اینترنت

برچسب: bill

  • Heather Cox Richardson: GOP Budget Bill Is Packed with Deadly Cuts and Lies

    Heather Cox Richardson: GOP Budget Bill Is Packed with Deadly Cuts and Lies


    Heather Cox Richardson warns about the Republicans’ “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” which cuts Medicaid and other vital services while increasing the deficit. Republicans cover up the cruel cuts to vital services by lying about them.

    She writes:

    The Republicans’ giant budget reconciliation bill has focused attention on the drastic cuts the Trump administration is making to the American government. On Friday, when a constituent at a town hall shouted that the Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for low-income Americans, meant that “people will die,” Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) replied, “Well, we are all going to die.”

    The next day, Ernst released a video purporting to be an apology. It made things worse. “I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So, I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ,” she said.

    Ernst blamed the “hysteria that’s out there coming from the left” for the outcry over her comments. Like other Republicans, she claims that the proposed cuts of more than $700 billion in Medicaid funding over the next ten years is designed only to get rid of the waste and fraud in the program. Thus, they say, they are actually strengthening Medicaid for those who need it.

    But, as Linda Qiu noted in the New York Timestoday, most of the bill’s provisions have little to do with the “waste, fraud, and abuse” Republicans talk about. They target Medicaid expansion, cut the ability of states to finance Medicaid, force states to drop coverage, and limit access to care. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the cuts mean more than 10.3 million Americans will lose health care coverage.

    House speaker Mike Johnson has claimed that those losing coverage will be 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants, but this is false. As Qiu notes, although 14 states use their own funds to provide health insurance for undocumented immigrant children, and seven of those states provide some coverage for undocumented pregnant women, in fact, “unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for federally funded Medicaid, except in emergency situations.” Instead, the bill pressures those fourteen states to drop undocumented coverage by reducing their federal Medicaid funding.

    MAGA Republicans claim their “One Big, Beautiful Bill”—that’s its official name—dramatically reduces the deficit, but that, too, is a lie.

    On Thursday, May 29, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the measure would carry out “the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings.” She echoed forty years of Republican claims that the economic growth unleashed by the measure would lead to higher tax revenues, a claim that hasn’t been true since Ronald Reagan made it in the 1980s.

    In fact, the CBO estimates that the tax cuts and additional spending in the measure mean “[a]n increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion.” As G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers notes, the CBO has been historically very reliable, but Leavitt and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tried to discount its scoring by claiming, as Johnson said: “They are historically totally unreliable. It’s run by Democrats.”

    The director of the CBO, economist Philip Swagel, worked as chief of staff and senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the George W. Bush administration. He was appointed in 2019 with the support of Senate Budget Committee chair Michael Enzi (R-WY) and House Budget Committee chair John Yarmuth (D-KY). He was reappointed in 2023 with bipartisan support.

    Republican cuts to government programs are a dramatic reworking of America’s traditional evidence-based government that works to improve the lives of a majority of Americans. They are replacing that government with an ideologically driven system that concentrates wealth and power in a few hands and denies that the government has a role to play in protecting Americans.

    And yet, those who get their news by watching the Fox News Channel are likely unaware of the Republicans’ planned changes to Medicaid. As Aaron Rupar noted, on this morning’s Fox and Friends, the hosts mentioned Medicaid just once. They mentioned former president Joe Biden 39 times.

    That change shows dramatically in cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is an agency in the Commerce Department, established under Republican president Richard Nixon in 1970, that monitors weather conditions, storms, and ocean currents. The National Weather Service (NWS), which provides weather, wind, and ocean forecasts, is part of NOAA.

    NWS forecasts annually provide the U.S. with an estimated $31.5 billion in benefits as they enable farmers, fishermen, businesspeople, schools, and individuals to plan around weather events.

    As soon as he took office, Trump imposed an across-the-board hiring freeze, and billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” fired probationary employees and impounded funds Congress had appropriated. Now, as hurricane season begins, experts in storms and disasters are worried that the NOAA will be unable to function adequately.

    Cuts to the NWS have already meant fewer weather balloons and thus less data, leaving gaps in information for a March ice storm in Northern Michigan and for storms and floods in Oklahoma in April. Oliver Milman of The Guardianreported today that 15 NWS offices on the Gulf of Mexico, a region vulnerable to hurricanes, are understaffed after losing more than 600 employees. Miami’s National Hurricane Center is short five specialists. Thirty of the 122 NWS stations no longer have a meteorologist in charge, and as of June 1, seven of those 122 stations will not have enough staff to operate around the clock.

    On May 5, the five living former NWS leaders, who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, wrote a letter to the American people warning that the cuts threaten to bring “needless loss of life.” They urged Americans to “raise your voice” against the cuts.

    Trump’s proposed 2026 budget calls for “terminating a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs” and cutting about 25% more out of NOAA’s funding.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also suffered dramatic cuts as Trump has said he intends to push disaster recovery to the states. The lack of expertise is taking a toll there, too. Today staff members there said they were baffled after David Richardson, the head of the agency, said he did not know the United States has a hurricane season. (It does, and it stretches from June 1 to the end of November.) Richardson had no experience with disaster response before taking charge of FEMA.

    Trump’s proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are even more draconian. On Friday, in a more detailed budget than the administration published in early May, the administration called for cuts of 43% to the NIH, about $20 billion a year. That includes cuts of nearly 40% to the National Cancer Institute. At the same time, the administration is threatening to end virtually all biomedical research at universities.

    On Friday, May 23, the White House issued an executive order called “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” The order cites the COVID-19 guidance about school reopenings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to claim that the federal government under President Joe Biden “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner.” (Schools closed in March 2020 under Trump.) The document orders that “[e]mployees shall not engage in scientific misconduct” and, scientists Colette Delawalla, Victor Ambros, Carl Bergstrom, Carol Greider, Michael Mann, and Brian Nosek explain in The Guardian, gives political appointees the power to silence any research they oppose “based on their own ‘judgment.’” They also have the power to punish those scientists whose work they find objectionable.

