin to find the right school setting that’s going to support them and to allow them to grow in confidence in who God created them to be,” he yelled, to raucous cheers. “Amen!…”

Hours earlier, Democratic legislators, union leaders and public educators gathered in the parking lot of the AFL-CIO building across the street from the governor’s mansion, where they had a much different message.

Echoing lines used throughout committee hearings and legislative debates for the past few years, they warned that vouchers would hurt already struggling neighborhood public schools by stripping away their funding. About two dozen people swayed under the direct sun, waving signs that said “public dollars belong in public schools” and “students over billionaires.”

“Today, big money won and the students of Texas lost,” said state Rep. James Talarico, an Austin Democrat. “Remember this day next time a school closes in your neighborhood. Remember this day next time a beloved teacher quits because they can’t support their family on their salary.”

Several speakers pointed out that while Republicans fast-tracked the voucher bill, they have yet to agree on a package to increase funding to public schools and raise teacher pay.

State Rep. Gina Hinojosa, an Austin Democrat, said she hoped this defeat could sow the seeds of future victories. Abbott and most legislators are up for reelection next year.

“He may have won this battle, but the war is not over,” she said. “There will be a vote on vouchers and he can’t stop it, and it will be in November 2026.”

What’s in the bill

The new law stands to remake education in Texas, granting parents access to more than $10,000 in state funds to pay for private school tuition and expenses, or $2,000 for homeschoolers. The first year of operation will begin in 2027, and in the run-up, the state will choose nonprofits to run the program, develop the application process and pick which families will have access.

All students will be eligible, although families making more than 500% of the federal poverty line, about $160,750 in income for a family of four, cannot take up more than 20% of the funds. The funds will be tied roughly to the amount of money the students would have received in public schools, meaning students with disabilities will receive extra.

School vouchers have become a signature of Abbott’s three terms in office.

After the COVID-19 pandemic, other Republican-controlled states such as Florida, Arizona, Iowa and Indiana created or expanded their own voucher programs. But school choice advocates repeatedly fell short in Texas thanks to an alliance between Democrats and rural Republicans. Bills passed the Senate but failed to gain traction in the House.

Then, in May 2022, Abbott announced in a speech at San Antonio’s Southside that he’d be throwing his full weight behind the policy. Even as public schools struggled to keep teachers in the classroom and balance their budgets, the governor told lawmakers he wouldn’t approve extra funds until a voucher bill made it to his desk. When it didn’t happen, even in special sessions, he took to the campaign trail, spending millions to unseat about a dozen key GOP lawmakers who stood in his way.

This session, he enlisted President Donald Trump’s help at the last minute to rally Republican House members, some of whom said they felt forced to back the policy.

Critics warn the state’s voucher program lacks safeguards to ensure it reaches the children it was designed to help and say they expect many of the slots to go to students already in private schools, which can pick and choose who they educate. The majority of private schools in Texas are religiously affiliated, and the average tuition costs upwards of $10,900, according to Private School Review.

Though $1 billion is set aside for the program in the first biennium, the nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board projects it could grow exponentially in the next decade amid huge demand from students currently in private or home schools.

It remains to be seen how many private schools will accept the vouchers, but many advocated their passage, including Catholic, Jewish and Muslim schools.

Although Abbott has said repeatedly that the program won’t pull funds from public schools, because schools are funded based on attendance, the LBB analysis showed that the program would reduce state payments to public schools by more than $1 billion by 2030.
Source link
05/05/2025
‘Nothing about us without us,’ students say as they head to polls

Student-run school board candidates’ forum at Fremont High School on Oct. 22, 2024.

Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

While most attention in the United States is focused on the presidential elections today, I’ll be watching two local school board races that will be historic for a completely different reason.

For the first time, young people aged 16 and 17 in Oakland and nearby Berkeley will be voting in school board elections.

Although some smaller communities in Maryland have extended a limited vote to a similar age group, Oakland, with a total population of over 400,000, is the largest community in the nation to do so by far.

The initiative came about as a result of youth organizing that put pressure on their city councils to place measures on the ballot allowing young people aged 16 and over to vote in their local school board elections. Berkeley voters passed a law approving the change in 2017 and Oakland voters in 2020. It has taken years to bring the idea to fruition.

When I heard about this effort, I was deeply skeptical.

After all, school board meetings are, for the most part, sleepy affairs — unless there is a controversy that rouses parents and students, like school closures or political battles over curricula, book bans and other hot-button issues.

It is hard enough to get parents interested in school board politics. It seemed to me even less likely that teenagers would embrace doing so with enough gusto to justify the effort and expense of giving them the vote.

But after attending a school board candidates’ forum organized by students in Oakland two weeks ago — and speaking to the candidates vying for their votes, I now have a different view.

I’m convinced that having young people involved in school board politics and decision-making is more than just a nice idea.

For one thing, we know that the earlier young people participate in the democratic process, the more likely they are to do so as adults. It is also a powerful way to get young people involved in shaping institutions that affect them profoundly, and which they have intimate knowledge of: the schools where they spend much of their time during their adolescence.

The forum itself was a rousing affair, and ran from 5 to 8 p.m. Six of the seven candidates running for the board showed up for the event. (The seventh was out of the country and sent a representative.) There were 200 students, most of whom stayed until the end of the marathon interrogation. Many wore T-shirts with the slogans, “My Vote Will Make History” on the front and, on the back, “Nothing About Us Without Us.”

Each candidate had one minute to respond to a set of questions students projected on a screen. If candidates went over the time limit, their microphones were shut off, so the candidates mostly obeyed the rules. And they answered the questions seriously without being patronizing.

Oakland school board candidates spoke in front of 200 students at Fremont High School on Oct. 22, 2024.
Credit: Louis Freedberg / EdSource

These student voters are arguably going to be a lot more informed than most older ones who may not have been inside a school in years. Many adult voters have only the barest idea about current school concerns or what goes on inside their walls.

Let’s be honest: With rare exceptions, votes for school boards are typically the last thing many, if not most, voters pay attention to.

