برچسب: again

California Legislature asked again to ban legacy admissions in all of higher education

Assemblymember Phil Ting introduced a bill Wednesday to ban legacy admissions in California’s private colleges and universities.

A California assemblymember wants the state to join others in forcing private universities to stop legacy admissions.

The bill would prohibit the state’s private colleges and universities from receiving state funding through the Cal Grant program if they give preferential treatment to applicants with donor or alumni connections.

The bill makes California one of a handful of states considering curbing legacy admissions at both public and private colleges. Nationally, Sens. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., have also introduced legislation to ban public and private colleges from considering legacy connections in admissions decisions.

“Unfortunately, we saw last year that the Supreme Court disallowed the consideration of race in college admissions, but what they didn’t do was disallow the knowledge of income or class in college admissions,” said Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who authored the bill, Assembly Bill 1780. “For the “1% of Americans, they have complete access, they have a back door, they have a side door, they have an express lane into our most elite institutions.”

Ting cited a study by Harvard University economists that found that children from families earning more than $611,000 a year are more than twice as likely to receive admission to a university when compared with low- and middle-income families with comparable standardized test scores.

Although the vast majority of private institutions in California say they don’t use donor or alumni connections to admit students, and none of the public institutions use legacy status for admission, six universities do, based on their admissions reports to the Legislature.

Stanford, the University of Southern California and Santa Clara University, in particular, all admitted more than 13% of their students based on connections to alumni and donors, based on their fall 2022 enrollment.

“This is a fairly limited practice within our sector,” said Kristen Soares, president of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. “We have indicated to Assemblymember Ting’s office and others that we welcome the conversation and look forward to reviewing the details of the proposal once it is in print.”

Officials from Stanford and USC did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Sophie Callott, a senior at Stanford University, said her parents met as law students at the university, and so she’s a legacy student. Despite that, she’s in favor of ending the practice.

“I do not want my achievements to be overshadowed or questioned by the possibility that I only got into Stanford because my parents went there,” she said, during a news conference hosted by Ting on Wednesday about the bill. “People who go to schools like Stanford have an unparalleled advantage in the job market that allows them to disproportionately occupy high-paying leadership positions. If their children are further given a leg up in the admissions process, then this cycle of wealth and privileges continues.”

What is not known about legacy admissions?

The move to ban legacy admissions has taken off following the conservative-majority decision by the Supreme Court to effectively end race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities. California law has banned the use of affirmative action in public institutions since 1996, and a recent effort to reverse that decision failed in 2020. The state’s private institutions did not have to follow California’s affirmative action ban, but in order to accept federal dollars, they did have to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Alyssa Murray, a Stanford student and co-president of the Stanford Black Student Union, said during the news conference that legacy admissions is a form of racial preference and economic discrimination, and ending it would be one step toward creating true equity in higher education.

“For nearly a century, California private schools have predominantly admitted white students, creating an insurmountable racial imbalance,” she said. “That means legacy admissions will always favor white and wealthy applicants at the expense of low-income students of color who often do not have alumni relations.”

Ting attempted a similar bill in 2019 following Operation Varsity Blues, the national college admissions scandal that exposed a scheme through which the children of rich parents were able to get into top-tier schools using fake athletic credentials and bogus entrance exam scores. That bill ultimately failed and was opposed by the state’s private colleges because the system of legacy admissions was unrelated to the scandal and there were concerns that disallowing private schools that use legacy admissions from participating in the Cal Grant program would only hurt low-income students also attending those institutions.

Ting said the 2019 bill failed because Varsity Blues was too anecdotal and there wasn’t enough hard data, but now the numbers show where legacy admissions are prevalent. That data is now available because of a separate 2019 bill, AB 697, that Ting authored in the aftermath of the scandal, forcing private universities to send admissions and enrollment reports to the Legislature.

A June report by the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, which did not include data from Stanford or USC, found that only five of 70 private institutions allowed legacy admissions — Santa Clara, Pepperdine, Vanguard, Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd.

“It is a fact that legacy admissions perpetuates a cycle of privilege that fortifies inequity in higher education,” said Murray, co-president of the Stanford Black Student Union. “Legacy admissions perpetuates the racism of decades past when colleges and universities were closed to Latinx, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native people.”

Source link

10/06/2025
Jamelle Bouie: Don’t Be Fooled Again by the GOP Tax Plan

Jamelle Bouie writes an opinion column for The New York Times, and he is my favorite on that site. His insights are clear and sharp. In this column, he reminds us that Republicans have a long history of promises about tax cuts for the middle class that have ended up enriching the wealthiest and increasing inequality.