    The Guardian authors note that science is “the most important long-term investment for humanity.” They recall the story of Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko, who is a prime example of the terrible danger of replacing fact-based reality with ideology.

    As Sam Kean of The Atlantic noted in 2017, Lysenko opposed science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century in favor of the pseudo-scientific idea that the environment alone shapes plants and animals. This idea reflected communist political thought, and Lysenko gained the favor of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Lysenko claimed that his own agricultural techniques, which included transforming one species into another, would dramatically increase crop yields. Government leaders declared that Lysenko’s ideas were the only correct ones, and anyone who disagreed with him was denounced. About 3,000 biologists whose work contradicted his were fired or sent to jail. Some were executed. Scientific research was effectively banned.

    In the 1930s, Soviet leaders set out to “modernize” Soviet agriculture, and when their new state-run farming collectives failed, they turned to Lysenko to fix the problem with his new techniques. Almost everything planted according to his demands died or rotted. In the USSR and in China, which adopted his methods in the 1950s, at least 30 million people died of starvation.

    “[W]hen the doctrines of science and the doctrines of communism clashed, he always chose the latter—confident that biology would conform to ideology in the end,” Kean said of Lysenko. He concludes: “It never did.”



    Source link

  • Bill to mandate ‘science of reading’ in California schools faces teachers union opposition

    Bill to mandate ‘science of reading’ in California schools faces teachers union opposition


    Teacher Jennifer Dare Sparks conducts a reading lesson at Ethel I. Baker Elementary School in Sacramento last year.

    Credit: Randall Benton / EdSource

    California’s largest teachers union has moved to put the brakes on legislation that mandates instruction, known as the “science of reading,” that spotlights phonics to teach children to read.

    The move by the politically powerful California Teachers Association (CTA) puts the fate of Assembly Bill 2222 in question as supporters insist that there is room to negotiate changes that will bring opponents together.

    CTA’s complaints include some recently voiced by some advocacy organizations for English learners and bilingual education that oppose the bill and have refused to negotiate any changes to make the bill more acceptable.

    The teachers union put its opposition to AB 2222 in writing in a lengthy letter to Assembly Education Committee Chairman Al Muratsuchi last week. The committee is expected to hear the bill, introduced in February, later this month. 

    The letter includes a checklist of complaints including that the proposed legislation would duplicate and potentially undermine current literacy initiatives, would not meet the needs of English learner students and cuts teachers out of the decision-making process, especially when it comes to curriculum. 

    “Educators are best equipped to make school and classroom decisions to ensure student success,” the letter said. “Limiting instructional approaches undermines teachers’ professional autonomy and may impede their effectiveness in the classroom.”

    Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an advocacy nonprofit co-sponsoring the bill, said he was surprised that CTA would oppose legislation that would ensure all teachers are trained to use the latest brain research to teach children how to read.

    “Unfortunately, a lot of folks in the field haven’t actually been trained on that, and a lot of the instruction materials in classrooms today don’t align with that,” Tuck said.

    Tuck said CTA appears to misunderstand the body of evidence-based research known as the science of reading. It “is not a curriculum and is not a program or a one-size-fits-all approach,” he said. “It will give teachers a foundational understanding of how children learn to read. Teachers will still have a lot of room locally to decide which instructional moves to make on any given day for any given children. So, you’ll still have significant differentiation.”

    A nationwide push

    California’s push to adopt the science of reading approach to early literacy is in sync with 37 states and some cities, such as New York City, that have passed similar legislation. 

    States nationwide are rejecting balanced literacy as failing to effectively teach children how to read, since it trains children to use pictures to recognize words on sight, also known as three-cueing. The new method would teach children to decode words by sounding them out, a process known as phonics.

    Although phonics, the ability to connect letters to sounds, has drawn the most attention, the science of reading focuses on four other pillars of literacy instruction: phonemic awareness, identifying distinct units of sounds; vocabulary; comprehension; and fluency. It is based on research on how the brain connects letters with sounds when learning to read.

    Along with mandating the science of reading approach to instruction, AB 2222 would require that all TK to fifth-grade teachers, literacy coaches and specialists take a 30-hour-minimum course in reading instruction by 2028. School districts and charter schools would purchase textbooks from an approved list endorsed by the State Board of Education.  

    The legislation goes against the state policy of local control that gives school districts authority to select curriculum and teaching methods as long as they meet state academic standards. Currently, the state encourages, but does not mandate, districts to incorporate instruction in the science of reading in the early grades.

    “It’s a big bill,” said Yolie Flores, president of Families in Schools, a co-sponsor. “We’re very proud that it’s a big bill because that means it is truly consequential in the best way possible for children. It’s not a sort of tweak around the edges kind though, it’s the kind of bill that really brings transformation. So we are hoping that the Legislature sees beyond the sort of typical pushback and resistance, and in the end, I think, teachers will see that this was a huge benefit for them.”

    Seeking compromise

    The bill’s author, Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, said she took CTA’s seven-page letter not as an outright rejection but as an opportunity for negotiations.

     “I’m glad they sent this letter,” she said. “They outline their objections and the reasons why, and that’s something I can work with. It’s not a flat, ‘No, we don’t want you to do it.’ They gave me specific items that I can look at and have a conversation about.”

    She said that Assemblymember Muratsuchi asked her to work with the CTA on a compromise. She is also meeting with consultants for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, “to look at the big picture,” she said.

    But Flores says the state’s budget problems, with predictions of no money for new programs, may be a bigger hurdle to getting the bill passed than the CTA opposition. The cost of paying for the required professional development for teachers would total $200 million to $300 million, she said. Because it is a mandate, the state would be required to repay districts for the cost.

    “That is a drop in the bucket for something so transformational, so consequential,” Flores said. “I hope that the Legislature really comes to that realization. We’re in a budget deficit, but our budget is a statement of priorities.”