“A lot of adults are making decisions about our schools when they’re not even the ones in the school,” Edamevoh Ajayi, a senior at Oakland Technical High School who has been a leader in the Oakland youth vote project, told me. “So they wouldn’t even know what to change.”

“At least for students, we haven’t really been welcomed,” she said, referring to district governance in general. “It’s kind of been an adult-led space.”

It would be one thing if things were going well in their district, and adult leaders had proven themselves. But once again, the district is in crisis as it copes with declining enrollment, poor attendance, a massive budget deficit, and the prospect of having to close or merge schools next year. There is a real chance of a state takeover — a repeat of what happened 20 years ago when the district had to get a $100 million loan from the state to bail it out.

Getting students’ voices into the mix certainly can’t hurt, and is more likely to help. That’s in addition to the long-term benefits of getting young people involved in our democracy at an earlier age.

As Patrice Berry, a former teacher running for the Oakland school board, told me after facing students at the candidates’ forum, “They’re going to make us better overall.”

•••

Louis Freedberg is EdSource’s interim executive director.

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.

Related podcast:

Source link

04/05/2025
$What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges$

What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

FERMIN LEAL/EDSOURCE TODAY

Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

The guidance for math placement at community colleges has changed since this article was written. For more current information, visit this article.

If you’re a student at one of California’s community colleges and you plan to study a STEM field, you’ll typically have to pass calculus first before diving into many of the other required classes in physics, engineering, computer science, biology or chemistry.

A decade ago, you might have started college by taking algebra, trigonometry or precalculus class — or even a remedial class like prealgebra — before getting to calculus. But a body of research has suggested that having to complete a string of prerequisites before enrolling in calculus wasn’t working for many students and that too many never made it to calculus. That finding was bolstered by evidence showing that Black, Latino and Pell Grant students were overrepresented in community colleges’ remedial courses.

Two recent California laws try to address this problem. Assembly Bill 705 allows most students to skip all sorts of remedial classes in favor of full credit courses that can transfer to a four-year college; AB 1705 additionally requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.

AB 1705 has sparked fervent opposition from some math educators, who worry that less-prepared students who skip traditional prerequisites will fail in calculus and abandon plans to study STEM. They’ve also voiced concern that students who want to take courses like trigonometry and precalculus will no longer be able to do so because the classes will be dropped by colleges.

But defenders say AB 1705, which math departments have until fall 2025 to implement, will prevent students from getting detoured or derailed by long course sequences.

They note that colleges are swapping out the old prerequisite-heavy model of calculus for new calculus courses with extra support for students who need to learn concepts from algebra and trigonometry as they go. Colleges are also investing in tutoring. In addition, colleges have two years to develop revamped precalculus courses.

This guide seeks to answer some of the most common questions about what the law means for STEM students and how colleges plan to implement it.

What’s the problem AB 1705 is trying to solve?

Community colleges regularly used to place students deemed to be underprepared in remedial classes that can’t be transferred to a four-year university. That started to change after AB 705 took effect in 2018. The Public Policy Institute of California found that between fall 2018 and 2022, the share of students starting in transfer-level math rose, as did the percentage of first-time math students completing such a course in one term.

Still, racial equity gaps persisted, with white students completing courses at higher rates than Black and Latino students. Advocates also worried that some community colleges were not implementing AB 705 correctly.

AB 1705 builds on AB 705. As a result of its passage, the state education code now requires U.S. high school graduates to begin community college in courses that meet a requirement of their intended major, though there is an exception if a college can prove a prerequisite course would benefit students. Colleges also have to provide extra help to students who want or need it, such as tutoring or concurrent support courses.

“Students should be aware that they have the right to access calculus and, if they want support while they’re in that course, that they’re entitled to get support,” said Jetaun Stevens, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit law firm Public Advocates.

What guidance has the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office provided colleges on implementing the law?

All STEM students must be given the option to take STEM calculus starting on July 1, 2025, according to California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office guidance.

Only students who either had a high school GPA of 2.6 or less, or who did not pass high school trigonometry, precalculus or calculus with at least a C have the option to take preparatory courses for calculus. Traditionally, that would include courses like precalculus.

To comply with the law, the chancellor’s office says colleges can drop or redesign existing preparatory courses like precalculus. If they want to continue offering an existing preparatory course, they’ll need to get the chancellor’s office approval. Colleges must show a student is deemed “highly unlikely to succeed” in STEM calculus without the prep course and meet additional criteria.

What’s the evidence in favor of overhauling the traditional STEM math prerequisites?

Supporters of AB 1705 often point to studies that tracked how much better STEM students performed when they enrolled directly in calculus.

RP Group, a nonprofit that conducts research on behalf of the California community college system, reported that students who started in STEM calculus completed the course in two years at higher rates than students who entered a preparatory course for calculus instead and then later tackled calculus, regardless of students’ high school math preparation.

Controlling for multiple factors, RP Group also reported that the probability of completing a first STEM calculus course was lower for students who started in a prerequisite as opposed to students who went straight into calculus.

AB 1705’s proponents also highlight Cuyamaca College as an early adopter. A brief by the California Acceleration Project, one of AB 1705’s backers, reports that 69% of Cuyamaca students who had not studied precalculus and also enrolled in a two-unit support course completed STEM calculus in one term, compared with 30% of students who completed precalculus and then calculus in two terms. Cuyamaca observed improved calculus rates across races; gaps between students of different races were also smaller.

What are math professors’ concerns about AB 1705?

Many math educators said they’re worried about STEM majors with the least math experience — such as students whose highest high school math course was algebra — enrolling directly into calculus. They fear that students will fail those courses at high rates, then drop out of their major or college altogether.

“I feel like the state might just be giving up on those students, to be honest,” Rena Weiss, a math professor at Moorpark College said. “They’re wanting to be a STEM major, and they’re going to get put right into Calculus 1. I just can’t imagine a situation where that student would be successful.”

Professors are also concerned about students who have been out of school for a long time. Students older than the age of traditional college-goers make up a large portion of the students at California’s community colleges.