He writes:

It’s 1981. A Republican president and his allies in Congress are promising large, broad tax cuts that will benefit the middle class and strengthen the economy.

It’s 2001. A Republican president is promising broad tax cuts that will benefit the middle class and strengthen the economy.

It’s 2003. That same president is promising another round of broad tax cuts that will benefit the middle class and strengthen the economy.

It’s 2017. Yet another Republican president is promising broad tax cuts that will benefit the middle class and strengthen the economy.

With each new Republican administration, it is the same promise. With each round of tax cuts, it is the same result: vast benefits for the wealthiest Americans and a pittance for everyone else. There is little growth but widening inequality and an even starker gap between the haves and have-nots.

President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, which inaugurated the pattern, slashed the top tax rate on investment income to 50 percent from 70 percent and the capital gains rate to 20 percent from 28 percent. “New tax benefits for business were so generous,” Michael J. Graetz writes in “The Power to Destroy: How the Antitax Movement Hijacked America,” “that corporate tax receipts declined from about 15 percent to less than 9 percent of federal revenues.” The law, he continues, “substantially cut taxes on income generated from wealth, increased opportunities for tax-free savings by upper-income Americans and greatly expanded tax-shelter opportunities for high-income individuals and corporations.” It also “reduced taxes on transfers of wealth from the richest Americans to their descendants by exempting all but a small fraction of the wealthiest 1 percent” from the estate tax.

Over the next decade, Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush were forced to raise taxes as a result of this profligacy. Reagan signed deficit-reducing tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. Bush signed a significant tax increase in 1990, breaking his “Read my lips” election-year promise not to raise taxes.

George W. Bush rejected his father’s fiscal heterodoxy in favor of the unrepentant supply-side orthodoxy of Reagan’s first year. Sold as middle-class tax relief, the $1.7 trillion George W. Bush tax cuts — passed in 2001 and 2003 — were by and large a handout to the wealthiest Americans. As Graetz notes, they “reduced federal revenues from 20 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 to 15.6 percent in 2004,” and when all the changes were phased in, “they raised the after-tax incomes of people in the top 1 percent by nearly 6.5 percent — $54,000 on average — compared to about 1 percent, or an average of $207, for the bottom 40 percent.” In a 2017 analysis of the legacy of the George W. Bush tax cuts, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that the top 1 percent of households received an average tax cut of over $570,000 from 2004 to 2012. Not surprisingly, it also found that these cuts “did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.”

We can basically copy and paste this dynamic from Reagan and George W. Bush to Donald Trump, who sold his 2017 tax cuts as — you guessed it — middle-class relief. “Our focus is on helping the folks who work in the mailrooms and the machine shops of America,” he told supporters in the fall of 2017. “The plumbers, the carpenters, the cops, the teachers, the truck drivers, the pipe fitters, the people that like me best.”

Except — surprise! — a vast majority of the benefits of the $1.9 trillion Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went to the highest earners — millionaire chief executives and billionaire owners of large companies. Americans in the middle received an average tax cut of $910. Americans in the top 1 percent received an average cut of $61,090. The 2017 law also cut estate taxes and gave new advantages to real estate investors, direct benefits for Trump and his family.

We are now looking at another round of Republican tax cuts. Yet again the claim is that this will benefit most Americans. “The next phase of our plan to deliver the greatest economy in history is for this Congress to pass tax cuts for everybody,” Trump said in his March 4 address to Congress. But as Paul Krugman points out in his Substack newsletter, this latest package is both a shameless giveaway to the rich and a ruinous cut to safety net programs for lower-income and working Americans.

The tax and benefit cuts are, in fact, two sides of the same coin. To pay for the more than $1.1 trillion in tax cuts for people with incomes above $500,000, the House Republican framework would cut $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — snatching food assistance away from millions of low-income families — and $800 billion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, leaving an estimated 10 million or more Americans without health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 0.1 percent of earners would see their income grow; the bottom 20 percent would see it plummet.

It remains to be seen whether Republicans can pass their bill in the form they want. They have had some trouble moving it out of the House of Representatives and into the Senate. But if they can, it’s hard to imagine that there will be much appetite to kill the president’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Which is all to say that it’s 2025, and a Republican president has promised a broad tax cut that will help the middle class and strengthen the economy. I think we know what is going to come next.