    Advocates say that it is imperative that California mandate instruction in the science of reading. In 2023, just 43% of California third graders met the academic standards on the state’s standardized test in 2023. Only 27.2% of Black students, 32% of Latino students and 35% of low-income children were reading at grade level, compared with 57.5% of white, 69% of Asian and 66% of non-low-income students. 

    “It’s foundational,” Flores said. “It’s not the only thing teachers need to know. It’s not the only thing that teachers will need to do and to adhere to, but it’s sort of the basic foundational knowledge of how children’s brains work in order to learn to read.”

    The bill would sunset in 2028 when all teachers are required to have completed training. Beginning in July, all teacher preparation programs would be required to teach future educators to base literacy instruction on the science of reading. 

    Needs of English learners

    The CTA and other critics of AB 2222 charge that it ignores the need of English learners for oral language skills, vocabulary and comparison between their home languages and English, which they need in order to learn how to read. Four out of 10 students in California start school as English learners.

    Tuck disputes this. “We actually emphasize oral language development,” he said. “This would be the first statute that would say when instructional materials are adopted, and when teachers are trained in the science of reading, they must include a focus on English learners and oral language development.”

    Representatives from Californians Together, an advocacy organization for English learners and bilingual education, applauded the CTA’s opposition to the bill. They oppose the bill, rather than suggest amendments, because they disagree with its overall approach.

    “We just don’t think this is the right bill to address literacy needs,” said Executive Director Martha Hernandez. “It’s very restrictive. We know that mandates don’t work. It lacks a robust, comprehensive approach for multilingual learners.”

    Instead, Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education have both said they would prefer California fund the training of teachers and full implementation of the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework. 

    The framework was adopted in 2014 and encourages, but does not mandate, explicit instruction in foundational skills and oral language development for English learners.

    The California Language Teachers Association has requested the bill be amended to include information about teaching literacy in languages not based on the English alphabet, such as Japanese, Chinese or Arabic, according to Executive Director Liz Matchett. However, the organization has not yet taken a position on the bill.

    “I agree that we want to support all children to be able to read. If they can’t read, they can’t participate in education, which is the one way that is proven to change people’s circumstances,” said Matchett, who teaches Spanish at Gunn High School in Palo Alto. “There’s nothing to oppose about that. I’m still a classroom teacher, and all the time, you get kids in high school who can’t read.”

    Education Trust-West urges changes in the bill to center the needs of “multilingual learners” — children who speak languages other than English at home — and to include more oversight and fewer mandates, such as those that may discourage new teachers from entering the profession.

    “If our recommended amendments were to be accepted, EdTrust-West would support it as a much-needed solution to California’s acute literacy crisis.”

    Claude Goldenberg, professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, said “it was disappointing” to see CTA’s opposition, particularly because the union did not suggest amendments. He said he had met with representatives from CTA and urged them to identify what could be changed in the bill.

    In a recent EdSource commentary, Goldenberg urged opponents to “do the right thing for all students. AB 2222’s introduction is an important step forward on the road to universal literacy in California. We must get it on the right track and take it across the finish line.”

    Referring to the CTA’s opposition, Goldenberg said, “Obviously my urgings fell flat. They identified why they’re opposing, but there’s no indication of any possible re-evaluation.” 

    Goldenberg, who served on the National Literacy Panel, which synthesized research on literacy development among children who speak languages other than English, has called on the bill’s authors to amend it to include a more comprehensive definition of the “science of reading” and include more information about teaching students to read in English as a second language and in their home languages.

    The CTA has changed its position on bills related to literacy instruction in the last two years. It had originally supported Senate Bill 488, which passed in 2022. The legislation requires a literacy performance assessment for teachers and oversight of literacy instruction in teacher preparation. The union is now in support of a bill that would do away with both.

    The change of course was attributed to a survey of 1,300 CTA members, who said the assessment caused stress, took away time that could have been used to collaborate with mentors and for teaching, and did not prepare them to meet the needs of students, according to Leslie Littman, vice president of the union, in a prior interview. 

    Veteran political observer Dan Schnur said he’s not surprised CTA would oppose the bill since some of its political allies are against it; the question is how important CTA considers the bill. 

    “If it becomes a pitched battle, CTA will have to decide whether it is one of its highest priorities in this session,” he said.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t indicated his position yet, but Schnur, the press secretary for former Gov. Pete Wilson, who teaches political communications at UC Berkeley and USC, said, “This is not the type of fight Newsom needs or wants right now. If he has strong feelings, it’s hard to see him going to war for or against.”





    Source link

  • Musk Blasts Trump’s Budget and Tax Bill as Bloated

    Musk Blasts Trump’s Budget and Tax Bill as Bloated


    Once upon a time. Elon Musk was Trump’s best friend. No longer. Despite his best effort to slash the government, he failed. Originally, Musk offered to secure a cut of $2 trillion, but came nowhere near that figure, eventually he dropped his goal to only $175 billion. That number may actually be much lower because of errors in the count.

    When Musk learned that Trump’s new budget was vastly increased, he went ballistic.

    He said that the new budget was “disgusting.” He did not mention that his companies–especially Starlink and SpaceX–will be showered with federal funding in the “one big, beautiful bill.” Starlink will have a large role in Trump’s plan to build a “Golden Dome” to protect the U.S. and that his Space X will lead the effort to travel to Mars.

    Patrick Svitek of The Washington Post reported:

    Elon Musk on Tuesday called President Donald Trump’s sweeping legislation making its way through Congress “pork-filled” and “a disgusting abomination.” Musk, who recently left his cost-cutting role in Trump’s administration, issued his strongest condemnation to date of the massive tax and immigration bill that narrowly passed the House and is pending in the Senate. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,” Musk wrote on social media. “You know it.” On Monday night, Trump re-upped his call for Congress to send the bill to his desk by July 4.