“To be dropped right into calculus, that’s a pretty significant heavy lift for many of those students,” said Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.

Some faculty members also question the RP Group’s research. Both the statewide Academic Senate for the community college system and the academic senates of at least two colleges — Modesto Junior College and San Joaquin Delta College — have passed resolutions calling for a “comprehensive audit” of the data. The CSU Math Council, a forum for the chairs of the university system’s math and statistics departments, also passed a resolution calling for a peer review of research used to back AB 1705.

Can STEM students still take calculus prerequisite courses before taking calculus?

Yes, in some cases, at least until 2027.

Students at several colleges will have the option to take reshaped, so-called “innovative preparatory courses,” which may include content from college algebra, trigonometry and precalculus.

Since the chancellor’s office has not specified what those preparatory courses should include, there is likely to be a lot of variation across the system. At Modesto Junior College, faculty are developing a class that will include curriculum from all three traditional prerequisite courses, said Tina Akers-Porter, a math professor at the college.

Weiss said Moorpark College’s redesigned precalculus course will follow a flipped model, in which students watch lecture videos and complete exercises at home, apply the material to activities in class and then practice the same concepts again after class. Streamlining is another approach; Ohlone College math professor Andy Bloom said colleagues are removing content from an existing precalculus course that students won’t need for their first calculus class.

Colleges have until July 2027 to test out the newly revamped preparatory courses. Then, the chancellor’s office will assess the courses again to see if they meet student performance benchmarks.

Weiss said she and her colleagues “decided that it was really important to have a precalculus option for students who need it.”

Beyond the new innovative preparatory courses, it’s unclear how many colleges will continue to offer prerequisite calculus classes for STEM majors.

Tim Melvin, a math professor at Santa Rosa Junior College, is hoping that students can still enroll in calculus prerequisites to get more prepared, even if they have to sign a form acknowledging that the courses aren’t required. “We want to give students more options,” he said. “No requirements, but options.”

Brill-Wynkoop said the faculty association is in talks with some legislators and may push for additional legislation that would clarify that colleges can still give STEM majors the option of taking prerequisite classes, without requiring them. The association opposed AB 1705 when it was originally proposed.

Chancellor’s office officials, however, would likely oppose such an effort. John Hetts, an executive vice chancellor for the office, said in an email that arguments in favor of giving students a choice are often used “to persuade students to take a slower path or to allow students to self-select into a slower path,” despite the potential for negative consequences.

What are corequisite courses and how are colleges planning to implement them?

Chancellor’s office guidance now says colleges should offer a corequisite course alongside and linked to the calculus class. The corequisite is an additional course of at most two units designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus.

The idea is that with extra course time, instructors can see where students are struggling and offer extra help.

Colleges including Chaffey College and Sierra College, for example, now plan to link together corequisite and calculus courses explicitly. Students would sign up for a corequisite scheduled immediately before or after their calculus course. The two courses would feel to students like a longer, continuous course — one that gives their professors time to review or introduce skills students might have missed.

Melvin, at Santa Rosa, said his department is developing a seven-unit calculus class with corequisite support for next fall, which will take up more than half of a given student’s course load.

“But for students that maybe need precalculus and a little algebra help, we definitely think it’s going to be effective,” Melvin said.

How are some early calculus corequisite courses going so far?

There are mixed opinions at colleges that already allow STEM students who have not taken precalculus to enroll in calculus courses with a corequisite.

Southwestern College math professors Kimberly Eclar and Karen Cliffe said that in fall 2023, the campus opened a calculus course with a two-unit support course for students who had not taken precalculus, offering students additional tutoring and non-credit refresher material, too. They were troubled by the results: Of the students who had not taken precalculus, less than 5% passed the class in its first semester.

Some students who do pass calculus without having taken precalculus at college turn out to have learned precalculus while attending high school outside the U.S., Eclar and Cliffe added.

Ohlone College is also allowing students who haven’t taken precalculus to enroll directly in calculus with corequisite courses.

“I’m not seeing this huge underperformance of my students this semester compared to last semester,” said Bloom, who has presented about STEM calculus support at an RP Group conference.

Bloom said that though some students have dropped the course, there are also positive indicators, including that the average score on the first test of the semester exceeded last year’s average.

What other changes are math departments planning alongside AB 1705?

Professors said their campuses are experimenting with technology (like guiding students on how to use AI or using homework software that gauges students’ math skills as they answer questions) and different approaches to testing (like allowing students to retake tests or to choose which questions to answer). Others said they’re aiming to create smaller class sizes, use embedded tutors and tailor calculus courses to meet the needs of life sciences students.

Source link

03/05/2025
California’s college financial aid chief on FAFSA chaos, concerns about Trump and more

Daisy Gonzales, the executive director of the California Student Aid Commission, speaking at Hancock College in 2019.

Credit: California Community Colleges

When Dr. Daisy Gonzales took over as executive director of the California Student Aid Commission in June, she stepped into the position at a tumultuous time on the financial aid front, marked by state budget deficits, outside schemes to defraud financial programs and concerns over what President-elect Donald Trump will mean for undocumented students.

Among her first priorities: making sure more students apply for financial aid this year following declines in 2024 amid the chaotic and oft-delayed rollout of the federal government’s revamped Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The U.S. Department of Education last month made the 2025-26 version available. Most students in California use that form to access both state and federal aid for college costs. FAFSA completions in the state declined by an estimated 10% among incoming freshmen in 2024, mirroring a national decline, as students and families found it difficult to access and complete the form in a timely manner.

The state student aid commission (pronounced See-Sack by insiders) oversees more than $3.5 billion in state grants available to college students mainly based on need. That includes the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid awards that come in various types for tuition, living allowances and career or technical programs. The commission also oversees the Middle Class Scholarship, which can provide substantial grants to underwrite attendance at California’s public colleges and universities for students from families earning up to $217,000 a year.

In addition, the commission runs the California Dream Act Application for undocumented students, who can use it to apply for Cal Grants despite not being eligible for federal aid. Some students, including those who have citizenship or legal residency but an undocumented parent, may still be fearful to fill out any financial aid applications out of concern that information will be shared with the federal government. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to deport undocumented residents when he takes office next year. State officials promise that Dream Act information will not be shared.