Source link

03/06/2025
Newsom again pledges to spare cuts for TK-12 and community colleges, but not for CSU and UC
Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.

Credit: AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli

Despite a further deterioration in state revenues, Gov. Gavin Newsom again pledged Friday to protect ongoing funding and the large-scale initiatives for TK-12 schools that he has set in motion.

“I just don’t want to see education cuts,” Newsom said during a news conference on the revision to the proposed 2024-25 state budget he presented in January. “Right now, I want to see us preserve the progress we have made on community schools, on preschool, on after-school-for-all, summer school — all the work we’ve been doing.”

Newsom’s comment during a two-hour session with reporters reflected the challenge of writing annual budgets subject to volatile revenue fluctuations dependent on the incomes of the top 1% of earners. Receipts from capital gains taxes that soared to $349 billion in 2021-22 dropped to $137 billion in 2023-24. The current fiscal year ends June 30.

As a result of the projected shortfall, other state operations could face additional cuts. Newsom didn’t make the same promise he made for schools to higher education, leaving California State University system officials on edge. In a statement, CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia said she was “deeply concerned” about a revised state budget that would grant no increase next year, then a 2% increase in 2025-26, instead of a 10% increase over two years as promised in January.

“As the institution that educates the evolving workforce of California, this budget places us in a position of making difficult decisions,” Garcia said.

It was not clear whether the University of California would face similar cuts, although Newsom typically treats both systems similarly. UC officials would not comment on the issue. In a statement Friday, UC President Michael Drake said that the system is hoping to “finalize a budget that sustains the University’s research, public service, and education mission.”

The summary of revenue reductions and spending cuts Newsom released lacked the details that usually accompany a May budget revision; however, more information is expected by Tuesday, the deadline for statutory budget language.

Some TK-12 advocates expressed relief, nonetheless.

“Given the magnitude of the fiscal crisis, that the governor could put together a budget that largely protects K-12 is remarkable,” said education consultant Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors.

Derick Lennox, senior director of governmental relations and legal affairs with the California County Superintendents, was more cautious. “We can appreciate the governor’s commitment to hold schools harmless to the extent he can, but so much will all depend on the details for Proposition 98 and what is available,” he said, referring to the portion of the general fund that determines funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges.

Newsom said general fund revenues were expected to decline an additional $7 billion for a total of $27.6 billion for the three-year period from 2022-23 through 2024-25. The total deficit would be nearly twice as big, but the Legislature has made a combination of cuts, savings, and deferred spending since January.

The shortfall for TK-12 and community colleges, due to lower Proposition 98 funding, would be about $4.2 billion. Although details are scant, Newsom would make up for it mostly by emptying nearly all the remaining $9 billion rainy day fund for schools and community colleges.

Newsom said the average TK-12 per-student funding for 2024-25 would be $17,502 — $151 per student less than proposed in January. Despite that, funding would include a 1% cost of living increase, a smidge higher than in January.

The May revision lists about $1 billion in cuts for early education through high school. Most of the programs are funded by the general fund, not Proposition 98. It would preserve ongoing funding for the expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and long-awaited pay raises for child care providers.

Cuts would include:
- $425 million to the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative out of a $4 billion investment, which Newsom said would reflect directing more funding to wellness centers at school sites. Carl Pinkston of the Black Parallel School Board expressed concern. “In the aftermath of the pandemic, many students continue to display signs of trauma, adversely affecting their academic performance and overall well-being,” he said. The initiative “is a critical program that champions equity, aiming to improve behavioral health outcomes for children and youth.”
- Delayed funding for additional slots for state-funded child care. Instead of funding 146,000 as planned, the state will continue funding 119,000 new slots funded so far. “Delaying access to child care for the next two years to our youngest Californians is deeply troubling,” said Mary Ignatius, executive director of Parent Voices CA, an advocacy group. “Their childhoods do not pause. Their undiagnosed speech or other developmental delays will make it harder for them two years from now.”
- Elimination of $550 million in facilities funding for preschools, transitional kindergarten and full-day kindergarten programs. Newsom suggested funding could be included in a statewide school facilities bond. He said Friday that negotiations were continuing with legislative leaders for a bond on the statewide ballot in November.
- A cut of $60.2 million to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, which pays up to $20,000 to teacher candidates enrolled in credential programs who commit to working for years in priority schools.
- Elimination of $48 million in 2025-26 and $98 million in 2026-27 for increased payments for state preschools that serve additional students with disabilities.
- A cut of all but $100 million in ongoing funding for the Middle Class Scholarship Program, which previously received more than $600 million annually. In past years, more than 300,000 students across UC and CSU have received scholarships, which are available to students whose families earn up to $217,000.
Criticism of a key fix to the shortfall