    Source link

  • Bill to mandate ‘science of reading’ in California classrooms dies

    Bill to mandate ‘science of reading’ in California classrooms dies


    An elementary student reads on his own in class.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    A bill that would have required California teachers to use the “science of reading,” which spotlights phonics, to teach children to read has died without a hearing. 

    Assembly Bill 2222, authored by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, will not advance in the Legislature this year, according to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who described the state’s student reading and literacy rates as “a serious problem,” adding that the bill should receive a “methodical” review by all key groups before there is a “costly overhaul” of how reading is taught in California. 

    “I want the Legislature to study this problem closely, so we can be sure stakeholders are engaged and, most importantly, that all students benefit, especially our diverse learners,” Rivas said in a statement to EdSource, referring to English learners.

    The bill, which had the support of the California State PTA, state NAACP and more than 50 other organizations, hit a snag two weeks ago, when the California Teachers Association — the state’s largest teachers union — sent a letter stating its opposition to the bill to Assembly Education Committee Chairman Al Muratsuchi.

    The union claimed that the proposed legislation would duplicate and potentially undermine current literacy initiatives, would not meet the needs of English learner students and would cut teachers out of decisions, especially on curriculum. 

    Rubio, who could not be reached late Thursday, told EdSource last week that Muratsuchi asked her to work with the teachers union on a compromise. 

    Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an advocacy nonprofit co-sponsoring the bill, said he was surprised the bill didn’t get a hearing considering the importance of the issue.

     “We understand it’s a tough budget year, but we also believe that the most important priority for the education budget is helping our kids learn how to read,” he said.

    But he called the move to table the bill a “bump in the road.”

    “When we launched with Assemblymember Rubio and the sponsors behind this, we knew it might be a multi-year effort,” he said. “So you get up tomorrow and keep it moving forward.”

    Advocates say that it is imperative that California mandates this change in reading instruction. In 2023, just 43% of California third-graders met the academic standards on the state’s standardized test in 2023. Only 27.2% of Black students, 32% of Latino students and 35% of low-income children were reading at grade level, compared with 57.5% of white, 69% of Asian and 66% of non-low-income students. 

    “The California NAACP was right, this is a civil rights issue,” said Kareem Weaver, a member of the Oakland NAACP Education Committee and co-founder of the literacy advocacy group FULCRUM. “And you don’t play politics with civil rights. The misinformation and ideological posturing on AB 2222 effectively leveraged the politics of fear.  We have to do better, for kids’ sake, and can’t give up.”

    What is the science of reading?

    Science of reading refers to research-based teaching strategies that reflect how the brain learns how to read. While it includes phonics-based instruction that teaches children to decode words by sounding them out, it also includes four other pillars of literacy instruction: phonemic awareness, identifying distinct units of sounds; vocabulary; comprehension; and fluency. It is based on research on how the brain connects letters with sounds when learning to read.

    The legislation would have gone against the state policy of local control that gives school districts authority to select curriculum and teaching methods as long as they meet state academic standards. Currently, the state encourages, but does not mandate, districts to incorporate instruction in the science of reading in the early grades.

    Along with mandating the science of reading approach to instruction, AB 2222 would have required that all TK to fifth-grade teachers, literacy coaches and specialists take a 30-hour-minimum course in reading instruction by 2028. School districts and charter schools would purchase textbooks from an approved list endorsed by the State Board of Education. 

    English learner advocates opposed bill

    It appears lawmakers heard the pleas of advocates for English learners who opposed the bill. 

    “We know that addressing equity and literacy outcomes is a high priority for California and that our state is not yet where it needs to be with literacy outcomes for all students,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, one of the organizations that opposed the bill. “AB 2222 is not the prescription that is needed for our multilingual, diverse state.”

    She said she is willing to work with lawmakers for a literacy plan that is based on reading research, but that “centrally addresses” the needs of English learners.

    California’s proposed legislation to adopt the science of reading approach to early literacy would have been in sync with other states that have passed similar legislation. States nationwide are rejecting balanced literacy as failing to effectively teach children how to read, since it de-emphasizes explicit instruction in phonics and instead trains children to use pictures to identify words on sight, also known as three-cueing. 

    Muratsuchi had until the end of the day Thursday to put the bill on the calendar for the April 17 meeting of the Assembly Education Committee. It would then have had to be heard by the Assembly Higher Education Committee before the April 26 deadline for legislators to get bills with notable fiscal impacts to the Appropriations Committee. Now, the bill will have to be reintroduced next year to get a hearing.

    “It’s really too bad. Lots of kids are not being well-served now. But on the other hand, I hope this will be an opportunity to regroup and present a more robust version of the bill,” said Claude Goldenberg, a Stanford University professor emeritus of education, who supported the bill.

    Goldenberg said a future version of the bill should include a “more comprehensive definition” of the “science of reading” and should make clear that this includes research on teaching reading to all students, including English learners.

    “English learners, for example, would benefit if teachers knew and used research that is part of the science of reading and applies whether they’re learning in their home language or in English. Same for children with limited literacy opportunities outside of school and children having difficulty learning to read,” Goldenberg said.

    ‘Backroom politics’

    Lori DePole, co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia CA, one of the supporters of the bill, expressed frustration Thursday evening over the decision to table it. 

    “It is shameful that when more than half of CA kids aren’t reading at grade level that our legislators are okay with the status quo, and they have killed this literacy legislation without even allowing it to be heard,” she said in a statement. 

    “… CA kids’ futures are too important to allow backroom politics to silence this issue. We will no longer accept lip service in addressing our literacy crisis.  It is time for action, and we aren’t going away.”

    Advocates for students with dyslexia support the phonics-based teaching methods as especially effective for children with the learning disability. 

    Muratsuchi said he supports the science of reading. “However, we need to make sure that we do this right, by serving the needs of all California students, including our English learners,” he said in a statement to EdSource. “California is the most language-diverse state in the country, and we need to develop a literacy instruction strategy that works for all of our students.

