اینترنت

برچسب: big

  • California faces big challenges to implement new math guidelines

    California faces big challenges to implement new math guidelines


    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    After a contentious road to approve a new set of statewide guidelines on teaching students math, California officials must still figure out how to support school districts with implementation.

    The 2023 Math Framework, which the State Board of Education passed in July, is a 1,000-page document that details what many state and education officials accept as the best practices to teach mathematics. Although not everyone agreed and controversies arose during the four years of work it took to reach approval, math experts and organizations across the state are beginning to have conversations about what a statewide rollout could look like.

    The state hasn’t provided funding for implementation, which is typical, said Mike Torres, director of curriculum frameworks and instructional resources for the Department of Education. Historically, any framework rollout isn’t funded and is implemented with outside collaborators who are experts in the topic. For the most part, district officials must find ways to fund professional development on their own.

    “This situation with the mathematics framework is not different,” Torres said. “There isn’t any specific funding where we can pay experts to help us participate in webinars … or put on events.”

    It’s unclear why California historically hasn’t set aside money to help districts with implementation once new guidelines are passed. But that could change. 

    During a press conference last month, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond said he intends to introduce legislation for funding for professional development for those teaching math and reading. The funds could be up to $500 million, he said. 

    Torres said the California Department of Education would need to find other ways to offset costs if events will be held. It’s too early to know what kind of rollout could or will happen. Torres and his team have had three meetings with groups they work with to talk about a framework rollout, he said. 

    There are many organizations collaborating with the California Department of Education on implementing the math framework, including the California Mathematics Project, California County Superintendents Curricular and Improvement Support Community (CISC), California Math Council, California Teachers Association, and County Offices of Education. 

    During other framework rollouts, districts have sent teams of teachers and administrators to training and then had them relay information to the rest of the staff, said Kyndall Brown, one of the framework authors and executive director of the California Mathematics Project – one of the state’s partners. It’s something that could be replicated during a math framework rollout. 

    Even if there are conferences teachers can attend, one professor says she isn’t a huge fan. 

    “One day of hearing these ideas doesn’t necessarily translate into having a balanced curriculum – at all,” said Karajean Hyde, co-director of the UC Irvine Math Project. “It doesn’t necessarily create change in the classroom.”

    To create changes that will increase students’ proficiency in math, teachers need trainers who will work with them in and outside of classrooms on a consistent basis, Hyde said, which is work she does with her colleguues. 

    School districts do have pots of funding that could be used toward professional development, Brown said, such as special education funds or funds from the Local Control Funding Formula.

    However, a $50 million math, science, and computer science professional learning grant the governor allocated in the 2022 budget could help to fund professional development. Some allocations have been given to the County Offices of Education, Torres said, and the offices handle how the money is used.

    The timing of the grant worked out perfectly with the beginning of a math framework rollout, said Ellen Barger, an associate superintendent of curriculum and instruction at the Santa Barbara County Office of Education. Other grant funds are being used to support rural school districts in particular and the most recent grant will help to continue building coherence across all counties and to fill gaps. 

    “The framework is one of the tools that’s helping us achieve a vision of high-quality 

    mathematics for every California student, and we are building structures to bring people together to build knowledge and skills to operationalize that vision in every county, district, and community,” Barger said.

    Equity in implementation

    As of this school year, there will be 939 school districts in the state that will have to find resources to support educators in teaching under the new guidelines, which align with the California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics that were passed a decade ago. 

    How to make that equitable will be a difficult task. 

    Each school district has different needs, unique populations, and different levels of resources. For example, a district with more than 50,000 students will typically have more resources and staff to support professional development. A district with less than 50 kids might just have one staffer who is taking on multiple roles.

    There are some school districts that haven’t yet finished implementing the common core standards, Brown said. The common core standards detail what students in each grade level need to master.

    “There was no rollout of the 2013 framework (common core standards),” Brown said. “You had county offices and math project sites doing what we could, but we’re running into teachers who still don’t know about the elements of the common core standards.”

    There are also always new teachers coming into schools who will need to be trained, Brown said. “We have years and years worth of content.”

    But at least some colleges of education at California universities have had many aspects of the math framework already embedded in their curricula for the last decade. Professors at UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UC Riverside all spoke about how ideas in the framework have been used in their classrooms and the long history of controversy over how to teach math.

    Karajean Hyde, co-director of the UC Irvine Math Project, works with districts to train teachers on how to teach math and students in the credential program. For years, she said, the focus has been on student engagement, understanding motivation, including student identities in lessons, and building healthy classrooms – all included in the math framework. 

    Most teachers teach the way they were taught, Hyde said, and learned shortcuts to solving math problems. It results in current and future teachers not understanding the mathematics behind what they’re teaching. 

    During professional development training, Hyde and other Irvine professors make sure educators begin to understand the concepts behind what they are teaching, she said. They spend time co-planning lessons, observing lessons being taught, and relating what they are teaching back to the common core standards.

    “We need to make sure teachers understand the math and how to teach the math first and then it’s easier to help them consider – ‘How do I make this more engaging? How do I connect this back to the kid’s prior experience?’” Hyde said. 

    If teachers don’t understand the content “I fear they will just have a series of super fun, engaging lessons that kids feel super good about but they’re not actually mastering mathematics,” Hyde said. “I feel in turn is going to really increase the achievement gaps that we already have that are horrible in California.”

    The professional development work UC Irvine is doing has helped the two dozen districts they work with, but there are still many districts that don’t have this kind of support in place. 

    It will take years until every student in California is exposed to a way of learning math that follows the guidelines in the framework and Brown says, “Something needs to change.”

    Only about 35% of California students met or exceeded math standards this year, only about 1% higher than the previous year. Smarter Balanced Assessment results were lower for Black and brown students. 

    About 17% of African-American students and nearly 23% of Hispanic students in the state

    met or exceeded math standards in 2023, which was only about a 1% increase from the prior year. Brown called the results “horrendous.” 

    “It’s more than obvious the current system is failing too many people,” Brown said. “It’s long overdue – time to make some changes so we can see some different outcomes.”

    A Long Way to Go

    The final version of the framework was posted last month on the California Department of Education website. Officials are still working on a professionally edited version of the framework, which can take about a year, Torres said.