Newsom’s solution for minimizing cuts to schools and community colleges would rely on a controversial maneuver. He would fill in the biggest piece of the shortfall — $8 billion in an unanticipated drop in Proposition 98 revenue in 2022-23 — by treating it as an overpayment of the state’s funding obligation. Since schools and community colleges have already spent the money, he’d fill in the gap by cutting the general fund — but not until 2028-29, when the state’s revenue picture presumably would have improved. Since Newsom announced the idea in January, the repayment obligation has grown to $8.8 billion.

An accounting move of that magnitude hasn‘t been done before. The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) has questioned the tactic, and so did the California School Boards Association in a statement Friday in which it implied it might sue.

The association’s logic reflects the complexity of the Proposition 98 formula for determining funding. The school boards association asserts that the 2022-23 funding level was not a voluntary overpayment but rather a constitutional obligation on which subsequent years’ levels of funding are set.

“This accounting gimmick would lower the baseline for calculating education funding in subsequent years, subjecting California schools to lower revenue for the foreseeable future,” school boards association President Albert Gonzalez said. “This sets a terrible precedent that potentially destabilizes education funding and undermines the voters’ intent when they passed Proposition 98 more than 35 years ago.”

The California Department of Finance has insisted that the solution is legal. However, on Friday, Newsom did acknowledge that Proposition 98 is complicated.

“You need not only a Ph.D., but a physics degree, an engineering degree and everything else to unpack its complexities,” he said.
Source link
30/05/2025
UC regents again postpone vote on policy to restrict some faculty speech

Public speakers address UC leaders during a March UC regents meeting at UCLA.

Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

The University of California’s board of regents on Thursday again postponed a vote on a controversial policy to restrict faculty departments from making opinionated statements on the homepages of university websites. The regents could next consider the policy at their July meeting in San Francisco.

The proposal was initially introduced after some faculty departments, such as the ethnic studies department at UC Santa Cruz, posted statements on their websites criticizing Israel’s invasion of Gaza in response to the Hamas assault in Israel. The potential adoption of the policy comes as pro-Palestinian protests and encampments have popped up across the system’s 10 campuses, with arrests of hundreds and, at UCLA, a violent counter-protest.

How a university should respond, if at all, to various forms of protest has suddenly become an overwhelming question across California and the rest of the nation, affecting graduation ceremonies and faculty support of campus leaders.

The agenda for Thursday’s regents meeting at UC Merced included the policy as an action item to be voted on by the regents, but for the third consecutive meeting, the vote was delayed. Unlike previous meetings, the item was not discussed in open session before regents decided to postpone the vote. They did not say whether it was debated in closed session.

Faculty across UC have criticized the policy, arguing that it would infringe on academic freedom and questioning how it would be enforced. But supporters of the policy, led by regent Jay Sures, say it is needed to ensure that the views of faculty departments aren’t misinterpreted as representing UC as a whole. Sures could not be reached for comment Thursday about why the item was delayed again.

Under the latest version, political and other opinionated statements would not be allowed to appear on the homepages of departmental websites. They would be permitted elsewhere on those websites, but only with a disclaimer stating that the opinions don’t represent the entire campus or university system.

Entering the regents meeting, academic senate leaders had asked the regents not to adopt the policy and instead issue a statement endorsing recommendations made by the senate in 2022. The latest policy in many ways mirrors the senate recommendations but does have some differences. The senate recommendations say faculty departments should be able to make political statements on UC homepages, as long as the statements include a disclaimer and don’t take stances on elections.

“We would welcome a straightforward Regents’ statement endorsing the 2022 Senate recommendations rather than the creation of new and not entirely clear bureaucratic regulations that raise issues of compliance and enforcement,” wrote James Steintrager, chair of the senate, in a letter to regents ahead of this week’s meeting.

Steintrager did, however, say the policy was an improvement over previous versions because it “enunciates clearer goals, defines key terms more explicitly, and better specifies the types of statements it covers.”

Steintrager also wrote that he appreciated that the regents took feedback from the senate ahead of this weekend’s meeting. That sentiment was echoed by James Vernon, a professor of history at UC Berkeley and chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association. Vernon said in an interview this week that the regents ahead of this meeting took “a more consultative approach to the academic senate.”