    “I thank Speaker Robert Rivas for his decision to pursue a more deliberative process involving all education stakeholders before enacting a costly overhaul of how reading is taught statewide,” he said.

    EdSource reporter Karen D’Souza contributed to this report.





    Source link

  • DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! The “Beautiful” Tax Bill Guts the Rule of Law!

    DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! The “Beautiful” Tax Bill Guts the Rule of Law!


    That “One Big Beautiful Bill” is supposed to be about the budget and taxes but tucked into it are a variety of dangerous items that Trump partisans hope will go unnoticed.

    The most dangerous item of all undercuts the rule of law.

    Liz Cheney and Adam Kinziger noticed it. They posted this warning on Twitter:

    Our blog contributor called Quickwrit noticed the innocuous but dangerous insertion into the bill.

    Quickwrit write here:

    DANGER!!! DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

    Buried at the bottom of Page 562 in the Republicans’ 1,116-page “Big Beautiful Bill” is a provision that will end all federal court challenges to anything that Trump orders and that will allow Trump to declare null and void all previous rulings against his orders.

    It will be the beginning of genuine dictatorial rule.

    The provision on Page 562 invokes enforcement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 65(c) which says that a federal court can ONLY issue an injunction AFTER a plaintiff has posted a bond to cover the costs of damages that an injunction could have on the party against which the injunction was issued if subsequent appeals overturn the injunction.

    Because Trump and his federal agencies could claim billions of dollars in damages if an injunction is overturned by the pro-Trump U.S. Supreme Court, there is NO ONE WHO CAN AFFORD to seek any future injunction against Trump’s orders or those of his agencies.

    IN ADDITION: Rule 65(c) will be applied RETROACTIVELY to all the injunctions issued so far against Trump and his agencies, and all those injunctions will be removed because no bond was posted with any of them.

    THE EFFECT WILL BE that everything that has been blocked by the federal courts will be unleashed and there will be NO FUTURE INJUNCTIONS issued against ANYTHING that Trump orders to be done.

    Even if none of the many other odious things are removed from the Big Beautiful Bill, this provision to invoke Federal Court Rule 65(c) MUST BE ELIMINATED or there will be no future restraints on Trump. He will be free to dictate anything he wants with NO COURT INTERFERENCE. Rule by law will end in America.



    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over

    Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over


    A big crowd was on hand when the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board voted last August to mandate that parents be told if their child shows any indication at school of being transgender.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    A trailblazing state law prohibiting California school boards from passing resolutions that require teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender isn’t likely to put an end to this polarizing issue. 

    The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday. It will prohibit school districts from requiring staff to disclose to parents information related to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and will protect school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which will go into effect Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    “California is the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting school districts from enacting forced outing policies in the nation,” said Mike Blount, spokesperson for the author of the bill, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

    The legislation was passed in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex. At least seven California school districts passed the controversial policies, often after heated public debate.

    First lawsuit filed

    By Tuesday evening, the conservative nonprofit Liberty Justice Center said it had filed a lawsuit challenging the new law on behalf of Chino Valley Unified, which passed a parental notification policy last year.

    “School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have a constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school,” said Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center in a press release. “Parents are the legal guardians of their children, not Governor Newsom, Attorney General (Rob) Bonta, or Superintendent (Tony) Thurmond. We will continue to defend parents’ rights and children’s well-being by challenging invasive laws like AB 1955 in court, at no cost to taxpayers.”

    Other opponents, including Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, indicated that the issue will be settled in court. He is “committed to challenging the bill in court, and he’s confident he’s on the right side constitutionally,” said Shawn Lewis, Essayli’s chief of staff. Essayli plans to work with a coalition of advocates to challenge the bill, Lewis said.

    Election issue

    Parental rights is the overarching issue for the Republican Party, but right now it is focused on the parental notification issue, Essayli said in an August interview with EdSource. “This is an issue we want to run on in 2024,” he said.

    The newly passed legislation also resulted in a flurry of press releases and social media comments from opponents and supporters. Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk weighed in, calling the new law the “final straw” in his decision to move the headquarters for X, formerly known as Twitter, to Texas.

    “I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” Musk wrote on X.

    Proponents of the parental notification policies have said that parents have the right to know what is going on with their children at school and that minors do not have a right to privacy. Opponents say these policies could endanger already vulnerable students who should be able to decide when they want to come out to their parents.

    Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, Murrieta Valley Unified and Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County, Orange Unified in Orange County, Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County, and Rocklin Unified and Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Placer County are among the districts that have passed parental notification policies.

    California’s parental notification board policies have their origin in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Essayli, which was denied a committee hearing at the state Capitol last year. After that, Essayli, parents’ rights groups and attorneys wrote a model board policy for school boards.

    On Monday, Essayli released a statement about the new law: “Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955 which codifies the government’s authority to keep secrets from parents,” he said. “AB 1955 endangers children by excluding parents from important matters impacting their child’s health and welfare at school. Governor Newsom signing AB 1955 is both immoral and unconstitutional, and we will challenge it in court to stop the government from keeping secrets from parents.”

    Eight states have passed laws requiring school districts to inform parents if their children ask to use names or pronouns associated with another gender, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

    LGBTQ+ rights threatened

    School parental notification policies have impacted the mental health of LGBTQ+ students and can lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination, according to a press release from Ward’s office.

    “Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Ward, who introduced the legislation along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

    “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family,” he said. “As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.”

    The California Teachers Association and its members have been major opponents of parental notification policies, saying that they drive a wedge between educators and students, and endanger already vulnerable students. Teachers working in districts with parental notification policies have worried they could lose their jobs if they do not comply with the district requirement or end up in court if they disobey federal and state laws and policies.

    “This historic legislation will strengthen existing protections against forced outing and allow educators to continue to create a safe learning environment where all students feel accepted, nurtured, and encouraged to pursue their dreams,” said California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    “As educators, we are charged with providing a high-quality education to every student. No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students.”

