برچسب: approves

  • Backlash mounts as LAUSD approves policy preventing charters on vulnerable campuses

    Backlash mounts as LAUSD approves policy preventing charters on vulnerable campuses


    The LAUSD School Board meeting on Aug. 30, 2022 in Los Angeles. Credit: Julie Leopo, EdSource

    The Los Angeles Unified School District school board voted 4-3 Tuesday to adopt a policy that would prevent charter schools from sharing a campus with the district’s Black Student Achievement Plan (BSAP) schools, community schools and priority schools.

    This decision means that when making co-location offers, the board will try to avoid offers that “compromise district schools’ capacity to serve neighborhood children” and that “result in grade span arrangements that negatively impact student safety and build charter school pipelines that actively deter students from attending district schools.” 

    The policy is months in the making — beginning with a resolution passed in September, mandating that Superintendent Alberto Carvalho devise such a policy. Board members reviewed a draft of his proposal at January’s Committee of the Whole Meeting

    “This policy, in the eyes of some, does not go far enough; and, in the eyes of others, it goes too far,” Carvalho said at Tuesday’s meeting.  “And somehow, experience tells me that any time you’re in that position, you probably achieved some degree of balance.”

    Supporters of the co-location policy, including United Teachers Los Angeles, have claimed that the presence of charters in district schools has created an atmosphere of ongoing hostility and that charter schools take critical resources —  including spaces used for enrichment programs and social-emotional support services — away from district students who are more vulnerable. 

    “Before we became a community school and a BSAP school, we had no arts, no sports, no clubs, and our students [compared] our school to a prison,” said a science teacher who spoke during public comments at Tuesday’s board meeting. 

    “The school has transformed….The students that used to want to leave immediately now want to stay after club hours. And this is only possible because we have the space available to host these resources.” 

    Pro-charter organizations maintain that the new policy is detrimental to the future of charter schools in Los Angeles and that it will likely result in more charters being divided across multiple LAUSD sites. They also anticipate charter closures will become more common. 

    “The district has finally made its intentions clear: to run charter schools out of town,” states a  letter to Carvalho and LAUSD’s school board members by the L.A. Coalition for Excellent Public Schools — consisting of about half of charters in the district — including 107 charter schools that educate more than 50,000 students. 

    “If the district can just elbow charter schools out of the campuses they’ve been sharing – if it can engineer feeder patterns, if it can remove charters from predominantly Black campuses, if it can make it all but impossible for kids to enroll in charters throughout their K-12 education – then L.A. Unified will keep more students and save a few bucks.” 

    The letter further alleges that the district’s policy is not about students’ education or equity, but rather about the district’s enrollment and financial challenges. 

    “The resolution will most immediately and severely impact thousands of predominantly Black and Latino students. Even more alarming is that it paves the way for L.A. Unified to eradicate charter schools altogether, denying so many families their civil rights, their hopes and dreams for their children’s futures.” 

    Myrna Castrejón, president and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, said in a statement that “the decision of the LAUSD Board of Education to enact this policy is divisive, discriminatory, and unlawful.” 

    Castrejón added, ”It is a shameful day when the second-largest school district in the nation puts politics ahead of students and families. . .. Instead of following California law and providing equitable facilities for charter public school students, LAUSD’s Board voted today with their campaign donors and against the very students they took an oath to support.” 

    ‘Merely moving and enlarging challenges’ 

    In addition to a wealth of support, the policy has also garnered backlash — from both pro-charter organizations and from individuals who said the policy doesn’t do enough to protect vulnerable students. 

    “This resolution is the capstone of a relentless, decades-long campaign….to cast blame rather than take responsibility,” the letter reads. 

    A survey conducted by CCSA’s Local Advocacy Team of 28 organizations also found that 10% of charter students in district facilities are Black/African American, in comparison to 4% of all public school students in LAUSD. About 90% of those students are from low income backgrounds.

    Charters were also found to have more socio-economically disadvantaged students and students who are English learners. 

    Meanwhile, the coalition’s letter also states that blocking co-locations on BSAP campuses will lead to fewer charters being able to serve Black students in the long run, adding that it takes “gall to rob Black families of the critical lifeline that our schools provide.” 

    School Board Member Nick Melvoin, who voted against the policy, also said that while he appreciates the policy’s intentions, “the district’s own analysis suggests that this policy will create not fewer, but more co-locations.” 