But Vernon, like senate leaders, still has reservations about the policy and questioned whether it’s an issue the regents should be dealing with at all.

“For me, this policy represents an overreach by the regents. The academic senate has already issued a report about statements on websites. It set out a set of discretionary guidelines for campuses and departments to follow,” Vernon said.

Source link

29/05/2025
Changing careers might mean becoming a student again – and that’s OK
When I decided to enroll in community college, my goal wasn’t to get a degree — I wanted a new job.

I have my bachelor’s degree in acting and was a professional actor until the pandemic. At 25, I was happy with my life as an actor. My calendar was even booked out for the entire year, performing in theaters across the state of Washington.

A week before I was laid off from a theater contract, I saw a video of NPR host Korva Coleman reading the hourly headlines. I watched her effortlessly move through the segment as she held her script and pressed play on audio clips, while simultaneously keeping herself to time. It felt like watching live theater for the first time.

“I wish I could do that,” I thought.

I never got another acting contract after the pandemic, and all of a sudden, I was 28. My acting resume suddenly looked useless to me and my other resume was just a list of odd jobs I did to support myself as an actor.

My plan before the pandemic was to move to Los Angeles to further my career. I still made the move even though I let acting go. The only thing I still had in common with my previous life was my commute to work as a waitress — listening to the news. I thought about Korva Coleman operating a radio board.

I wasn’t alone in having an existential career change crisis at this time. In 2021, a U.S. Catalyst/CNBC poll said that 50% of employees wanted to make a career change because of the pandemic. I spent my days off looking at job postings for my local NPR affiliate stations that I wasn’t qualified for. I would get frustrated that I couldn’t intern because I wasn’t a student.

That’s when I decided to enroll at Pasadena City College. I started last spring with the goal of landing an internship — being a student was just a title to qualify.

Everything I did during my first semester was strategic. I picked Pasadena Community College because it offered internships directly with LAist (formerly KPCC), a non-profit newsroom. I enrolled only in classes that would give me resume-building skills and certificates. By the end of my first semester, with only a couple completed courses, I networked my way to landing the internship position at LAist.

This past summer marked the end of my yearlong internship and, through no fault of my own, I do not have a job.

It still takes all my willpower not to count this as a defeat.

I told myself the title of student was just a qualifier for the internship, but I still made sure I got straight A’s. I took on leadership positions at the school newspaper while I was doing my office work for LAist in class. Anytime I wasn’t at school or at my internship, I was working as a server at a restaurant to pay my bills.

More than 65% of community college students are working more than part-time, according to recent research. And, according to a survey by the RP Group, a nonprofit research center affiliated with the California community colleges, one-third of would-be returning community college students haven’t re-enrolled because they’ve prioritized work.

After this year, I wasn’t planning on enrolling back in school for the fall. But then my journalism professor approached me to be editor-in-chief for the campus newspaper, The Courier. I didn’t respond to him for weeks because I was still in the mindset that my return to college was strictly for the career. Being a student doesn’t pay for my rent, gas and food.

When I was a student in my undergraduate theater program, a professor told me that you should only take an acting job if it meets two of three requirements:
1. It is a paid job and it pays well,
2. It offers an opportunity to network and grow as an actor,
3. And/or it is a dream role.
In other words, should an opportunity only fulfill one of these requirements, don’t bother with it. However, you should not expect every opportunity in your life to meet all three points. Those are few and far between.

I thought about her advice a lot when I returned to college at PCC. Taking the role of editor-in-chief barely makes two out of the three requirements — but then I remembered that this list was to help you with taking jobs in your career, not for being a student.

Being the editor-in-chief this semester has allowed me to push myself to be a better reporter, a stronger editor and a peer to turn to if a student needs help. I get weekly joy from reading work from my classmates who chose to show up simply because they want to learn.

For the first time in this academic journey to change careers, I have found myself at peace being a student learning in a classroom. While I’m still anxious about the unknown, I’m allowing myself to appreciate that I made the first step on this long journey towards a new career.

•••

Laura Dux is a second-year journalism and radio broadcast major at Pasadena City College and editor-in-chief of the student-run newspaper, The Courier. She is a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Source link
04/05/2025
Thousands of California educators issued pink slips again this year

San Diego Unified teachers protest pink slips before a school board meeting last year. The district plans to issue 30 preliminary layoff notices this year.

Courtesy of San Diego Education Association

San Francisco Unified announced the evening of March 13 that it will not lay off classroom teachers.