    Policies spawn lawsuits

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said parental notification policies break California state law and violate students’ civil rights and their right to privacy. He issued warnings to districts and filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County last year.

    A lawsuit was also filed against Temecula Valley Unified by a coalition of students, teachers and parents who oppose the district’s parental notification policy, along with a policy that bans “critical race theory.”

    California courts have had differing opinions. In San Diego, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez last year ruled that Escondido Union School District violated parents’ rights when it followed California state policy and allowed students to decide whether to tell their parents they identify as transgender.

    In Sacramento earlier that year, U.S. District Judge John Mendez dismissed a lawsuit against Chico Unified. The suit claimed that district policies allowed school staff “to socially transition” students and prohibited staff from informing parents of the change. Mendez said students have a right to tell their parents about their gender and sexuality on their own terms.

    The new law will also require districts to provide support or affinity groups and safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students; anti-bullying and harassment policies and complaint procedures; counseling services; anti-bias or other training to support LGBTQ+ students and their families; suicide prevention policies and procedures; and access to community-based organizations to support LGBTQ+ students as well as local physical and mental health providers with experience in treating and supporting families of LGBTQ+ youth.

    California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman said the legislation reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth.

    “I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill,” Eggman said. “Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day, that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify.”





    Source link

  • How the New GOP Tax Bill Benefits the Rich and Forces Vouchers into Every State

    How the New GOP Tax Bill Benefits the Rich and Forces Vouchers into Every State


    www.instagram.com/reel/DJkOywKPU2u/

    Josh Cowen of Michigan State University read the latest GOP tax bill closely. He explains what it contains for schools. It’s a plan to set up tax havens in every state for the wealthiest Americans. It forces vouchers for religious and private schools into every state, even states that don’t want them. It allows every voucher school to determine its own admissions policy.

    It enables discrimination. It enriches those who are already rich.

    It is a spike in the heart of public schools, which admit everyone and bring people from different backgrounds together.

    Cowen is the author of the recently published book about vouchers, called THE PRIVATEERS: HOW BILLIONAIRES CREATED A CULTURE WAR AND SOLD SCHOOL VOUCHERS.





    Source link

  • Computer science bill to address disparities in access – if it passes

    Computer science bill to address disparities in access – if it passes


    Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

    Unless Assembly Bill 2097 — requiring every public high school to teach a computer science course — advances in the state Legislature on Thursday, access to computer science in California will continue to be inequitable across socioeconomic, racial, gender and geographic lines, according to the bill’s author.

    “It’s predominantly our underserved communities, our Black and brown communities, our rural communities, where students are going to schools that don’t even give them access to computer science,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman about his bill, which would close gaps and increase access to computer science classes in California, as 30 other states do. 

    Currently, the legislation is under “suspense” in the Senate Appropriations Committee, a process in which the bill’s fiscal impact is considered. If it doesn’t come out of suspense Thursday, the bill dies. 

    According to a September 2021 report, California lagged behind the national average and about three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course, which can build a foundational understanding of technology. 

    Across California, the home state of the Silicon Valley, only 42% of high schools offered computer science in the 2018-19 school year, and just 5% of the state’s 1.9 million students enrolled. Access to the course varied, depending on the socioeconomic status, racial makeup and geographic location of schools. 

    For example, the report showed that 31% of schools serving low-income students offered a course, compared with 69% of high-income schools.

    Policy requiring schools to offer computer science has been implemented in states such as Nevada, where about 96% of the state’s schools offer a course, based on a national 2023 State of Computer Science Education report. 

    Closing equity gaps: The need for a computer science requirement 

    Since the 2018-19 school year, the percentage of California schools offering a computer science course has slightly increased to 45%, based on 2023 data. But California still lags the national average of 57.5% and still shows disparities among student groups and schools in certain communities. 

    “It’s been frustrating to see either the lack of progress or the remarkably slow progress that we’ve made, and that really emphasizes for me how important it is that we set this requirement,” Berman said. “If we don’t set that requirement, we’re never going to do the work necessary to accomplish it. Not having a requirement — it’s not yielding the progress that our students deserve.” 

    Based on the 2023 data from the 2022-23 school year:

    • 55% of high schools don’t offer any computer science courses. 
    • 27% of rural schools offer a course, compared with 50% of urban schools and 52% of suburban schools. 

    “That’s why we need this effort,” Berman said about the proposed legislation bringing schools to the baseline of offering the course. 

    “The data is clear that depending on what ZIP code you grow up in is determining whether or not you get the chance to get computer science education, and that shouldn’t be the case in California.” 

    National data shows that 99% of high schools in Arkansas and Maryland offer computer science, with Nevada, Alabama, South Carolina and Indiana having rates above 90%. 

    Among other policies, all of those states require their high schools to offer computer science. 

    What is computer science? ‘A fundamental understanding’

    Credit: Allison Shelley for EDUimages

    AB 2097 defines computer science as “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the state board.” Furthermore, the bill wants students to go beyond using the technology; they should understand how and why those technologies work. 

    The course teaches and prepares students to “meaningfully engage” in a digitally driven world, according to Computer Science for California (CSforCA), a group of educators, nonprofit organizations and industry leaders that has worked to improve equity in computer science access. 

    According to the group, computer science education can improve digital literacy, critical thinking and other skills that can be applied across multiple fields, including education, entertainment, agriculture, art, medicine and social justice. For example, a class may create an app that increases access to health care services or explore the ethics of data privacy.  

    “We require that (our seniors take government), not because we expect them all to become politicians,” said Modesto City Schools computer science teacher Amy Pezzoni, “but because if they are going to be citizens in our world, we want to make sure they understand how their world works, how to have their voice heard, how to make sure they’re not lost in the noise.”

    Technology is everywhere, Pezzoni said.

    According to a 2020 Brookings Institution analysis, jobs requiring a medium and high level of digital skills increased over the last 20 years, and jobs requiring low-level skills decreased, Bloomberg reported. A 2023 analysis from the National Skills Coalition found that 92% of jobs required digital skills.