    Although school districts have access to the final version of the framework, it will still take up to two more years to have math materials that are vetted and approved by the state board that align with the framework, Torres said. Some publishers have likely started to write new materials. 

    The earliest the State Board of Education will kick off an adoption of math instructional materials is January – when the board approves a schedule of hearings. Districts aren’t required to use the materials approved by the state board, Torres said, but it’s helpful for implementation. 

    School districts also don’t have deadlines for when the framework needs to be implemented, Brown said. Every district is on its own timeline.

    Barger said a rollout isn’t an event, but an ongoing process of continuous improvement that could take the next six or seven years.





    Source link

  • The Senate Passes Trump’s Big Ugly Budget Deal, and Vouchers Are in It

    The Senate Passes Trump’s Big Ugly Budget Deal, and Vouchers Are in It


    The U.S. Senate just passed Trump’s massive budget bill, which renews tax cuts for the rich and makes deep cuts to Medicaid, about $1 trillion. Three Republican Senators voted against it: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine. Vice-President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. Many hoped that Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would also oppose the bill but the leadership bought her off by adding special exemptions and benefits for Alaskans.

    In The Washington Post:

    Combined with the impact of Trump’s tariffs — which the White House has argued will help pay for the bill’s tax cuts and new spending — the bottom 80 percent of households would see their take-home incomes fall, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

    “The right way to understand this bill is it is the largest wealth transfer from the poorest Americans to the richest Americans in modern history,” said Natasha Sarin, the Budget Lab’s president.

    Shortly before the bill passed, I received two reports on the education section. Contrary to earlier reports, the Republicans restored vouchers. Apparently they satisfied the objections of the Senate Parliamentarian or decided to ignore them.

    Leigh Dingerson, public school advocate who works for “In the Public Interest,” sent out this update shortly before the Senate passed the bill. The biggest takeaway: Vouchers are in again.

    For the last 24 hours (more, actually), the Senate has been voting on a slew of amendments to the bill. Most are going down along party lines. At the same time, the Senate parliamentarian has been reviewing the bill for germaneness.  She has struck out several provisions including, initially, the voucher language (this was Friday). But it was reinserted Saturday morning. Since then, some tweaks to the voucher language were made in an effort to win over some reluctant senators. Each time the language was changed, it had to go back through the parliamentarian. 

    This morning at about 2:15 am, Senator Hirono, along with Senators Reed, Kaine and van Hollen, presented their amendment on the floor of the Senate — an amendment to strike the voucher section altogether.  That amendment needed 51 votes to pass.  It got 50.  All the Democrats voted in favor. All Republicans with the exception of Senators Fischer, Collins and Murkowski opposed it.

     The voucher language currently in the bill has some important differences from where it started. Here are some key changes to the bill:

    • The tax credit is permanent, and now unlimited. There is no federal ceiling on how much can be spent. Republicans removed the $4 billion volume cap on the total amount of donations.
    • But!!  Current language limits the amount a donor can get a tax credit on: The text now allows any individual to donate to an SGO for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit worth $1,700 (rather than 10% of adjusted gross income originally).
    • States can now “opt in” to the program and must provide a list of approved scholarship granting organizations. And the bill clarifies that SGOs can only administer school vouchers within their state. This eliminates our worry that an SGO in Florida, for example, could hand out vouchers in Nebraska.
    • The Senate has removed the provision asserting that there shall be no Federal control over private or religious schools.  In other words, the door has been opened to federal regulation of schools funded with federal vouchers.
    • The bill provides broad authority for the Secretary of Treasury to regulate the program, including explicit authority to regulate scholarship granting organizations and opening the door to regulate private schools.

    So as you can see, there have been a lot of changes, some good, some bad. 

    ###############

    The NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION released the following statement:

    National Coalition for Public Education Denounces Senate Vote on Private School Voucher Program in “OBBB”

    Today, the Senate voted to include an uncapped national private school voucher program in its budget reconciliation bill. This represents the first time a majority of the lawmakers in the U.S. Senate have ever supported sending public dollars to private schools. Now that both chambers have voiced their support for private school voucher provisions, it is likely to become law this year, forcing tax dollars to support private religious schools that can pick and choose who they educate and discriminate explicitly against students with disabilities.

    Vouchers divert critical funds from public schools, which 90% of American families choose for their children to attend. Vouchers often go to students who never attended public schools in the first place, which drains taxpayer funds to subsidize private school tuition for well-off families who could afford it without money from the government. Under this harmful program, there will be no accountability for money sent to private schools, nor would the private schools be bound by key provisions of federal civil rights laws, which public schools follow.

    If this becomes law, the federal government will give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to people who give money to use for payments for children to attend private schools or be homeschooled. This was not done previously with any other 501(c)3 donation in our history, and no other non-profit classified as a 501(c)3) would benefit from this one-to-one tax lowering scheme.

    America’s public schools educate all students in every community. Private schools that take taxpayer-funded vouchers, however, often discriminate against students for any number of reasons, including based on their disability status, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, English language ability, academic abilities, disciplinary history, ability to pay tuition, or what their family looks like. The language that was in the House-passed bill about private schools maintaining policies that do not take into account whether or not a student has an Individualized Education Program (though these are not full protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) was stripped in the Senate bill and supporters of the voucher provision criticized this language.

    Public schools are a cornerstone of American democracy. NCPE condemns Congress diverting billions of dollars away from public education and toward discriminatory, ineffective private school vouchers



    Source link

  • The missing element in Cal State’s big investment in AI

    The missing element in Cal State’s big investment in AI


    Credit: Matheus Bertelli / Pexels

    A recent New York Times investigation revealed OpenAI’s ambition to make artificial intelligence the “core infrastructure” of higher education. In California, that vision is already a reality: The California State University system has committed $16.9 million to provide ChatGPT Edu to 460,000 students across its 23 campuses. But this massive investment misses a crucial opportunity to develop the strategic thinking capabilities that make students genuinely valuable in an AI-augmented workplace.

    The irony is striking. OpenAI helped to create the problem of students outsourcing critical thinking to chatbots, and now presents itself as the solution by making that outsourcing even more seamless. Recent research in Psychology Today found a negative correlation between frequent AI use and critical thinking abilities, particularly among younger users. When students delegate decision-making and problem-solving to AI, they bypass the very mental processes that build strategic capabilities.