Meanwhile, community colleges in California and across the country continue to be plagued by financial aid fraud. Scammers, posing as students, enroll at the colleges for the sole purpose of stealing financial aid. California’s community colleges have lost more than $7.5 million this year alone to such fraud.

Dr. Gonzales was deputy chancellor of California’s community college system before joining the aid commission in July. She also served as the system’s acting and then interim chancellor. She was selected to her current post by the 15 members of the commission, 11 of whom are appointed by the governor and another four by the Legislature.

Previously, she was a consultant for the Budget and Appropriations Committees in the state Assembly. She has a bachelor’s degree from Mills College and received both a master’s degree and a doctorate in sociology from UC Santa Barbara.

She recently spoke with EdSource. The following conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.

What is the Student Aid Commission doing to ensure students are completing the FAFSA this year?

We’ve been working differently with Cal Volunteers and training all of their volunteers to learn about financial aid, because they’re the boots on the ground. And even working differently with our segments. I’ve been really grateful to the community colleges. I gave them the data of those districts and colleges where we are leaving students behind, and they immediately got to work doing professional development, deploying messaging. (Cal Volunteers is a state office charged with increasing volunteering. Its College Corps program provides stipends for college students who volunteer.)

It was also important that I could hear directly from students. So I’ve also launched a student council where all the student associations (at local community college districts) have appointments on that council, and then they are activating their associations to educate students about financial aid, the deadlines, and even solutions to some of the common barriers that they face.

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to deport undocumented residents. What guidance are you giving to undocumented students or students who have undocumented parents and are worried they could expose them by filling out the FAFSA?

We believe in providing students and their families with the information that will allow them to consider all of their options. We know that there are many concerns around privacy protections for individuals without a Social Security number.

Last year, the commission opened the Dream Act application to students from mixed-status families (those with both documented and undocumented individuals), and we are maintaining that. And so for any student, particularly if you’re a first-time applicant, if you have a family member, a parent, or a spouse that is a part of your application that does not have a Social Security number, you are being invited to complete the Dream Act application. We also have to inform you that as a part of not completing a FAFSA, you will not be able to benefit from federal aid. And our job is to help you understand that it’s your choice. And that applying is a family decision. Here at the commission, we protect your data. However, there are no similar federal reassurances that we can provide.

Are you doing any messaging to make sure students know that any information they submit via the California Dream Act Application is not shared with the federal government?

We redid our website so that we could have a very clear message around our data security. You can also then click on that message and it’ll show you additional information that’s important as you’re making your decision on whether to file a California Dream Act Application or FAFSA. We’ve also been deploying messages. For the first time, at least in the last several years, we actually sent out a notice that went to all education leaders — meaning the K-12 superintendents, the higher education presidents and CEOs. They all got the same message. And it was a message saying that our job is clear. We need students to stay enrolled. We need to offer them a safe option. And that is the California Dream Act Application.

There has been a big push by lawmakers in recent years to reform the Cal Grant by simplifying it and making more students eligible for aid, especially low-income community college students. That reform hasn’t happened because of state budget constraints. Is it still a priority of yours?

I’m here with a very clear mission to transform financial aid. I believe that it’s something that we can do together. And in doing so, then that means we are building financial aid pathways that are centered in student success. Yes, we need Cal Grant equity to be a reality, but that’s not yet funded.

But there are still so many other things that we can be doing. So, for example, I envision a California financial aid system that’s actually predictable. What would it look like to have an expedited renewal process for aid? I hear that as the No. 1 burden for students and families.

Another example I can give you is foster youth. They end up having to fill out two to five different applications. So at the commission, they might do three applications, if they qualify for those programs. And then when they get to a college, they still have to fill out an application for institutional aid. And so I challenged the team here at the commission, and I said, “What would it look like to create one application where we can ask students about all of the additional special programs that California has?” We need to be able to do this differently.

Even though Cal Grant reform was not funded in the latest state budget deal, there have been other ideas floating around about how to come up with that funding. One suggestion was to create a new tax that would raise dollars for financial aid. Are there other creative ways to possibly raise new funding?

There are many other states that do have additional taxes, particularly on alcoholic beverages. There are also so many different ways that I think we can move the needle here in California. I think we can do a better job in general communicating with students about what exists, how do they access it, and how we can actually help them achieve their end goal much faster. There are many other things that we can and should be doing.

What are your expectations for the 2025-26 state budget? Are you worried there could be further cuts to financial aid?

Nothing can be taken for granted, especially in a difficult year. We have a number of new legislators. So for me, it’s about reeducating, reaching out, building that relationship, especially with new elected officials. We’ve had to cut funding for the commission already by 7.95%. All state agencies received the same reduction. There was also a hiring freeze here at the commission. And all of this happened before I arrived. I don’t take anything for granted. I know it’s a really difficult year, but I also know that poverty has been increasing in the state. And so when I go out and advocate, I’m advocating for our students, and I’m defending the dollars that we have while helping California build pathways for many more Californians.

On another topic, California’s community colleges have lost millions of financial aid dollars this year and in recent years to fraudsters. Is there anything the student aid commission can do or is doing to alleviate the fraud? Or does that responsibility fall to the colleges?

I think the challenging thing about fraud is it keeps getting more sophisticated. Our campuses play a really critical role in identifying that fraud. And they are best positioned. But the commission can be a part of the alert system and a part of the professional development process. I’ve also asked for additional IT positions through the state budget process to be able to deal with some of these situations.

Source link

28/04/2025
U.S. Navy Cancels Lecture by Author Who Planned to Complain About Book Bans

Under the misguided policies of Trump and Hegseth, censorship and book banning have been widespread, especially by the Defense Department. Hegseth is eager to please Trump and has stripped recognition from anyone of distinction who is female and/or non-white. Even a photograph of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, was taken down–because of its name. The Navajo Code Talkers were put into storage. The first women to achieve military feats and honors were mothballed. The U.S. Naval Academy removed almost 400 books from its library because of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) themes.