    Based on 2023 data, each month, California averaged 45,245 open computing jobs with an average salary of $153,544. 

    “We are not giving California students the opportunity and access to these jobs in the state they live in,” said Mary Nicely, the state’s chief deputy superintendent of public instruction, who represented Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond during a June 12 Senate Education Committee hearing. 

    Pezzoni said that offering at least one computer science course, such as introductory computer science, builds students’ “fundamental understanding” of technology.  

    “It’s in our personal lives. It’s in every industry,” she said. “We just want to make sure they have the skills and the knowledge — the understanding of tech — to be successful (with whatever) they choose to do.”

    Pointing to computer science concepts such as artificial intelligence, web design and development, graphics, computer programming, robotics, cybersecurity and problem-solving, Pezzoni said, “It’s … the understanding of how technology works and how many different ways that you can engage with computer science.” 

    In 2018-19, high schoolers in Colusa, Mariposa, Modoc, San Benito and Sierra counties had no access to any computer science courses, according to the September 2021 Computer Science Access report.

    In other California schools, only 34% of campuses with a high proportion of Black, Indigenous, Latino and Pacific Islander students offered a course. And only 30% of females were enrolled in computer science courses even though they made up 49% of the student population before the pandemic. 

    Opponents of the bill say the inequity in both access to computer science courses and basic digital skills could create difficulties for some students, making it hard for them to do well in the course. Mark Epstein, with the California Environmental Technology Education Network, said at an April 24 Assembly committee hearing that students need a prerequisite course on basic digital skills to even succeed in a computer science class. 

    But Pezzoni said she meets students where they are. At the beginning of the class, she finds out what motivated students to take the class and what they want to do with their lives. 

    “I give them the skill, but I allow them to apply it in a way … that’s going to be meaningful for them,” Pezzoni said. “And I have seen students who were hell-bent on getting out of the class end up becoming some of my best students because they realized what they could do with it in their own interest. I have some that are continuing on a path that’s not tech, but they’re really appreciating the skills that our classes are giving them.

    “There is no reason students cannot engage in computer science.”

    Berman echoed the importance of meeting students where they are.

    “If they come in and they don’t have any computational skill, all the more reason for them to be taking this course and to get that experience,” he said. “I don’t think that we should penalize or punish students just because they haven’t had the chance yet to get these skills. I think that’s who we should be trying to support.”

    Computer science skills apply to practically any industry a student will pursue in the future, Berman added. The CSforCA coalition, for example, explained how computer science can make agriculture more sustainable and productive, highlighting robotic machines used in farming.

    And it can spark a passion for tech, Berman and Pezzoni said. Pezzoni has even had students who wanted to pursue medicine or business change their minds and decide to go into tech. 

    “They didn’t realize all of the opportunities they have to make a difference in tech, so they made that switch,” she said.

    Implementation is a concern

    Berman’s computer science bill would require the class to be offered in all public high schools by 2028-29. Even though the legislation doesn’t require immediate action, Berman said some school administrators have anxiety about implementation. 

    Pezzoni, who started and grew computer science courses in two low-income schools in the Central San Joaquin Valley, said it is achievable.

    If “this could be done in a low socioeconomic area in the Central Valley,” Pezzoni said, “it could be done anywhere in California.”

    After she started a computer science class in Ceres Unified in Stanislaus County, she said, “Students took it and were like, ‘OK, what’s next?’”

    “‘What can we do with this now?’” she said students asked her. “It, organically, will grow. They will drive that demand. But if they never have the opportunity to experience it, they don’t even know what they’re asking for. Or they just make the assumption, ‘Oh, well, that’s not for me because if it was important, they would offer it.’” 

    Pezzoni said there is a misconception that implementing computer science is a “big scary hurdle to overcome” because of the needed equipment or upgrades and necessary teachers and curriculum. 

    “And really none of that is an issue,” she said. “I think once districts start diving in and making this happen, they’re going to be pleasantly surprised how easy this is going to be for them to do.”

    Berman explained, “You don’t have to create curriculum. You don’t have to create professional development. That all exists already.”

    According to a bill analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee, school districts would have to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development to current teachers. 

    While the exact cost is unknown, “it could be in the millions to potentially low tens of millions of dollars in Proposition 98 General Fund each year,” the analysis concluded.

    The Department of Finance opposed the bill based on its estimate of $50 million to $73 million in ongoing funding from Proposition 98.

    California has invested nearly $100 million for professional development and certification of computer science teachers, Berman said. In 2016, the state updated credentialing guidelines to allow single-subject credentialed teachers in other disciplines to pursue a computer science supplementary authorization with required coursework, preparing educators to teach the course. 

    Last year, another bill requiring all high schools to teach computer science stalled in the Senate, in part because of the lack of teachers, CalMatters reported. The following October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1251, the “next step to increase accessibility for equitable computer science education in California,” the CSforCA coalition said in a news release at the time. The legislation requires the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish a work group to develop a teacher preparation pathway for computer science to address the number of teachers able to teach the course.

    Graduation requirement removed from bill, but not from vision

    Among the 30 states that require high schools to offer a course, eight mandate it as a graduation requirement. 

    “I think that should be an eventual goal,” Berman said. “I think the next logical step, especially as the economy continues to change and people continue to see the value and the benefit, is that every student should take it.”

    When the bill was first introduced in February, it included requiring the course as a graduation requirement. According to Berman, the requirement was removed from the bill. 

    “I have some colleagues that feel like we’ve already created some additional graduation requirements and to add more is not appropriate at this time,” he said. 

    In late June, lawmakers rushed legislation to make California the 26th state with a graduation requirement for personal finance, starting in 2030-31. It adds to mandates such as the 2029-30 graduation requirement for ethnic studies. 