    California State University’s investment in ChatGPT Edu is significant and potentially transformative. But spending almost $17 million on AI tools without a strategic framework is like buying students calculators without teaching them mathematics. The investment is sound; what’s missing is teaching students how to direct these powerful capabilities strategically rather than becoming dependent on them.

    Students in the CSU system already possess remarkable strategic thinking skills that traditional academic metrics don’t capture. Here are a few examples. Working multiple jobs while attending school requires sophisticated resource optimization. Supporting families demands stakeholder management and priority balancing. Navigating complex bureaucracies develops systems thinking. Translating between different cultural communities builds pattern recognition across domains.

    These aren’t just life experiences — they’re strategic capabilities that, when developed and articulated, become powerful career advantages in an AI-augmented workplace. The goal should be to help students recognize and leverage these skills, not replace them with chatbot dependency.

    European business schools are already proving that the strategy-focused approach works. At Essec Business School, outside of Paris, executive education programs focus on developing “strategically fluent leaders” who use AI as a strategic tool rather than a replacement for thinking. Students learn to maintain strategic direction while leveraging AI capabilities — exactly what CSU students need. When executives can apply strategic frameworks to AI integration, they don’t merely use the technology better; they direct it toward genuine business value.

    A recent University of Chicago Law School study found that even AI systems trained on specific course materials made “significant legal errors” that could be “harmful for learning.” This isn’t about AI’s current limitations; it’s about the fundamental difference between tactical execution and strategic judgment. AI excels at processing information within defined parameters, but strategic thinking requires the uniquely human ability to see patterns across domains, understand complex motivations, and envision new possibilities.

    The democratization of AI tools actually creates unprecedented opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to translate their strategic insights into career success. But only if we teach strategic frameworks, not just tool usage.

    In my courses at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School — spanning advertising, social media, public relations and political communications — I’m developing approaches that emphasize strategic thinking alongside AI capabilities. Rather than just teaching AI literacy, I focus on helping students develop strategic frameworks for directing these tools effectively. The goal isn’t AI literacy — it’s strategic literacy enhanced by AI capabilities.

    Rather than criticizing CSU’s AI investment, we should help the system maximize its value. Imagine courses that help students identify their strategic thinking patterns from real-world experience, develop frameworks for human-AI collaboration, and practice directing AI capabilities toward strategic goals. Students would graduate not as AI users, but as strategic directors of AI — exactly what employers need, and exactly what justifies CSU’s significant investment.

    This isn’t about rejecting AI in education. It’s about ensuring that as AI handles tactical execution, we develop the strategic thinking capabilities that become more valuable, not less. CSU students bring strategic insights from lived experience that no chatbot can replicate. The question is whether we’ll help them recognize and develop these capabilities, or teach them to depend on tools instead.

    We don’t need AI-native universities. We need strategic-thinking native students who can direct AI capabilities toward human purposes. That’s the transformation worth investing in.

    •••

    Steve Caplan teaches strategic communications at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism and is the author of “Strategy First: Thriving in the Face of Technological Disruption.”

    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

  • Randi Weingarten: Trump’s Big Bad Bill Is Good for His Billionaire Buddies

    Randi Weingarten: Trump’s Big Bad Bill Is Good for His Billionaire Buddies


    The American Federation of Teachers released a statement by its President Randi Weingarten:

    Contact:
    Andrew Crook
    607-280-6603
    acrook@aft.org

    AFT’s Weingarten on Senate’s Big, Ugly Betrayal of America’s Working Families

    As we prepare to celebrate our independence, the promise of the American dream, of freedom and prosperity for all, is now further out of reach.’

    WASHINGTON—AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement after the Senate passed President Trump’s billionaire tax scam:

    “This is a big, ugly, obscene betrayal of American working families that was rammed through the Senate in the dead of night to satisfy a president determined to hand tax cuts to his billionaire friends.

    “These are tax cuts paid for by ravaging the future: kicking millions off healthcare, closing rural hospitals, taking food from children, stunting job growth, hurting the climate, defunding schools and ballooning the debt. It will siphon money away from public schools through vouchers—which harm student achievement and go mostly to well-off families with kids already in private schools. It’s the biggest redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in decades—far worse, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, than the version passed by the House.

    “But if you only listened to those who voted yes, you wouldn’t have heard anything like that. You would’ve heard bad faith attempts to rewrite basic laws of accounting so they could assert that the bill won’t grow the deficit. You would’ve heard false claims about what it will do to healthcare and public schools and public services, which are the backbone of our nation.

    “The reality is that the American people have rejected, in poll after poll, this bill’s brazen deception. As it travels back to the House and presumably to the president’s desk, we will continue to sound the alarm and let those who voted for it know they have wounded the very people who voted them into office. But it is also incumbent on us to fight forward for an alternative: for working-class tax cuts and for full funding of K-12 and higher education as engines of opportunity and democracy.

    “Sadly, as we prepare to celebrate our independence, the promise of the American dream, of freedom and prosperity for all, is now further out of reach.”

     ###

    The AFT represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.



    Source link

  • David Dayen: What Else Is Included in the Big Ugly Budget Bill?

    David Dayen: What Else Is Included in the Big Ugly Budget Bill?


    Since this is a mostly education blog, I have covered the budget debate by focusing on what the GOP is doing to maim public schools and enrich private (especially religious schools). In the past, Republicans were strong supporters of public schools. But the billionaires came along and brought their checkbooks with them.

    The rest of the Ugly bill is devastating to people who struggle to get by. Deep cuts to Medicaid, which will force the closure of many rural hospitals. Cuts to anything that protects the environment or helps phase out our reliance on fossil fuels. Well, at least Senator Schumer managed to change the name of the bill, new name not yet determined.

    One Republican vote could have sunk the bill. But Senator Murkowski got a mess of pottage.

    David Dayen writes in The American Prospect:

    Welcome to “Trump’s Beautiful Disaster,” a pop-up newsletter about the Republican tax and spending bill, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in a generation. Sign up for the newsletter to get it in your in-box.