Ryan Holiday was invited to lecture at the Naval Academy a few weeks ago, as he had in the past. Shortly before he was to speak, he was asked not to mention the books that had been removed from the Academy’s library. When he refused, his speech was canceled.

Question: if the men and women of the U.S. Navy are brave enough to risk their lives, aren’t they brave enough to read a book about race and gender?

Holiday wrote in The New York Times:

For the past four years, I have been delivering a series of lectures on the virtues of Stoicism to midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., and I was supposed to continue this on April 14 to the entire sophomore class on the theme of wisdom.

Roughly an hour before my talk was to begin, I received a call: Would I refrain from any mention in my remarks of the recent removal of 381 supposedly controversial books from the Nimitz library on campus? My slides had been sent up the chain of command at the school, which was now, as it was explained to me, extremely worried about reprisals if my talk appeared to flout Executive Order 14151(“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government D.E.I. Programs and Preferencing”).

When I declined, my lecture — as well as a planned speech before the Navy football team, with which my books on Stoicism are popular — was canceled. (The academy “made a schedule change that aligns with its mission of preparing midshipmen for careers of service,” a Navy spokesperson told Times Opinion. “The Naval Academy is an apolitical institution.”)

Had I been allowed to go ahead, this is the story I was going to tell the class:

In the fall of 1961, a young naval officer named James Stockdale, a graduate of the Naval Academy and future Medal of Honor recipient who went on to be a vice admiral, began a course at Stanford he had eagerly anticipated on Marxist theory. “We read no criticisms of Marxism,” he recounted later, “only primary sources. All year we read the works of Marx and Lenin.”

It might seem unusual that the Navy would send Stockdale, then a 36-year-old fighter pilot, to get a master’s degree in the social sciences, but he knew why he was there. Writing home to his parents that year, he reminded them of a lesson they had instilled in him, “You really can’t do well competing against something you don’t understand as well as something you can.”

At the time, Marxism was not just an abstract academic subject, but the ideological foundation of America’s greatest geopolitical enemy. The stakes were high. The Soviets were pushing a vision of global Communism and the conflict in Vietnam was flashing hot, the North Vietnamese fueled by a ruthless mix of dogma and revolutionary zeal. “Marxism” was, like today, also a culture war boogeyman used by politicians and demagogues.

Just a few short years after completing his studies, in September 1965, Stockdale was shot down over Thanh Hoa in North Vietnam, and as he parachuted into what he knew would be imprisonment and possibly death, his mind turned to the philosophy of Epictetus, which he had been introduced to by a professor at Stanford.

He would spend the next seven years in various states of solitary confinement and enduring brutal torture. His captors, sensing perhaps his knowledge as a pilot of the “Gulf of Tonkin incident,” a manufactured confrontation with North Vietnamese forces that led to greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam, sought desperately to break him. Stockdale drew on the Stoicism of Epictetus, but he also leveraged his knowledge of the practices and the mind-set of his oppressors.

“In Hanoi, I understood more about Marxist theory than my interrogator did,” Stockdale explained. “I was able to say to that interrogator, ‘That’s not what Lenin said; you’re a deviationist.’”

In his writings and speeches after his return from the prison known as the Hanoi Hilton, Stockdale often referred to what he called “extortion environments,” which he used to describe his experience as a captive. He and his fellow P.O.W.s were asked to answer simple questions or perform seemingly innocuous tasks, like appear in videos, and if they declined, there would be consequences.

No one at the Naval Academy intimated any consequences for me, of course, but it felt extortionary all the same. I had to choose between my message or my continued welcome at an institution it has been one of the honors of my life to speak at.

As an author, I believe deeply in the power of books. As a bookstore owner in Texas, I have spoken up about book banning many timesalready. More important was the topic of my address: the virtue of wisdom.

As I explained repeatedly to my hosts, I had no interest in embarrassing anyone or discussing politics directly. I understand the immense pressures they are under, especially the military employees, and I did not want to cause them trouble. I did, however, feel it was essential to make the point that the pursuit of wisdom is impossible without engaging with (and challenging) uncomfortable ideas.

Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, used a military metaphor to make this very argument. We ought to read, he said, “like a spy in the enemy’s camp.” This is what Stockdale was doing when he studied Marxism on the Navy’s dime. It is what Seneca was doing when he read and liberally quoted from Epicurus, the head of a rival philosophical school.

The current administration is by no means unique in its desire to suppress ideas it doesn’t like or thinks dangerous. As I intended to explain to the midshipmen, there was considerable political pressure in the 1950s over what books were carried in the libraries of federal installations. Asked if he would ban communist books from American embassies, Eisenhower resisted.

“Generally speaking,” he told a reporter from The New York Herald Tribune at a news conference shortly after his inauguration, “my idea is that censorship and hiding solves nothing.” He explained that he wished more Americans had read Hitler and Stalin in the previous years, because it might have helped anticipate the oncoming threats. He concluded, “Let’s educate ourselves if we are going to run a free government.”

ADVERTISEMENT

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

The men and women at the Naval Academy will go on to lead combat missions, to command aircraft carriers, to pilot nuclear-armed submarines and run enormous organizations. We will soon entrust them with incredible responsibilities and power. But we fear they’ll be hoodwinked or brainwashed by certain books?

Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” was not one of the books removed from the Naval Academy library, and as heinous as that book is, it should be accessible to scholars and students of history. However, this makes the removal of Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” inexplicable. Whatever one thinks of D.E.I., we are not talking about the writings of external enemies here, but in many cases, art, serious scholarship and legitimate criticism of America’s past. One of the removed books is about Black soldiers in World War II, another is about how women killed in the Holocaust are portrayed, another is a reimagining of Kafka called “The Last White Man.” No one at any public institution should have to fear losing their job for pushing back on such an obvious overreach, let alone those tasked with defending our freedom. Yet here we are.