California school districts are again turning to layoffs to shore up budgets shrunk by declining enrollment, expiring federal Covid relief funds and a leveling off of state funding. So far, more than 2,300 school employees have received preliminary layoff notices, and the number is expected to grow.

More than 2,000 of the pink slips have gone to credentialed school staff — primarily teachers, school nurses and librarians, according to the California Teachers Association, which represents 300,000 school employees.

State law requires that districts send pink slips by March 15 each year to any employee who could be laid off by the end of the school year. Although many of the layoff notices are withdrawn by May 15 — the last day final layoff notices can be given to tenured teachers — the annual practice is criticized by many for demoralizing school staff and causing disruption to school systems.

“Layoffs are devastating and chaotic to our school communities and harm student learning conditions,” said CTA President David Goldberg. “This is even happening in communities like Pasadena, where educators and students lost their homes in wildfires. Our union will not stand by. We will demand that every single one of these notices is rescinded in the coming weeks.”

Pasadena Unified has issued 117 preliminary layoff notices, including 115 to credentialed staff.

Districts tried to avoid large layoffs

Some districts tried to avoid large-scale layoffs by considering other options, including early retirement incentives. San Francisco gave buyouts to 300 veteran teachers and other staff, and Santa Ana Unified gave that option to 166 teachers, but ultimately both districts are still laying off staff.

In fact, the two districts have issued the largest number of pink slips in the state so far, according to CTA data. San Francisco Unified notified 395 teachers of potential layoffs and Santa Ana Unified sent pink slips to 351 teachers, according to the CTA. Santa Ana Unified Chief Business Officer Ron Hacker says that number has since been reduced to 280.

San Francisco Unified, the state’s sixth-largest school district, has been struggling to close a $113 million deficit that helped put it on the list of the state’s most financially strapped districts. The district has also sent preliminary layoff notices to 164 teachers’ aides, and to 278 administrators and other staff.

Santa Ana Unified is attempting to reduce a $180 million structural deficit, but it also needs to reduce staff, Hacker said. In 2018, the school board decided not to pursue layoffs despite overstaffing and a structural deficit. The overstaffing problem continued through Covid when funding was tied to a state stipulation that districts can’t lay off employees, he said.

“The Covid relief grant funds are no longer flowing, and they’re expired, so we’re at the point now where we can’t sustain the counseling ratios and the class sizes that we have,” Hacker said.

The district also plans to make cuts to supplies, services and capital outlay to help balance the budget, Hacker said in an interview last month.

“That being said, 80% of our budget is salary and benefits, so the only way to tackle that entire structural deficit is to include positions too,” he said.

Most districts overstaffed

Some school districts avoided making staffing cuts despite declining enrollment, said Michael Fine, chief executive director of the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team.

“I think if you were to look at some statewide data on staffing versus enrollment, you’d see that almost everybody’s overstaffed in some fashion, at least on the certificated side, which is where we see that data,” Fine said.

Data on support staff, also known as classified staff, is not being collected by the state, he said.

District offered early warning bonuses

Santa Rosa Elementary School District and San Ramon Unified issued more than 100 pink slips to teachers and other credentialed staff in recent months, with the districts sending out 151 and 129 pink slips respectively, according to the CTA list.

Santa Rosa City Schools is trying to trim its budget by $30 million to reduce a structural deficit. The district, which operates 24 schools, has lost 3,000 students over the last decade.

Instead of offering an early retirement incentive, which wouldn’t save money for the district, Santa Rosa Unified gave employees bonuses if they gave advance notice that they wouldn’t be working at the district next school year, said Lisa August, associate superintendent of business services. Employees who gave notice by Jan. 31 received a $1,000 bonus, $750 if they gave notice by Feb. 15, and $500 if by Feb. 28.

The CTA list does not include many districts still in the process of issuing layoff notices, or whose unions did not report their numbers. Among them is Berkeley Unified, whose school board voted last week to notify 180 employees, 10 of whom are teachers, that they could lose their jobs, according to Berkeleyside.

Oakland Unified, which is on the state’s list of most financially strapped districts, also plans to issue 97 pink slips to teachers and central office staff, according to district information. And, Oxnard Union School district projects it will issue 91 pink slips to school staff, including 41 teachers and counselors, according to the Ventura County Star.

Layoffs can make recruitment harder

Layoffs can hurt teacher recruitment and make it more difficult to find teachers for hard-to-fill positions teaching special education, science, math, special education and English learners.