    By the thinnest of margins, the U.S. Senate completed work on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Tuesday morning, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn’t take quite as much food away from Alaskans.

    The new text, now 887 pages, was released at 11:20 a.m. ET. The finishing touches of it, which included handwritten additions to the text, played out live on C-SPAN, with scenes of the parliamentarian and a host of staff members from both parties huddled together.

    At the very end, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer knocked out the name “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” with a parliamentary maneuver, on the grounds that it was ridiculous (which is hard to argue). It’s unclear what this bill is even called now, but that hardly matters. The final bill passed 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.

    Murkowski was able to secure a waiver from cost-sharing provisions that would for the first time force states to pay for part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In order to get that past the Senate parliamentarian, ten states with the highest payment error rates had to be eligible for the five-year waiver, including big states like New York and Florida, and several blue states as well. 

    The expanded SNAP waivers mean that in the short-term only certain states with average or even below-average payment error rates will have to pay into their SNAP program; already, the language provided that states with the lowest error rates wouldn’t have to pay. “The Republicans have rewarded states that have the highest error rates in the country… just to help Alaska, which has the highest error rate,” thundered Sen. Amy Klobuchar (R-MN), offering an amendment to “strike this fiscal insanity” from the bill. The amendment failed along party lines.

    The new provision weakens the government savings for the bill at a time when the House Freedom Caucus is calling the Senate version a betrayal of a promise to link spending cuts to tax cuts. But those House hardliners will ultimately have to decide whether to defy Donald Trump and reject the hard-fought Senate package, which only managed 50 votes, or to cave to their president.

    In addition, Murkowski got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages and whaling captains inserted into the bill. Medicaid provisions that would have boosted the federal share of the program for Alaska didn’t get through the parliamentarian; even a handwritten attempt to help out Alaska on Medicaid was thrown out at the last minute. But Murkowski still made off with a decent haul, which was obviously enough for her to vote yes.

    All Republicans except for Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted for the bill. Tillis and Collins are in the two most threatened seats among Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections; Tillis decided to retire rather than face voters while passing this bill. Paul, a libertarian, rejected the price tag and the increase in the nation’s debt limit that is folded into the bill.

    Other deficit hawks in the Senate caved without even getting a vote to deepen the Medicaid cuts. That could be the trajectory in the House with Freedom Caucus holdouts. But the House also has problems with their handful of moderates concerned about the spending slashes in the bill.

    The bill was clinched with a “wraparound” amendment that made several changes, including the elimination of a proposed tax on solar and wind energy production that would have made it impossible to build new renewable energy projects. The new changes now also grandfather in tax credits to solar and wind projects that start construction less than a year after enactment of the bill. Even those projects would have to be placed in service by 2027. The “foreign entities of concern” provision was also tweaked to make it easier for projects that use a modicum of components from China to qualify for tax credits.

    The bill still phases out solar and wind tax credits rather quickly, and will damage energy production that is needed to keep up with soaring demand. But it’s dialed down from apocalyptic to, well, nearly apocalyptic. And this is going to be another source of anger to the Freedom Caucus, which wanted a much quicker phase-out of the energy tax credits.

    The wraparound amendment also doubled the size of the rural hospital fund to $50 billion. The Senate leadership’s initial offer on this fund was $15 billion. Overnight the Senate rejected an amendment from Collins that would have raised the rural hospital fund to $50 billion. Even at that size—which will be parceled out for $10 billion a year for five years—it hardly makes up for nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts, which are permanent. The hospital system is expected to buckle as a result of this legislation, if it passes.

    Some taxes, including a tax on third-party “litigation finance,” were removed in the final bill. But an expanded tax break for real estate investment trusts, which was in the House version, snuck into the Senate bill at the last minute.

    The state AI regulation ban was left out of the final text after a 99-1 rejection of it in an amendment overnight.

    The action now shifts to the House, where in addition to Freedom Caucus members concerned about cost, several moderates, including Reps. David Valadao (R-CA) and Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), have balked at the deep spending cuts to Medicaid and other programs.



    Source link

  • Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles

    Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles


    Is this a picture of something bad, or something good?

    Cognitive scientists call this the global-local processing dilemma: Do we perceive the overall image, or focus on the details? Education policy often faces the same question: Can a policy be considered “good” if the overall data look promising, but the day-to-day experiences feel “bad?”

    This tension is at the heart of California’s college math reforms.

    Like the image, the story of these policies may look “good” from a distance, but “bad” up close.

    Before recent reforms, community college students who needed extra math support were typically placed in remedial courses like elementary algebra. These classes didn’t count toward transfer requirements, and most students stuck in them never made it to a math course needed to transfer to a four-year university, such as college algebra or introductory statistics. This created an academic dead end for many.

    A 2017 law, Assembly Bill 705, changed that. It used high school grades for placement and gave more students direct access to transfer-level courses, with corequisite support (a support course taken concurrently with a transfer-level course) when needed. Instead of multi-semester remediation, students could move into transfer-level math courses faster.

    While challenges remain, the approach led to significant improvements. In 2016-17, before AB 705 was announced, only 27% of students passed a transfer-level math course within one year. But in 2019-20, the first full year of AB 705’s implementation, that number had nearly doubled to 51%. And by 2023-24, it reached 62%. About 30,000 more students were fulfilling their math requirements each year. The story is similar in English courses, and so it’s undeniable that AB 705 has helped California’s community college students get one step closer to transfer. 

    Despite these gains, many faculty don’t see AB 705 as a success. As one instructor put it, “There are a lot more people failing than before … largely students of color. … By making this change (i.e., AB 705) around equity, we’ve created an inequitable system.” And the data do show that pass rates have declined. 

    But here’s the catch: Far more students are now taking those courses. The graph below helps illustrate this shift using data from one community college district. Before AB 705, only a small fraction of students reached transfer-level math, but with high pass rates, as shown by the darker blue shading within the dashed box. After AB 705, access expanded, but pass rates declined from 80% to 70%. Critically, that’s 70% of a much larger group.

    With such an improvement, why do some faculty feel like the policy is a failure? 

    Because of this paradox: AB 705 absolutely led to more students passing. But it also led to more students failing. 