    “This may placate some folks in the room, but next year, we’ll have folks from 600 other schools back here with concerns because we’re not solving anything,” Melvoin said. “We’re merely moving and enlarging challenges.” 

    Spreading a charter school across multiple campuses can have negative effects, according to charter proponents — and CCSA’s survey specifically found that: 

    • “89% (8/9) reported a negative impact on staffing due to a split campus.”
    • “77% (7/9) reported a negative impact on school culture due to a split campus.”
    • “66% (6/9) reported a negative impact on student enrollment and the ability of families to maintain access to the school due to a split campus.”
    • “66% (6/9) reported a negative impact on school finances due to a split campus.”
    • “55% (5/9) reported a negative impact on programs or academic offerings available to students due to a split campus.” 

    Meanwhile, LAUSD board president Jackie Goldberg, who co-authored the initial resolution passed in September, rebuked claims from charter proponents, insisting that she was not “complaining about charters” and had no intention to “un-do anything.”

    “This resolution simply says if we can undo some of the problems we’ve created, let’s try to do that as we go forward,” Goldberg said. 

    Rather, she faulted Proposition 39 — which requires public school districts to share space with charters — calling it “flawed from the day it was written.”  She also criticized the “privately owned, publicly funded” nature of charter schools. 

    Goldberg also blamed the CCSA and the current state of the charter movement — which she said is more focused on competing with public schools rather than improving them. 

    “Prop 39 overrules everything,” Goldberg claimed on Tuesday. “And the enormous amount of money that the California Charter Schools Association is willing to spend suing districts … .is a design for them to contain power in Sacramento.” 

    Meanwhile, Scott Schmerelson, vice president of the LAUSD school board, who voted in favor of the policy, said that while he sees the policy as a step forward, he also recognizes that some do not feel it is enough to protect the district’s most vulnerable students. 

    “I hear you, I want to say that I understand you don’t feel we’ve done enough,” he said. “But we have made progress. And for now, I am willing to say OK, we will approve this, but we will keep the conversation going.” 

    ‘A substantial risk of litigation’ 

    A letter released by Latham and Watkins LLP on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, claims that the newly adopted policy is illegal and places the district at “a substantial risk of litigation.” 

    “By prioritizing public school students attending District-run schools over public school students who attend charter public schools, the policy violates Proposition 39’s mandate that ‘public school facilities should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools,’” the letter reads. 

    According to the letter, there are currently 13 co-locations on the district’s priority schools this academic year — as well as seven on community schools and 19 on BSAP campuses.  

    “I just hope that as we walk out of this building today,” Carvalho said, “we recognize that at the end of the day, that the only thing that matters, the only thing that should matter…. is what we do for kids, how we do it for kids despite our positions as adults.”





    Source link

  • California Community Colleges approves 6 new bachelor’s degree programs

    California Community Colleges approves 6 new bachelor’s degree programs


    Dental hygiene program at Fresno College.

    Credit: Fresno City College

    Six additional bachelor’s degree programs have been approved across California’s community colleges, the state chancellor’s office for the college system announced. 

    With the approvals, there are now 39 bachelor’s degree programs that are being offered or will soon be offered across the community college system. 

    The latest programs to be approved include respiratory care at Antelope Valley College, paramedicine at College of the Siskiyous, dental hygiene at both Cypress College and Oxnard College, paralegal studies at Santa Ana College and respiratory care therapist at Victor Valley College.

     “Through the Baccalaureate Degree Program we are broadening the reach of higher education and skill development to a greater number of students by offering affordable and quality opportunities close to home,” Aisha Lowe, an executive vice chancellor for the college system, said in a statement.

    There are now 32 different community colleges across the state with at least one bachelor’s degree program. A few colleges have multiple offerings, including Antelope Valley, Cypress and Santa Ana with their latest approvals.

    The number of bachelor’s degrees being offered across the community colleges will likely continue to increase. In January, colleges submitted another 13 program applications that are currently under review. 

    Under a 2021 state law, the community college system can approve up to 30 bachelor’s degrees annually, across two cycles each year. The degrees are all offered in high-demand career fields such as dental hygiene and automotive education. 

    By offering those degrees at the community college level, students can earn a bachelor’s degree for a fraction of what it costs to get one at a four-year university. In some cases, the degrees are also more accessible, since there are some community colleges offering them in parts of the state where there isn’t a University of California or California State University campus.