Teacher layoffs during the Great Recession, between 2007 and 2009, are widely considered to be one of the causes of the current teacher shortage because they discouraged people from entering teacher preparation programs. In recent years, enrollment in teacher preparation programs in the state has declined.

It’s unclear how many teachers will actually be laid off before next school year, as many pink slips are rescinded after district officials review credentials, expected retirements and projected enrollment numbers at school sites, and hearings with an administrative law judge are held to determine who stays and who goes.

The annual process can be nerve-wracking for teachers, especially those at the bottom of the seniority list, who could be issued pink slips in consecutive years.

“More than 2,000 educators have received a notice that they may not have a job next year, and tragically, that number increases each day,” Goldberg said. “These are the people who show up every day to teach and care for students in public schools across California — teachers, school counselors, social workers, instructional aides, custodians, and more.

“At a time when our students deserve a stable learning environment, smaller class sizes, and more mental health support, it is unconscionable to even think about laying off public school educators,” Goldberg said.

Source link

15/04/2025
California lawmaker again attempts to make computer science class mandatory

Across more than two dozen Fresno County school districts, Quiq Labs, a tech education company, teaches students science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics through afterschool and summer or winter break enrichment programs.

Photo courtesy of Quiq Labs

Despite decadeslong efforts through legislation, funding and advocacy, California’s schools have still not caught up with — and are falling further behind — three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course.

According to the national 2024 State of Computer Science report, 52% of high schools across California offered computer science in the 2023-24 school year.

In other states, statewide policy has been pivotal in expanding access to computing skills for all students.

What is computer science?

Computer science, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education, is “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society.” Proposed legislation has included the desire for students to go beyond using technology to understand how and why those technologies work.

Assemblymember Marc Berman, for the third time, has introduced legislation to require every public high school to teach a computer science course, a mandate that will bring access to the 48% of California schools that do not offer a single class.

Because Assembly Bill 887 would require schools to implement computer science by the 2029-30 school year, it would expand access to all of California’s students in a way that initiatives have not been able to.

“Not having a requirement,” Berman told EdSource last year, “it’s not yielding the progress that our students deserve.”

The percentage of computer science classes offered statewide has increased slightly in the last 10 years because of legislation supporting standards and course development, funding for teacher training and on-the-ground efforts to address challenges in diverse communities across the state.

In 2014, legislation ordered the Instructional Quality Commission to develop computer science standards. Also, legislation established a method for computer science to satisfy graduation requirements in math.

In 2016, the state passed legislation to allow educators in other disciplines to pursue computer science certification with required coursework.

In 2018, the state adopted its computer science standards to ensure students received high-quality content in the subject.

In 2019, the governor and superintendent of public instruction appointed a committee to develop a long-term strategic plan for the state to provide computer science courses to all students. Computer science is approved to count as a science credit.

In 2021, the state budgeted $20 million to computer science: $5 million for the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, which is professional development for teachers, counselors and administrators, and $15 million for teacher certifications and a statewide coordinator.

Under the Educator Workforce Investment Grant, the state created Seasons of CS, California’s year-round computer science professional learning program.

In 2023, the California Department of Education granted $50 million to expand existing educator professional learning in math, science and computer science. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation, requiring the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish a work group to develop a teacher preparation pathway for computer science to boost the number of qualified course teachers.

For two consecutive years, a bill similar to AB 887 failed to come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which considers the fiscal impact of proposed legislation.

According to the Appropriations Committee’s analysis of the 2024 bill, about 425 school districts would have had to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development to teachers at an unknown cost. The Department of Finance opposed the bill because implementation would cost $50 million to $73 million in ongoing funding from Proposition 98.

In 2023, Berman’s first iteration of the bill requiring all high schools to teach computer science stalled, in part, because of a lack of teachers, CalMatters reported.

The state has, since 2016, invested more than $1.2 billion to address the state’s teacher shortage, including nearly $100 million for computer science teacher training. In 2021, $20 million was allocated to computer science in the state budget: $5 million for the Educator Workforce Investment Grant for professional development of teachers, counselors and administrators and most of $15 million for certifications of educators in other disciplines.

Efforts across California have supported over a thousand educators.

For example, the Small School Districts’ Association, through a nearly $4 million federal CS4NorCal grant, has provided intensive summer workshops for nearly five years as well as ongoing training, coaching and networking throughout the year for educators in small and rural school districts in six Northern California communities of Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta and Siskiyou counties, said Kathy Hamilton and Karen Mix, director and co-director for the grant.