    People respond more strongly to stories than to statistics, and losses loom larger than gains. The students we see struggling — their faces, their frustration, their stories — linger longer than a bar graph showing statewide gains. As faculty members, we know this all too well. We remember the students who didn’t make it. We think about what we could’ve done differently. We agonize over them.

    And often, faculty haven’t been given the full picture. Our research has found that many instructors hadn’t even seen outcome data on AB 705’s impact. So, without that context, and given the classroom experience, it’s reasonable to assume the policy failed.

    This disconnect is a classic challenge in public policy: a policy can be effective overall but still feel painful on the ground. And this tension is always a part of the hard work of building systemic justice. AB 705 succeeded in dismantling long-standing barriers and expanding access to transfer-level math. But that progress has introduced new classroom dynamics that feel personal, urgent and overwhelming to faculty. Good policy must account for both the big-picture gains and the human cost of change. Reforms don’t succeed on data alone. They require understanding, empathy and support for those doing the work.

    And just as faculty were beginning to adjust to AB 705, we face Assembly Bill 1705, a sharper and even more controversial new policy. It asks colleges to stretch even more, limiting their ability to offer even prerequisite math courses. Understandably, many educators are still reeling. They’re trying to adapt to new expectations while managing unintended consequences in their classrooms. Recent guidance has softened the rollout, but confusion remains. The stakes are high, and many faculty feel mistrustful and angry.

    If AB 705 taught us anything, it’s that mistrust grows when there’s a gap between what the data show and what people experience. This is why the next phase of work cannot be just about compliance or policy enforcement. It must be about storytelling, listening and solutions. Faculty need to see the big picture. Policymakers need to understand life on the ground. The policy “worked” in aggregate, but not without professional and emotional cost. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very equity goals these reforms were meant to achieve.

    Like the image above, the truth lies in seeing both levels clearly. We must acknowledge the trade-offs, the tension, and the very real pain of transition. Let’s take concerns seriously without retreating from hard-won progress. Let’s keep asking the harder, more honest questions: How do we support both students and faculty through ambitious change? How do we ensure that every student, not just the most prepared, has a real shot at success? 

    If we can do that, maybe we’ll find a way forward that is both honest and hopeful, one that sees the whole picture.

    •••

    Ji Y. Son, Ph.D., is a cognitive scientist and professor at California State University, Los Angeles and co-founder of CourseKata.org, a statistics and data science curriculum used by colleges and high schools.
    Federick Ngo, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His research examines higher education policy, with a focus on college access and community college students.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. 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

  • Through comedy, students can take ‘big swings’ for mental health

    Through comedy, students can take ‘big swings’ for mental health


    Two teaching artists lead a group of students through improv exercises during a Laughing Together workshop at San Joaquin County Office of Education's Peer-to-Peer Summit in September 2024.

    Teaching artists lead students through improv exercises during a Laughing Together workshop at San Joaquin County Office of Education’s Peer-to-Peer Summit in September 2024.

    Top Takeaways
    • Many school districts are using comedy and improv workshops to teach students social-emotional skills, encourage self-expression and foster social connection. 
    • Through the comedy program Laughing Together, professional comedians and mental health clinicians develop workshops based on exercises that can improve student mental health. 
    • Game-based learning and interactive play can engage students who might have fallen behind academically or socially during the pandemic.

    “If you were an object, what object would you be?” 

    Chris Gethard, a veteran comedian and improv teacher, posed this question to a group of high school students in Northern California at a Laughing Together workshop he was leading. He remembered one who identified as a fruit. 

    “When I was a kid, I convinced myself that I hated avocados,” Gethard remembered the student saying. “And then I tried one, and I actually love ’em. And that’s been my experience the past few years as I’m learning to love and embrace myself.”

    It quickly became obvious to Gethard that the improv wasn’t about avocado or any fruit for that matter. It was a big moment, and the student was taking a big risk to figure out something about themselves — their gender identity in real time.

    “Young people right now are living in a world where those experiences are often held up in the spotlight and politicized,” Gethard said. “So to see a kid being able to take a comedy exercise, which feels light and accessible and not too heavy, they can let their guard down and take a big swing like that.”

    Many school districts are turning to comedy as a way of supporting student mental health. In 2023, Gethard co-founded Laughing Together, a program based on research that comedy can be an effective tool for students’ social-emotional learning and social connection with their peers. 

    Nearly 6,500 students and educators across 26 different schools, districts, or youth organizations, have taken part in their workshops since Gethard co-founded the program with Marlon Morgan, CEO of parent nonprofit Wellness Together. 

    “One of the reasons that we [partnered with Gethard] is that he had already shared about his own mental health through his comedy special on HBO,” said Morgan, who is also a former school counselor. “He can make dark and scary things funny, which really helps students gain insight into their own emotions and become better at connecting with each other.” 

    ‘Taking chances in the spotlight’

    Research shows that students who practice social-emotional skills in safe environments with well-defined goals have improved social behavior, emotional regulation and academic performance. 

    “We have clinical psychologists who go through all the improv exercises,” Gethard said. “They get to say — ‘these ones are about making people funny, and they also prioritize nonverbal communication, strengthening eye contact, being comfortable with failure and taking some chances in the spotlight.’”

    Christina Patterson, a senior and peer counselor at Lincoln High School in Stockton, said pandemic shutdowns forced her to spend nearly entire days scrolling through social media, hoping for something new to interact with (“But, there never is anything new,” she added). 

    For the first time since her school implemented a cellphone ban, Patterson said taking part in the Laughing Together workshop, even for an hour, met the level of engagement she had always been looking for on her phone. Like Patterson, students in recent years report better cognitive, social and academic outcomes through game-based learning and interactive play, compared to lecture-based instruction. 

    “I feel engaged with people who are interactive — they’re not trying to teach at you, but they’re trying to teach with you together,” Patterson said. 

    Laughing Together workshops are led by one of the program’s teaching artists, including professional comedians, actors and performers, alongside children’s psychologists, drawing on art, play and game therapy research, to develop social-emotional learning and communication skill-building into each exercise. For Gethard, a workshop is successful if he can teach students something without them realizing it. 

    “We want kids to leave feeling more connected and comfortable with each other, not like they just watched a slide show or that they were just spoon-fed these lessons,” he said. “We want them to feel that they’re allowed to at least throw an idea out there, and no one’s going to judge them, pick them apart, or criticize them.” 