    To get approved, the programs must first go through intersegmental review, a process in which the California State University and the University of California systems get to say whether they object to the degrees. Under state law, the programs can’t duplicate programs that are offered at UC or CSU.

    That has been a point of contention, particularly with CSU, which has raised duplication concerns about several programs that community colleges have proposed, something that has delayed the approval process. Currently, 11 programs remain under intersegmental review.

    Community college officials say they are working with CSU officials to establish a better process for resolving those disputes more quickly in the future.

    Because the community colleges can’t create bachelor’s degree programs that are already available at CSU and UC, they have been prevented from offering degrees in some fields with worker shortages, such as nursing. Newly proposed legislation aims to change that: Senate Bill 895 would allow 15 community colleges to begin offering bachelor’s degrees in nursing.





    Source link

  • UC approves policy to limit faculty speech on websites

    UC approves policy to limit faculty speech on websites


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

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    This story was updated to reflect the full UC board of regents vote on the policy.

    University of California faculty will face some new limits on how they can use university websites to share political opinions, such as criticism of Israel, under a policy approved by the system’s board of regents. The policy is less restrictive than previous proposed versions after regents made some concessions to faculty.

    The policy would prevent faculty departments and other academic units from sharing opinionated statements on the homepages of department websites. Those statements will be permitted elsewhere on the websites, however, so long as they include a disclaimer that the opinions don’t represent the entire campus or UC. 

    The approval of the policy followed months of negotiations with Academic Senate leaders. The latest version specifies that statements related to faculty’s “scholarly endeavors” are allowed, a reassuring clarification to Senate leaders. It will also allow for homepages to include links to political statements. Some UC faculty, however, remain unsatisfied with the policy and argue that it infringes on their academic freedom.

    “What we’re protecting is for the public or for the university community to think that statements being made on individual websites are reflective of the University of California when they’re not,” said regent Jay Sures, who introduced the policy. 

    The policy was cleared Wednesday during a joint meeting of the board’s academic affairs committee and the compliance and audit committee. The academic affairs committee voted 9-1, with one abstention. The compliance and audit committee voted 6-1, with one abstention.

    The full board then voted 13-1 to approve the policy Thursday. The lone regent to vote against it was Josiah Beharry, the student regent on the board. Beharry, who sits on the academic affairs and compliance and audit committees, was also the only vote against the policy in both committees.

    Last fall, some faculty departments published opinionated statements on their websites criticizing Israel’s war in Gaza, setting off the current debate. The ethnic studies department at UC Santa Cruz, for example, posted a statement calling on “scholars, researchers, organizers, and administrators worldwide” to take action “to end Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza.”

    The first version of the proposal to limit what faculty can say was brought to the regents in January. A vote on the policy was tabled at the time, and delayed twice more at regents meetings in March and May, before Wednesday’s vote. 

    Some faculty have criticized the regents for taking up the issue at all, saying it is outside their purview and that it infringes on academic freedom.

    But in the months since the original version of the policy, regents worked with Academic Senate leaders to refine the proposal. The Senate considers the latest policy “a marked improvement over previous drafts and generally consonant with free expression and academic freedom,” said James Steintrager, the 2023-24 chair of the Senate, during remarks prior to Wednesday’s vote.

    Steintrager called it a “welcome addition” that the latest version clarifies that statements related to scholarly endeavors won’t be banned from homepages. Commentary by public health faculty on the importance of vaccines, for example, would be permitted. 

    Steintrager added that the policy “is not a ban on discretionary or political statements.” Instead, he noted, it “imposes certain requirements and guardrails” on those statements, including ensuring that the statements don’t impose on faculty who might hold different views.

    Another concession to the faculty is that links to political statements will be permitted on the homepages of department websites. Only the statements themselves cannot appear on the homepages. 

    Despite the changes, some faculty remain concerned that the policy violates their free speech rights. Jennifer Mogannam, an assistant professor in UC Santa Cruz’s ethnic studies department, said she views the policy as targeting ethnic studies faculty and pro-Palestinian speech.

    Mogannam is one of multiple Palestinian studies scholars in the Santa Cruz department and said statements about Israel’s war in Gaza should be considered part of their scholarly endeavors. But she’s worried it won’t be seen that way.

    “I’m sure we’re going to be seeing double standards in terms of what’s allowed and what’s not when this policy is being implemented,” Mogannam said.