The decision by the academy’s leaders to not protest the original order — which I believe flies in the face of basic academic freedoms and common sense — has put them in the now even stickier position of trying to suppress criticism of that decision. “Compromises pile up when you’re in a pressure situation in the hands of a skilled extortionist,” Stockdale reminds us. I felt I could not, in good conscience, lecture these future leaders and warriors on the virtue of courage and doing the right thing, as I did in 2023 and 2024, and fold when asked not to mention such an egregious and fundamentally anti-wisdom course of action.

In many moments, many understandable moments, Stockdale had an opportunity to do the expedient thing as a P.O.W. He could have compromised. He could have obeyed. It would have saved him considerable pain, prevented the injuries that deprived him of full use of his leg for the rest of his life and perhaps even returned him home sooner to his family. He chose not to do that. He rejected the extortionary choice and stood on principle.

Source link

24/04/2025
California leaders still uncertain about impact of potential federal funding freeze

People protest against a funding freeze of federal grants and loans following a push from President Donald Trump to pause federal funding near to the White House in Washington on Jan. 28, 2025.

Credit: AP Photo/Ben Curtis

The White House budget office rescinded the order freezing federal funds on Jan. 29. Read our update on the funding freeze.

State leaders spent much of Tuesday trying to determine the potential impact of a White House freeze on federal grants and loans that could potentially affect millions of California students and their families.

A White House memo released Monday from the Office of Management and Budget called for the freeze to begin Tuesday at 2 p.m. PST. But, just minutes before 2 p.m., U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, D.C., blocked the order until next Monday at 2 p.m. PST to give courts more time to consider its impact, according to Politico.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Tuesday that the freeze could cut $3 trillion in federal funding from programs that help the homeless, veterans, seniors, disaster victims and school children nationwide.

The order has thrown state programs into chaos and created uncertainty around their administration, said a media release from Bonta’s office.

“I will not stand by while the president attempts to disrupt vital programs that feed our kids, provide medical care to our families, and support housing and education in our communities,” Bonta said in a statement. “Instead of learning from the defeats of his first administration, President Trump is once again plowing ahead with a damaging — and most importantly, unlawful —agenda.”

Bonta joined 22 other state attorneys general to file a lawsuit calling for a temporary halt to implementation of the memo. The White House directive called for advancing the Trump administration’s policies and called “the use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism and green new deal social engineering policies a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the White House memo a violation of federal law. “We are confident funding will be restored,” officials there said in an email to EdSource.

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

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said the White House action is misguided. “(It) serves nothing more than to hurt the most vulnerable students and people in our nation,” he said.

Early Tuesday, state education leaders expressed concern that student loans, special education, Head Start, and Title 1 programs could be impacted by the freeze.

But by late Tuesday afternoon, conflicting information from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Education made it unclear which programs would be affected, according to a letter from the California Department of Education to county and district superintendents scheduled to be sent Tuesday night.

According to the letter, the U.S. Department of Education assured state departments of education that Title 1 programs for low-income schools, special education and other formula grants will not be frozen. But, officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said these programs will be subject to the same scrutiny as others regarding compliance with the Trump administration’s executive orders.

“We hope to gain more clarity on affected programs before Feb. 3 and plan to communicate this information to the field as soon as possible in case the OMB directive becomes effective,” said the California Department of Education guidance signed by David Schapira, chief deputy superintendent.

Officials in the U.S. Department of Education said only discretionary grants would be affected and not formula grants, according to Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association.

A list of discretionary grants on the U.S. Department of Education website includes grants for educator development, charter school programs, early learning programs, school and community improvement programs, as well as grants for arts and literacy education.

California School Boards Association officials will be watching to see how the issue is resolved in the courts, Flint said. “This is a fluid and fast-moving topic, and we don’t think we have heard the end of it.”

University leaders are also waiting to see what the freeze could mean for them. University of California staff and lawyers are “working diligently to clarify the potential impacts” on the university, said President Michael Drake in a statement.

He noted that the White House has said federal student loans and Pell Grants would not be impacted.

“We are in contact with key policymakers in Congress and at federal agencies, as well as association partners and other higher education institutions. We are evaluating what actions we are able to take and will keep you informed,” Drake added in a message to the UC community.

EdSource reporters Emma Gallegos, Michael Burke, Mallika Seshadri, Betty Márquez Rosales, Amy DiPierro, Vani Sanganeria contributed to this story.

Source link

24/04/2025
Memo Leaked about Cuts to State Department, Slashing Africa Offices, Climate and Human Rights Agencies

The New York Times published a leaked plan to reorganize the Trump State Department; Rubio disowned it. Its goal is to align the State Department and foreign policy with Trump’s “America First” agenda. It’s a very scary vision of Fortress America, cut off from the rest of the world, with no concern for democracy, climate change, human rights, or Africa.

The Times reported:

A draft of a Trump administration executive order proposes a drastic restructuring of the State Department, including eliminating almost all of its Africa operations and shutting down embassies and consulates across the continent.

The draft also calls for cutting offices at State Department headquarters that address climate change and refugee issues, as well as democracy and human rights concerns.

The purpose of the executive order, which could be signed soon by President Trump, is to impose “a disciplined reorganization” of the State Department and “streamline mission delivery” while cutting “waste, fraud and abuse,” according to a copy of the 16-page draft order obtained by The New York Times. The department is supposed to make the changes by Oct. 1.

Some of the proposed changes outlined in the draft document would require congressional notification and no doubt be challenged by lawmakers, including mass closures of diplomatic missions and headquarters bureaus, as well as an overhaul of the diplomatic corps. Substantial parts of it, if officials tried to enact them, would likely face lawsuits.

Elements of the executive order could change before final White House review or before Mr. Trump signs it, if he decides to do so. Neither the State Department nor the White House National Security Council had immediate comment on the draft order early Sunday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote a short comment on social media after this article was published calling it “fake news…”

Major structural changes to the State Department would be accompanied by efforts to lay off both career diplomats, known as foreign service officers, and civil service employees, who usually work in the department’s headquarters in Washington, said current and former U.S. officials familiar with the plans. The department would begin putting large numbers of workers on paid leave and sending out notices of termination, they said.