    Sofia Stewart-Lopez, a senior and peer counselor at Lincoln High School, helped set up a peer-to-peer summit, where she and other student mentors took part in a Laughing Together workshop. She remembered starting the day anxious about a big presentation about mental health resources she had later in the day, but after a few skits and improv games, she felt more confident, relaxed and connected to the people around her. 

    “I learned that a big part of balancing heavy topics of mental health, like anxiety, depression or substance abuse, is learning how to combat them with things that can help you with those feelings,” Stewart-Lopez said.

    Markus Alcantar, a senior and a peer counselor at Lincoln High School, said his favorite part of the workshop was one in which he got to become an apple. He had to think on his feet about why he felt like one, and then he improvised a skit with someone who had decided they were a tree. In another exercise, he said a volunteer started with juggling a ball, after which students added another ball, followed by another, and then another — until they couldn’t keep up anymore. 

    “It was a fun representation of how you can have a lot of things going on in your head mentally, and that you can learn to unravel those thoughts and organize them for yourself and other people,” Alcantar said. 

    About 1 in 5 teenagers, and most of Stewart-Lopez’s friends at school, she said, have experienced symptoms of anxiety or depression. So the workshop, she said, was particularly helpful in understanding how laughter exactly works in the brain — like how endorphins and serotonin receptors can alleviate some feelings of sadness or anxiety — to be able to have fun and build healthy coping skills with friends at school. 

    “The [improv exercises] also taught us that thinking on our feet better prepares us to be able to respond in different types of situations,” Stewart-Lopez said. “We learned that different people need different types of support, which betters us as mentors.”

    Middle school students attend a Laughing Together workshop at San Joaquin County Office of Education’s Peer-to-Peer Summit in September 2024.

    Most recently, Gethard completed nine workshops at a high school where over half of the student body are on Individualized Education Plans (IEP), or accommodations for students with learning, developmental, or behavioral disabilities. During the first workshop, he noticed most students reaching for their phones in the middle of an exercise or while on stage. To ease students into the experience, he’d tell them to simply take a breath and try to be present. 

    “After the first few workshops, a teacher came up to me and said, ‘their ability to lock in and focus on that is leaps and bounds compared to week one,” Gethard said. “She said, ‘they just never got their ability to focus back after Covid, but if we can keep going with this, it’s going to change the game for these kids in the room.’” 

    Rates of anxiety and depression — which shot up by 70% among California children between 2017 and 2022 — are the top health-related drivers of absenteeism since the onset of the pandemic. Research indicates that reduced social interaction, coupled with overreliance on screen time, also worsened students’ social cognition skills, such as cooperation and communication, and executive functions, such as attention and memory.

    Alcantar was in seventh grade when schools shut down, and when he returned to in-person instruction as a high school freshman, he said he found it difficult for him to initiate conversations with people around him. Stewart-Lopez said that after schools lifted mask mandates, she kept hers on for a while because she was worried about meeting social expectations about what she should look like. 

    “The pandemic had added to my sense of anxiety about, ‘What if I don’t fit in? What if I’m different from everybody else?” she said. 

    For Stewart-Lopez, laughter feels like home. It’s how she and her sisters got through their parents’ separation and also how she plans to take new risks with new people at college this year. 

    “We’re creating that safe place for students to get real-time responses to the risks they’re taking — and everyone’s taking risks — which makes it okay,” said Morgan, the CEO of nonprofit Wellness Together.





    Source link

  • Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities

    Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities


    People rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 as oral arguments are heard in the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to end the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The University of California brought the case to the court.

    Credit: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    The number of low-income undocumented students newly enrolled in the University of California and California State University plummeted 50% between 2016-17 and 2022-23, according to a study released this month.

    The study by William C. Kidder of the UCLA Civil Rights Project and Kevin R. Johnson of the UC Davis School of Law comes at a moment of heightened debate about policy proposals aimed at defraying the cost of college for undocumented students, who are not eligible for federal Pell Grants and often lack legal work permits. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed Assembly Bill 2586, which would have cleared the way for undocumented students to take on-campus jobs at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “Seeking declaratory relief in court — an option available to the University of California — would provide such clarity.”

    Johnson wrote in an email that Newsom’s veto of AB 2586, also called the Opportunity for All Act, “will make it more difficult for undocumented students to attend public universities in California.” 

    “I hope that the University of California and California State University systems will consider ways to help financially support undocumented students,” he wrote. “Scholarships, fee remissions, and the like must be considered if lawful employment, as would have been permitted by the Opportunity for All Act, is not possible.”

    Since 2012, the federal program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, has allowed certain undocumented immigrants to temporarily work legally in the U.S. and live without fear of immediate deportation, but the program has ceased processing new applicants due to legal challenges.

    “When we think that we’re seeing a decrease in enrollment in California, CSU and UC, with all the support provided by the university and by the legislature in terms of allowing undocumented students to pay resident fees, you have to imagine that in other states it’s much worse in terms of drop off in enrollment of undocumented students,” Johnson wrote.

    Johnson and Kidder’s study seeks to fill an important gap in California policymakers’ understanding of how undocumented student enrollment has changed over time. 

    The state’s colleges and universities historically have avoided collecting official data on undocumented students, mindful of those students’ vulnerable legal status. To solve that problem, Kidder and Johnson examined the number of students awarded a Cal Grant under the California Dream Act, a state financial aid program for which low-income undocumented students are eligible. The numbers likely represent a subset of all undocumented college students at Cal State and UC campuses, since they do not include students who applied for a Dream Act award but were not eligible or who were offered an award but didn’t accept it.

    Kidder and Johnson find that Dream Act awardees at CSU and UC appear to have peaked around the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.

    At CSU, they found that new and returning Dream Act awardees fell 30% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, outpacing an almost 7% decline in other Cal Grant awardees at CSU during the same period, as well as falling undergraduate enrollment within the university system.

    The story was similar at UC campuses, where Dream Act awardees dropped by roughly 31% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, a period in which other Cal Grant awardees only dipped 1%.