    Ultimately, the implementation and enforcement of the policy will be left to each individual campus, with campus chancellors having the final say. Each academic department that plans to share political statements will be required to “develop and publish procedures” detailing how they plan to comply with the new policy. 

    UC President Michael Drake credited regents and Senate leaders for their collaboration on the policy, saying it had been “developed and refined in a way that makes it much more easily supportable.” 

    “I think it will have good ramifications and actually will reverberate back to the units and help guide them in the way that they’re communicating their positions,” he added.





    Source link

  • UC approves hefty tuition increase for non-Californians

    UC approves hefty tuition increase for non-Californians


    UCLA campus in westwood on Nov. 18, 2023.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    This story was updated to note that the full board of regents voted to approve the tuition increase.

    The University of California will increase annual tuition by $3,402 for out-of-state undergraduate students who enter the university next fall, under a plan approved Thursday by the system’s board of regents. That will bring the total cost of tuition for nonresident students to $52,536. 

    Tuition for incoming California residents will not be impacted by the policy, but those students still face separate, inflation-based increases that UC previously approved. Next year’s incoming class of Californians will pay about $500 more in tuition than the 2024-25 cohort, bringing the total to $14,934 before campus fees.

    The supplemental tuition charged to UC’s nonresident undergraduates will go from $34,200 to $37,602 — a 9.9% increase. The supplemental portion is on top of UC’s base tuition charged to in-state students. The total $52,536 price for nonresidents will be frozen for that cohort of incoming students for up to six years. 

    The hike, which was opposed by student leaders, was approved by the full board Thursday. It had cleared the regents’ finance and capital strategies committee on Wednesday.

    Nonresident students in fall 2023 made up 16.6% of UC’s total undergraduate enrollment, or 38,701 students from other states and nations. More than half of those, just under 21,000, are international students. 

    The share of out-of-state students varies greatly across the campuses, with Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego campuses enrolling the most. In recent years, however, those three campuses have started to reduce enrollment of nonresident students at the direction of state lawmakers, who have provided UC funding to replace spots for nonresidents with Californians at those campuses. 

    The increase for now is a one-time hike, but UC could raise tuition further for future entering classes when it sets its budget for future years. Short of that, those future cohorts could also still be subject to inflation-based tuition increases, thanks to the plan UC previously approved for annual tuition hikes that apply to both resident and nonresident undergraduates.

    In defending the tuition raise, Nathan Brostrom, UC’s chief financial officer, cited a challenging 2025-26 budget outlook for the university. As part of this year’s state budget agreement, UC was told to prepare for annual budget cuts of 7.95% beginning in 2025-26. “So that was why the timing made sense,” he said.

    UC officials also said UC’s tuition for nonresident students is relatively low compared to peer institutions. At public universities in Virginia and Michigan, out-of-state students pay $7,000 and $11,500 more in nonresident fees than students at UC, according to UC officials.

    “We were quite a bit behind. And so that’s why we looked at whether we had some headroom to raise it,” Brostrom said in an interview.

    Separately, a UC spokesperson said in a statement that the increase will “support core operations” amid anticipated state budget cuts “without raising costs for current students and California residents.”

    The cost of UC’s supplemental nonresident tuition has steadily increased over the years. The regents approved a $762 hike in 2019, and the supplemental portion has been subject to further increases since the 2022-23 academic year as part of the annual tuition increases UC approved in 2021. But the increase approved Thursday represents by far the largest of those hikes.

    The approval of the tuition hike came over the objections of several students, including Eduardo Tapia, who is the university affairs chair for the UC Student Association.

    “Opportunity to higher education should not face any more barriers,” Tapia said during the Wednesday’s public comment period. “Instead of increasing the salaries of UC administrators, let’s make sure college is more affordable for all.”

    Francis Villanueva, an undergraduate student at UCLA, expressed concern that the tuition increase would impact the “most underserved, underprivileged, and marginalized” students across UC.

    “UC claims that the UC system is already cheaper than other institutions across the nation,” Villanueva added during Wednesday’s public comment period. “But in such a crucial time as this one where futures are on the line, how can the UC claim to care about students and making higher education affordable?”

    Brostrom, the UC chief financial officer, said he appreciates the students’ “passion” about the policy, but added that UC’s out-of-state students skew toward higher income brackets. Nonresident students aren’t eligible for Cal Grants, the financial aid awards available to California residents. Domestic out-of-state students can qualify for federal Pell Grants, but international students do not.





    Source link