    The computer science bill passed the Assembly in May and the Senate Education Committee in June. It now sits in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where a similar bill died last year. The bill faces a similar fate on Thursday if the Appropriations Committee doesn’t send it to the full Senate for a vote.

    “What the bill does is, it says this is a priority. This is a priority for our students. This is a priority for our communities,” Berman said. “It forces school districts to make this a priority. But I think once they do that, the benefit is going to be massive.

    “This bill will make computer science availability and access for every student a priority.” 





    Source link

  • California passes bill to limit student cellphone use on K-12 campuses

    California passes bill to limit student cellphone use on K-12 campuses


    Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    California state legislators passed a bill Wednesday requiring school districts to ban or restrict student smartphone use on campuses during school hours.

    Assembly Bill 3216, renamed the Phone-Free School Act, requires that every school district, charter school and county office of education develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.

    “Extended studies have demonstrated that the use of smartphones in classrooms can detract from students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying,” said the authors’ statement. “In consideration of California’s deficiency when it comes to academic performance, as compared to other states, it is imperative for the legislature to take action to resolve this issue.” 

    The Phone-Free School Act was authored by a bipartisan group of Assembly members that includes Republican Josh Hoover and Democrats Josh Lowenthal and Al Muratsuchi.

    The legislation comes as states, school districts and individual schools are increasingly banning cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices on campuses in an effort to curb classroom distractions, bullying and addiction to the devices. 

    At least five other states, including Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio have similar laws in place.

    It is likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation into law. He sent a letter to school district leaders earlier this month urging them to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use this school year. Excessive smartphone use increases anxiety, depression and other mental health issues in children, he said.

    The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, resulting in some students doubling their recreational screen time, according to research. This has led to concerns about addiction to the devices.

    This legislation builds on a previous law passed in 2019 that gave school districts the authority, but did not require them, to regulate smartphones during school hours. 

    Assembly Bill 3216 allows school districts to enforce their cellphone policies by limiting student access to their smartphones. Currently, some schools enforce phone bans by requiring students to check them into “cellphone hotels” or stow them in locked pouches that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet. 

    Many schools with cellphone prohibitions confiscate phones until the end of the school day if students flout the rules.

    The legislation allows for some exemptions. Students will not be prohibited from using their phones if there is an emergency, when they are given permission by school staff, when a doctor says that the student needs the phone for medical reasons or when a smartphone is required in a special education student’s individualized education program.

    The legislation also prohibits school officials and staff from accessing or monitoring a student’s online activities.

    School districts are required to have “significant stakeholder participation” in developing their cellphone policy to ensure it is responsive to the needs of students, teachers and parents, according to the legislation. The policies must be updated every five years.

    Adopting cellphone policies could collectively cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state analysis of the legislation. Because it is a state mandate, the costs could be reimbursed by the state.





    Source link

  • Bill to address antisemitism in schools to get special hearing Wednesday

    Bill to address antisemitism in schools to get special hearing Wednesday


    Students at a middle school in Los Angeles walk to class. ROBYN BECK / AFP)

    Credit Robin Beck / AFP

    Members of the Legislative Jewish Caucus have switched strategies to address their alarm over rising incidents of antisemitism in schools.

    They have abandoned a bill that called for creating academic standards that would have spelled out what should and should not be taught in American ethnic studies courses.

    Instead, with leaders of three other legislative ethnic caucuses also expressing support, they have introduced a bill to strengthen and broaden existing anti-discrimination protections based on race and ethnicity to include new wording to apply to national identity and religion.

    The Assembly Education Committee will hold a special hearing on Assembly Bill 715, introduced by Assemblymembers Rick Zbur, D-San Francisco, and Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, on Wednesday afternoon at 1:30. That is the final day for moving forward any bill for possible passage this year.

    “AB 715 demonstrates solidarity among California Legislative Diversity Caucuses to resolutely stand with the Jewish community to adopt meaningful legislation to root out hate in our classrooms,” Zbur said in a statement.

    The bill would add teeth to the uniform complaint process in schools and create a state-level antisemitism coordinator to oversee compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

    It also would apply anti-discrimination protections to content taught in class and to the contractors who write the courses’ lesson plans and train teachers. Although the bill does not mention ethnic studies, it presumably would apply to groups affiliated with the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, which compares Israel’s repression of Palestinians with European colonialists’ subjugation of people of color in Africa and Asia, and white American settlers’ mistreatment of Native Americans. Many of the complaints and lawsuits charging antisemitism have been against schools and districts that use the Liberated Ethnic Studies course content.

    Zbur said that school districts have ignored or delayed responding to complaints by Jewish families of bias and a hostile school environment. “Families should not have to file lawsuits,” he said.

    The key sections lay out broad intentions; the exact language is still being negotiated, Zbur said, and will be added as amendments to the bill in the coming weeks.

    The Jewish Caucus’ prior bill, to replace the current ethnic studies voluntary framework with academic standards, would have faced years of contention and low odds of passage. It was opposed by the California Teachers Association and ethnic studies faculty at California State University and the University of California, who have created alternatives to the state-approved framework. The bill would have applied only to high school ethnic studies, not all courses and grades. 

    The chairs of the Legislative Black Caucus, the Legislative Latino Caucus and the Asian American and Pacific Islander Caucus signed a statement endorsing AB 715. However, many groups that oppose the ethnic studies standards bill are gearing up to fight AB 715.

    “Repackaging censorship under the guise of combating antisemitism does a disservice to the very real fight against hate. We already have laws protecting students from discrimination. AB 715 would effectively silence educators and erase Palestinian voices,” Hussam Ayloush, CEO of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wrote in a statement.

    In 2021, the Legislature passed legislation requiring that all high schools offer a semester-long course in ethnic studies, starting in fall 2025, and for all students to take it for a high school diploma, beginning in 2029-30. But the law requires state funding to take effect, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has not proposed any funding, and indicated he would not do so in the 2025-26 state budget. Since AB 715 also would create a state mandate, it’s unclear whether Newsom would sign it.





    Source link