As a result, teachers have integrated computer science into agriculture, communication, media, digital literacy, math, science and general education classes, electives and clubs.

A Redding teacher rotates between five schools to make sure students have access to computer science at least once a week. Middle school teachers have added computer science to their schools’ elective wheels for students to rotate through.

Collaboration between regional and statewide organizations focused on computer science as well as partnerships with local entities that can support program growth and development have also been critical in increasing the number of qualified teachers and expanding access, advocates say.

In the 2018-19 school year, Modoc County high schoolers had no access to any computer science courses, but numerous nonprofits and community organizations have over the last few years participated in training opportunities to better collaborate in the development of computer science. The nonprofit Advancing Modoc, which eventually began leading the implementation, recruited tutors and other staff to support the initiative. Some educators have since integrated computer science into core content classes and offered elective courses.

The professional development, which included year-round training, has led teachers to provide computer science classes, merge concepts into other subjects or offer lessons through electives or clubs.

Even with robust professional development, some challenges persist, particularly the reluctance or inability of administrators to include computer science courses in school offerings.

“In the past, teachers were reporting back to us in our research, ‘I need support from my administrator to make sure that computer science gets on the master schedule, that we are providing more classes to reach more students,’” said Julie Flapan, an educator and researcher leading two initiatives to expand access and participation in computer science.

Amy Pezzoni, computer science teacher at Modesto City Schools, told EdSource last year that passionate teachers are not enough.

“You need admin to support you. You need the district to be on board with you,” she said, noting the importance of a legislative mandate.

Computer science advocates statewide and nationally have recommended a legislative mandate to bolster California’s efforts and increase access to the course.

Since 2013, the Code.org Advocacy Coalition, an organization of over 100 nonprofit, advocacy and industry groups across the country, has made policy recommendations for states to “address the urgent need to build capacity in computer science education,” including statewide policy.

“Strong policies, supported by resources, action, and implementation, are key to building the capacity needed to improve student access, participation, and experience in computer science education,” according to the national computer science report, which the coalition authored.

Legislation requiring schools to offer computer science has been implemented in states such as Arkansas, where all high schools offer computer science, and in neighboring Nevada, where 96% of the state’s high schools offer the course, based on the 2024 report.

Alabama also passed legislation in 2019, phasing in the computer science requirement, starting with high schools, followed by middle and elementary schools. This has resulted in an increase from 57% in the 2019-20 school year to 94% this past school year in the rate of high schools offering computer science and more than 90% of middle and elementary schools teaching computer science.

Akin among Arkansas, Nevada and Alabama is the adoption of the recommended policies and actions by the Code.org Advocacy Coalition.

Although California has implemented most of the policy recommendations — a state plan, state position, funding, K-12 standards, certification programs and allowing it to count for other subjects — the state has not created programs at higher education institutions to encourage aspiring teachers to gain exposure to computer science; nor has it required all schools to offer the course or mandated it as a graduation requirement.

Due to the policy recommendations and the state, regional and local efforts, there’s been a double-digit percentage increase of high schools offering computer science since the 2018-19 school year — still far from the national average of 60%.

In both the 2023 and 2024 national computer science reports, the authors encouraged California to require all high schools to offer at least one computer science course, “as it would greatly help support the 48% of high schools that currently do not offer any (computer) science courses.”

The 2025 legislative attempt to do so passed out of the Assembly Education Committee and was referred to the Appropriations Committee in late March.

If computer science courses become a requirement, some schools, such as small, rural schools, will have a harder time offering computer science because of a teacher shortage. Often, educators are already teaching multiple grades and/or subject areas on top of other duties.

Integrating, or merging computer science into another subject area, may be the best short-term solution to providing the content to students, especially when semester- or year-long courses aren’t offered, said Kathy Hamilton, who works for the Small School Districts’ Association.

“Integration needs to be one of the delivery mechanisms if you want to truly provide access for all students around the state,” she said.

And it will be.

Aware of the unique challenges that some schools face, the legislation acknowledges the need for a course requirement to offer some flexibility. It would require the state’s computer science coordinator to develop an implementation guide that includes “varied computer science course options to best meet local capacity and context,” including computer science concepts being integrated or merged into other subjects.

And thanks to federal and statewide funding and advocates’ regional and local efforts, there are now scores of teachers trained and ready to teach or integrate computer science. Whether that is enough to compel the Legislature to require all schools to teach computer science is unknown.

Source link

12/04/2025