    Kidder and Johnson tie the decline in Dream Act awardees to the demise of the deferred action program. The Trump administration moved to rescind the program in 2017, and subsequent efforts to revive it have been stymied by court decisions that allow current DACA recipients to renew work permits but block new applicants. As a result, most current undergraduate college students are not eligible to apply for DACA and the youngest current DACA recipients are about 22 years old.

    That said, the study does not use the kind of granular data that would allow the researchers to test explicitly whether the rescission of DACA is causing the decline in Dream Act awardees. Previous research has found that the program boosted graduation rates among undocumented high school students and that harsher immigration enforcement correlated with lower academic achievement for undocumented K-12 students. Kidder and Johnson cite those studies — as well as the similar results they observed across UC and CSU — as pointing toward the likelihood that an external force is behind declining Dream Act awardees. 

    Supporters of AB 2586, the bill Newsom vetoed this weekend, argued that the UC system is not subject to a federal prohibition on hiring undocumented workers because it is part of the state of California. Johnson is among 29 scholars to sign a legal memo building that case, which was published by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Neither CSU nor UC took a formal position on the bill. But in a letter to lawmakers, the UC expressed concerns that hiring undocumented students could jeopardize “billions of dollars in existing federal contracts and grants.” The university system also said the bill could expose students, their families and UC employees to criminal or civil prosecution. In July, CSU officials similarly said the bill rested on an untested legal theory that could result in litigation against the system. 

    EdSource recently spoke with Kidder and Johnson to discuss their forthcoming article in the Journal of College & University Law. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    What do we understand about the impact that DACA had on undocumented high school students, and what has happened since the Trump administration began challenging the Obama-era program?

    Johnson: The data that we were able to put together shows that, basically, the dismantling of DACA —-the refusal to accept new applications – is having an impact that one might expect. While DACA created some kind of stability, initially, in high school students and boosted college enrollments, its dismantling has had the effect of reducing undocumented enrollment and destabilizing students and, the way I’d put it, it’s making them wonder whether they have a future in this country. …

    It’s a wake-up call in all kinds of ways for colleges and universities to claim that they want to be open, be more accessible.

    What did you find when you looked at how many students at Cal State and University of California campuses received California Dream Act grants in recent years?

    Kidder: New California Dream Act awardees, both freshmen and students, had declined by half between 2017 and 2023, which is just a remarkable drop. … I was a little surprised at the scale of the decline, just given the situation in California and how it’s different from Texas or Florida or some other states where there’s greater opposition and hostility to supporting undocumented students.

    Do you see the same pattern of decline in awards among California residents who are citizens and who received Cal Grants during this period?

    Kidder: We tried to adopt what social scientists call a “difference in difference” methodology. That’s where you study the rate of change over time with one group compared to a matched comparison group. 

    So, we looked at low-income students who are not undocumented, primarily U.S. citizen residents of California — who are going to the same high schools; the same age group; similar, but not exactly the same, income levels; very similar academic profiles in terms of high school GPAs, etc. We did that to confirm that there weren’t other systemic effects on the California budget and economy that might be unaccounted for outside factors. 

    What we found is that other Cal Grant students, both within UC and within CSU, were flat at the same time that both the undocumented students at UC and CSU had this 50% decline. So it did shore up our inference that there was something uniquely challenging in the current environment for undocumented college students.

    You write that back in the 2016-17 school year, 56% of new Dream Act students attended a UC or Cal State campus, while the remainder attended a California Community College campus. By the 2022-23 school year, that dynamic had flipped: 40% of those Dream Act students attended UC and Cal State, and the rest attended community college. What do you make of that shift?

    Kidder: We did include in the data that we are capturing not just new freshmen, but also new entering transfer students. It is of concern that somehow, in recent years … it’s not translating into those (community college) students still having higher education access to a university education through the transfer pathway. There’s a blockage there, and that was clear in the data. 

    From a public policy level, that’s troubling, given that these are students, many of whom have been living in California since age 5 or age 8, and the California taxpayers and the system of California laws has invested in their future. For those students to be blocked in their pathway lowers their future life chances. 

    State university officials can’t control what happens with DACA. If educators at UC and Cal State are concerned about losing undocumented students, what could they do to encourage those students to enroll and help them to stay enrolled?

    Johnson: I think one of the assumptions in the question is that there’s limited possibilities for what the university could do. It was the University of California that brought the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court stopping the rescission of DACA, and that was a controversial move in some quarters. But I do think the university– legally, politically and otherwise — is a powerful advocate for students, and can and has, at various times, pushed for reform and change. 

    I think that the university, if they’re really committed to undocumented students, can support things like the Opportunity for All Act, which has been basically briefed and set on their desk, showing that it might be legal for the University of California to allow its students, all students, to be employed by the University of California. …

    I think that the university could also think about, “How do we create more scholarships and funding for undocumented students?” If we’re really designing, or we really want to have, a university that serves all, shouldn’t we commit ourselves to enrolling all students who we admit and making it possible for them to attend? 

    Then the question is, how you raise money, how you distribute that money, how you create scholarships. The University of California often takes great pride in bringing in large chunks of money for research projects and, for example, spends years talking about and invests mounds of money in Aggie Square in Sacramento for research. … Why not work to create more funding for all students, including undocumented students? Why not think carefully about your tuition increases at various points in time, and what impacts it has on the people that you say you want to enroll in the university?

    I want to talk to you about AB 2586. The first Cal State board of trustees meeting I attended was in July, and there was some discussion about this bill. The trustees were asking staff to brief them on what they think of this bill. The gist was, ‘We see this as risky. We see this as potentially putting us on a collision course with the federal government, where we would open ourselves up to litigation. What do you think about that approach?

    Johnson: I think it’s a cowardly approach. It’d be like the university saying “We’re not going to weigh in on the civil rights movement because it’s controversial politically, and it’s risky to do so, and we’re not going to move forward because we’re afraid of getting sued.” 

    It’s funny, but (former UC President) Janet Napolitano could have taken the same position, saying “We’re not going to challenge the rescission of DACA, don’t want to alienate the federal government, which gives a large amount of money to the University of California. We’re just going to sit on our hands and let these DACA recipients be poorly treated.” …

    I’m an attorney. I was dean of the (UC Davis School of Law) for 16 years. Attorneys are always going to tell you there are risks. There are also risks driving to the grocery store, but we still go to the store. So I don’t buy that risk assessment argument, and I think that this is the time for universities that are truly committed to these issues to show their commitment to these issues.