The draft executive order calls for ending the foreign service exam for aspiring diplomats, and it lays out new criteria for hiring, including “alignment with the president’s foreign policy vision.”

The draft says the department must greatly expand its use of artificial intelligence to help draft documents, and to undertake “policy development and review” and “operational planning.”

The proposed reorganization would get rid of regional bureaus that help make and enact policy in large parts of the globe.

Instead, the draft says, those functions would fall under four “corps”: Eurasia Corps, consisting of Europe, Russia and Central Asia; Mid-East Corps, consisting of Arab nations, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan; Latin America Corps, consisting of Central America, South America and the Caribbean; and Indo-Pacific Corps, consisting of East Asia, Southeast Asia, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives.

One of the most drastic proposed changes would be eliminating the bureau of African affairs, which oversees policy in sub-Saharan Africa. It would be replaced by a much smaller special envoy office for African affairs that would report to the White House National Security Council. The office would focus on a handful of issues, including “coordinated counterterrorism operations” and “strategic extraction and trade of critical natural resources.”

The draft also said all “nonessential” embassies and consulates in sub-Saharan Africa would be closed by Oct. 1. Diplomats would be sent to Africa on “targeted, mission-driven deployments,” the document said.

Canada operations would be put into a new North American affairs office under Mr. Rubio’s authority, and it would be run by a “significantly reduced team,” the draft said. The department would also severely shrink the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.

Source link

23/04/2025
What parents and students need to know about LAUSD’s cellphone ban

Credit: Pexels

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) voted 5-2 to develop its new cellphone ban last August — placing the district more than a year ahead of the state’s requirement for districts to limit the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026. Students should expect to have their cellphones off and tucked away starting on Tuesday.

District officials hope that keeping students away from their phones will both boost academic performance and support their mental health.

“Kids no longer have the opportunity to just be kids,” said school board member Nick Melvoin, who authored the initial resolution, in a statement released by the district. “I’m hoping this resolution will help students not only focus in class, but also give them a chance to interact and engage more with each other — and just be kids.”

Here’s what parents and students need to know about what lies ahead.

Where will students’ phones be kept?

It depends on how each campus plans to implement the district policy.

In some schools or classrooms, students might simply have to turn off their phones and put them into their backpacks. In other schools, students will have to place their phones into a storage unit, including pouches that are sealed magnetically.

Are there any exceptions to the rule?

Yes, students who need access to their phones for health-based reasons — or because they have an individualized education program or 504 plan — will be able to hold on to their devices. Students who need help with language translation will also be excused from the policy, along with students who have any other local needs.

What about cases where there is an emergency?

Whether students can access their devices during emergencies has been one of the larger concerns of parents and other community members.

In short, if there is an emergency, students will be granted access to their devices if staff members decide it is safe for them to have them.

But, if a student asks to use their cellphone because they believe there is a potential threat, they won’t immediately be able to do so. Instead, the school will have to complete a threat assessment and develop a safety plan; depending on what they find, students may be granted access.

Can my child have devices other than cellphones?

No. The ban also applies to other devices that “provide similar smartphone functionality,” according to a district presentation. These devices include earbuds, smartwatches and smart glasses.

Will phones have to be tucked away all day — or just when learning is taking place?

Yes, cellphones and similar devices will have to be tucked off and away throughout the school day, including during lunch and any other breaks.

Students will be allowed to use their phones on campus before and after school hours, however.

What are the ramifications for students if they don’t comply?

Verbal reminders and referrals to a counselor or other campus designee would be given to students who are seen with a device. School administrators could also contact a student’s parent or guardian.

Will individual campuses be able to tweak things as they see fit?

Local School Leadership Councils throughout the district — composed of school personnel, parents, students and community members — will work to determine how best to implement the policy at their sites.

LAUSD’s policy requires each school to hold a Local School Leadership Council meeting while the cellphone policies are being implemented.

Source link

20/04/2025
California educators nervous about federal plan to investigate schools with diversity initiatives

Flags fly outside of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington.

Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

The Trump administration doubled down on its plan to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the nation’s schools last week by opening an online portal where parents and other community members can report educators and schools that use the programs.

The announcement about the EndDEI.Ed.Gov portal came on Feb. 27 — the day before a deadline for schools to end diversity and equity programs or risk losing federal funding. The DEI prohibition was issued in a Valentine’s Day missive from the U.S. Department of Education.

The online reporting tool has teachers and other school staff nervous.

“I can say, in general, that there’s a sense of concern (among educators),” said Steven Frazer, president of Associated Chino Teachers, Chino Valley Unified’s teachers union. “… A tool to report teachers, who could just be making sure that their classroom is a safe place for all students, who could potentially be vilified. So, it’s certainly a unique and uncertain, unfortunate climate right now for educators.”

The San Bernardino County school district, which has a conservative school board, has little diversity, equity and inclusion programming, Frazer said. Despite that, teachers in the district feel susceptible to being reported to federal authorities.

The district’s board has already been at odds with the teachers union and the state over a board policy that required teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender.

Frazer is concerned that the White House effort to end diversity, equity and inclusion will embolden the school district to disregard a California law requiring ethnic studies classes to be offered next school year. There is also concern for the future of clubs that support students of color and LGBTQ youth, among others, he said.

“Things like that, outlets like that, are what make school a safe place for many students,” Frazer said. “A lot of students don’t get recognized enough at home, and so school is an outlet for them. And really, what keeps their mental state positive, what encourages them to learn and be happy and successful, is being able to meet in groups like this.”

Definitions of DEI vary

DEI has become a divisive issue in recent years, with the term’s definition and value dependent on a person’s political ideology.

“For me, it means ensuring that the marginalized are included and that equity is served, in that everyone can receive what they need to thrive, especially in a school district,” said Janice Rooths, executive director of the Center Against Racism and Trauma, which serves the state’s Inland Empire region. “And so, when you say that everyone should get what they need to thrive, it applies to every student.”

Schools with successful DEI programs offer teachers and administrators cultural sensitivity training and ensure students understand that using negative racial epithets or other threatening words is unacceptable, Rooths said.