    Why should CSU and why should the UC prioritize helping undocumented students to get a college degree?

    Kidder: Both my data analysis as well as my personal experience as a university administrator working with lots of undocumented students confirms my conviction that this is a very talented pool of young people in California. If their hopes and dreams are allowed to flourish in California, it benefits all Californians, and I mean that both in an economic sense and in a larger democratic sense.





    Source link

  • West Contra Costa makes progress toward financial health, but big challenges remain

    West Contra Costa makes progress toward financial health, but big challenges remain


    West Contra Costa Unified’s Stege Elementary School in Richmond. (File photo 2019)

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • West Contra Costa Unified gets out from under a cloud of possible insolvency by coming up with a budget approved by the County Office of Education, which rated it “positive.” 
    • Positive certification is conditioned on the district implementing cuts and sending layoff notices by May 15 as agreed to by the elected school board in February. 
    • The district still faces budget challenges, including negotiating a new contract with its teachers and eliminating a structural deficit in three years after it has spent all the funds in a special reserve. 

    The West Contra Costa Unified District has made substantial financial progress by balancing its budget and averting possible insolvency. 

    Last week, the Contra Costa County Office of Education notified the district that it approved a “positive certification” in the latest version of its budget for the 2024-26 school years, the second time it has done that this year.  

    Positive certification means the county office concurs with the district that it can meet its financial obligations during the current school year and the next two years, but only if it follows through on plans to cut another $13 million over the next two years. 

    “If they do everything they say they’re going to do and keep going down the path that they submitted to us, they should be OK,” said Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools Lynn Mackey. 

    The county office’s concurrence came as a relief to district officials. Interim Superintendent Kim Moses, the district’s business manager until last year, described the positive certification as “great news.”  

    “We are able to say that we can meet our obligations over the next three years with the changes that we’ve made,” she said. “And that is something to celebrate.” 

    The latest development for the 25,000-student district in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the city of Richmond, offers lessons for other California districts experiencing financial difficulties.   

    No. 1 among them: School boards have to make hard decisions to cut budgets and reduce the number of employees proportionate to their revenues, said Michael Fine, CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), a state-funded agency that helps school districts get out of financial difficulties.

    For several years, the county office of education had concluded that the district was no longer “a going concern” based on its shaky finances. And as recently as last year, FCMAT rated the district as at a high risk of insolvency.

    To get to the positive rating, the district cut $19.7 million from its budget this year, and its board voted in February to cut another $13 million over the next two years.  

    Going Deeper

    Under state oversight regulations, a school district’s financial situation can fall into three categories:  

    • A positive certification means the school district has the resources to meet its financial obligations to get through the current school year,and two subsequent ones.
    • A qualified certification means that the district may not to meet its financial obligations in the current school year, or the next two years.
    • A negative certification is the most dire category: a district will be unable to meet its financial obligation in the current year or subsequent school year.

    West Contra Costa’s positive rating is especially good news because, in 1991, the district became the first in California to get an emergency loan from the state, which took two decades to pay off.  

    But the district still faces substantial challenges. In its letter to Moses last Thursday, Daniela Parasidis, the county’s deputy superintendent for business services, said its approval of the district’s positive certification “comes with significant caution.” 

     “The district must remain vigilant and continue the implementation of its solvency plan to ensure long-term financial stability,” she wrote. 

    She also pointed to potential hazards that could affect the district’s finances, which underscore the multiple pressure points school districts face. In West Contra Costa, these include the impact of declining enrollment, increased absenteeism due to fears around immigration enforcement, expiring parcel tax revenue, and possible loss of federal funding cuts by the Trump administration.

    County officials say maintaining the district’s positive certification hinges on it doing two things: sending out layoff notices as the board voted to do in February by May 15, the deadline specified by state law, as well as adopting a budget for the coming school year by June 30.   

    One unknown is that the district is in the final stages of prolonged contract negotiations with unions representing all its staff, including its teachers union, which is demanding a pay increase and other compensation-related changes, and improved health benefits. The teachers’ contract expires June 30.

    However, there is deep disagreement between the district and its unions over the severity of the district’s financial difficulties. Francisco Ortiz, the president of United Teachers of Richmond, said the district routinely “underprojects revenue and overprojects expenditures.”  As for the cuts planned for the next two years, Ortiz said, “We feel that none of these cuts are necessary.” He said the district needs to, instead, “reprioritize how they’re actually spending their funds.” 

    “We deeply value our educators and agree they work hard and deserve to be fairly compensated,” Moses wrote in an online message last week. “Our challenge is not about disagreement, but about how we responsibly meet this need while ensuring our district remains fiscally sound.” 

    Another pitfall is that, despite making significant budget cuts, the district is still operating with a structural deficit, which it is closing by drawing on one-time reserve funds. 

    Those are so-called “special reserves” called Fund 17, valued at over $37 million at the beginning of the school year.  

    West Contra Costa was able to accumulate these special reserves at least in part because when it got its state bailout loan decades ago, the state required the district to maintain reserves of 6%, double the normally required amount, Moses said. 

    To balance its books, the district is drawing down $11.5 million of its Fund 17 reserves this year, another $20.25 million next year, and $6.2 million the following year, fully depleting that reserve.  It will still have the 3% minimum reserve required by the state, which amounts to about $15 million. 

    John Gray, CEO of School Services of California, the largest school consulting firm in the state, says it is quite acceptable for a district to use its Fund 17 reserves to get through a fiscal crisis. 

    But, he says, it means that “there will be a reckoning in three years” when all those funds are spent. “If you spend it (the Fund 17 reserve) all the way down,” he said, “you’re not going to have a place to grab money, and you’re going to have to make additional cuts.”

    Interim Superintendent Moses hopes that over the next two years, the district will be able to “align expenditures with our revenue so that we will no longer have a structural deficit, and we’ll begin to build back up that reserve for economic uncertainties.” 

    She said, “Any responsible, budget-minded person is going to make sure they save something for hard times.”





    Source link

  • Texas: Governor Abbott Celebrates His Big Voucher Win and Lies About It

    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