On the other side, critics of DEI see it as dividing students, or making white students feel uncomfortable or bad about themselves. They say DEI focuses on race and ethnicity over merit.

“For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies, but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, in a statement included in a U.S. Department of Education news release announcing the portal.

Moms for Liberty is a far-right organization that has advocated against school curricula that include LGBTQ rights and instruction on race and ethnicity.

Portal opens just before deadline

The End DEI portal is separate from a webpage that already collects complaints of discrimination on the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights website.

“The U.S. Department of Education is committed to ensuring all students have access to meaningful learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination,” according to a media release announcing the portal.

In its Feb. 14 letter, the U.S. Department of Education letter claims that white and Asian American students have been discriminated against, and that “educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism.’ ”

The letter states that schools must cease using race preferences in their admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline and other programs and activities, including race-based graduation ceremonies and dorms.

On Feb. 21, the California Department of Education and State Board of Education issued a joint statement to reassure state residents and school officials that federal laws regarding public education have not changed, and that executive orders from the White House and memos from the U.S. Department of Education cannot modify or override them.

“We advise continued compliance with state and federal laws, and recommend that administrators and governing boards consult legal counsel regarding the impact of any potential federal actions,” the statement read. “If federal laws or regulations do change, we will provide guidance and take action as needed in continued support of California’s students and local educational agencies.”

In his own letter to school district leaders, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said the California Department of Education and other state agencies will consider legal action if the federal government attempts to freeze or cut funding because districts have diversity, equity and inclusion programs in place.

Teachers unions file lawsuits

The U.S. Department of Education letter and its demands have already resulted in at least two lawsuits. Both include the nation’s largest teachers’ unions. The American Federation of Teachers and American Sociological Association filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education on Feb. 25, and the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union did the same on Wednesday.

The lawsuits urge the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing a directive that they say undermines civil rights, stifles free speech and dictates what educators can teach.

“Across the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student, no matter where they live, how much their family earns, or the color of their skin — ensuring each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association.

“Now, the Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for doing just that: fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance.”

Source link

16/04/2025
Dietary restrictions? Here’s what to know about university dining halls | Quick Guide

A dining commons at University of California Davis

Credit: Gregory Urquiaga / UC Davis

From curriculum to location, there’s so much to weigh when choosing a college or university.

And for high school seniors or prospective transfers who have dietary restrictions — particularly for medical reasons, including food allergies and chronic conditions such as celiac disease — picking a school that can accommodate their dietary needs is critical.

Before May 1, the official day to commit, here’s what to ask about dining halls, kitchen access and beyond.

Who should I reach out to?

The availability and range of options vary greatly from campus to campus, and the best way to get information is to ask the right people.

Reaching out to and scheduling an appointment with a campus dietitian nutritionist can be the easiest way to understand what options are available in the dining halls, and the extent to which the campus can guarantee safe options.

Some campuses have made extensive efforts. But others, like Cal Poly Humboldt and San Francisco State, can’t guarantee that meals can be made without cross-contamination.

“We understand how serious food allergies, celiac disease, and religious dietary needs can be, and we take those concerns to heart,” Todd Larsen, senior executive director for enterprise services at Cal Poly Humboldt, told EdSource. “While our kitchens are held to high safety and sanitation standards, they are not fully equipped to eliminate the risk of cross-contamination for individuals with severe dietary restrictions.”

Sometimes, campuses will also allow you to speak with a chef before a student enrolls; the chef can help answer specific questions about how meals are prepared and what kinds of measures they can take to prevent cross-contamination.

It’s also worth reaching out to current students or campus organizations focused on certain dietary needs for their perspective on the availability and safety of foods. This can also be helpful if you’re exploring what kinds of kosher or halal options are available.

Beyond dining services, it’s worth speaking with campus housing officials about living arrangements that include access to a kitchen.

What options are available at dining halls?

While dedicated kitchens are rare, many campuses throughout the state try to accommodate those with serious dietary needs — including labeling for top allergens and training for kitchen staff — but their approaches vary.

At some campuses, the options are more limited, with students being granted access to a common refrigerator stocked with frozen meals, whose labels students should read carefully before consuming.

UCLA, for example, takes such an approach, granting students with celiac disease, wheat allergies or gluten intolerance access to rooms with their own microwave, refrigerator, freezer, toaster and gluten-free meals.

Other campuses, like Sacramento State, have a dedicated station at a dining hall that features only allergen-free/friendly options or will allow students to work directly with an individual chef. And some, including UC Davis’s Dietary Support Program, grant students opportunities to order customized meals that are “prepared in a separate area, on separate equipment and by staff who have been trained on the dangers of cross-contact,” according to Emily Ortega, a registered dietitian nutritionist with the UC Davis Dining Services nutrition programs.

And if a student isn’t sure if something served in the dining halls is safe, or looks like it could be improperly labeled, it is important to check with the chef and inform the campus nutritionist.

Some campuses, like UC Merced, allow students to forgo their dining plan if the university cannot meet their needs. They may use a process that campus spokesperson Alyssa Flores Johansen says “involves multiple conversations, medical certification, and coordination with several campus stakeholders.”

What about access to a kitchen?

In addition to talking with the college or university’s dining program, it’s also important to contact housing to see what accommodations are provided.

For example, if a student needs access to an allergen station in a single dining hall, housing officials can sometimes place them in a dorm that’s closer.

At some campuses, like Cal State East Bay, all student housing includes a kitchenette. But that’s often not the norm, and housing officials can help explore options that include kitchen access, whether it’s living on the same floor as a communal kitchen where students can cook with their own pots and pans, or being assigned to an on-campus apartment.

On a smaller scale, within an individual dorm, it’s sometimes possible to request a separate refrigerator or microwave to help limit cross-contamination.

Think beyond the school year

It’s a good idea to jump on housing accommodations as soon as possible, and make sure a student’s needs will be met at dining halls from their first day of residency.

Ask about the hours of any dedicated station, what is provided during orientation, and what options are available during breaks.

Source link

15/04/2025