اینترنت

برچسب: billion

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts $19 billion state budget deficit for schools and community colleges

    Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts $19 billion state budget deficit for schools and community colleges


    California State Capitol

    Credit: Christopher Schodt for EdSource

    Schools and community colleges likely will face a $19 billion, three-year state funding deficit, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reported Thursday. The funding for TK-12 this year is $108 billion.

    The LAO’s annual projection is a forecast of what to expect from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first pass next month on the 2024-25 state budget. It reflects a decline in funding in Proposition 98, the 35-year-old constitutional amendment that determines the portion of the state’s general fund that must go to schools and community colleges. Complicating the picture is that about half of the education deficit covers money that schools and community colleges spent in 2022-23.

    The overall projected state general fund budget deficit of $68 billion could also jeopardize 5% annual increases for the University of California and California State University systems that Gov. Gavin Newsom had agreed to, as well as children’s services not covered by Proposition 98.

    The projected shortfall is the largest financial challenge schools and community colleges will face since the Great Recession budget of 2009. However, the LAO said that schools are better positioned now because of an education rainy-day fund that the Legislature was required to sock away in the record-high revenue years of the past half-decade.  

    Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, cautioned that state leaders must avoid the sort of harsh cuts made during the Great Recession. They included forcing districts to borrow billions of dollars with the expectation they would be repaid later.

    “Fortunately, we have tools, including the Proposition 98 reserve, that we can leverage to protect Proposition 98 funding levels,” he said. “Even during fiscal times like these, public education must be prioritized and protected. We must continue to build on our state’s great momentum and investments that have been made these past few years.”

    The LAO report lays out several options to balance school spending, some of them jarring for schools and community colleges.

    One option is for the Legislature to preserve TK-14 funding approved last June and find the full $68 billion in cuts in the general fund. That would spare schools, but other programs for children outside of Proposition 98 funding would more likely be hit, including support and subsidized costs for child care.

    The opposite approach — the most painful to schools and community colleges and politically risky for legislators — would be to revise the 2022-23 and the current 2023-24 Proposition 98 funding downward to meet the minimum required by law. That would slash funding by $9 billion from 2022-23 and $6.3 billion for the current year, with a ripple effect of lowering the minimum guarantee for 2024-25 by $3.5 billion.

    The Legislature could ease the burden by draining the $8.1 billion rainy day fund. That would still leave about $10 billion in cuts. Billions of dollars in one-time funding, whether unspent so far this year, or allotted by the Legislature for the next several years, could be targets. These could include $1 billion as yet unallocated for developing community schools or money set aside for learning recovery and for after-school extended learning time. It could be politically unpopular for legislators to make significant school cuts in an election year. And they would have to approve a resolution that there is a fiscal emergency to reduce the Proposition 98 appropriation.

    The third alternative is somewhere in the middle — cuts to K-14 and cuts from other general fund programs.

    The Legislature had an inkling that economic conditions were worsening but no hard numbers when they passed the 2023-24 budget in June: The deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16. So they didn’t know the impact on state revenues in 2022-23 and 2023-24 from slowing home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and from declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.

    The LAO’s forecast for state revenues for the general fund shows a big drop in 2022-23, a flat line in 2023-24 and a slight uptick in the next fiscal year. But the gray area shows the possibility of an additional decline or a quick recovery.
    Source: The Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    The LAO cautioned that economic conditions are volatile, and revenues will remain unpredictable. A graph of its revenue outlook shows slow growth in 2024-25, with a large gray penumbra of uncertainty above and below that line.

    Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento, said he was pleased that the LAO listed several options and did not recommend resetting funding to meet the Proposition 98 minimum, with “devastating cuts.”

    “The numbers are worrisome, but the approaches laid out are significant efforts to demonstrate how lawmakers might work to protect basic investment in education funding,” he said.





    Source link

  • Newsom’s $8 billion fix to spare cuts to schools, community colleges may face tough sell

    Newsom’s $8 billion fix to spare cuts to schools, community colleges may face tough sell


    Gov. Gavin Newsom announces his 2024-25 state budget proposal, including his plans to deal with a projected deficit in Sacramento on Jan. 10.. Credit: Brontë Wittpenn / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    Gov. Gavin Newsom buoyed the hopes of school district and community college educators this month when, despite a sizable three-year decline in state revenue, he promised to protect schools and colleges from cuts and to uphold future spending commitments.

    They might want to hold their applause until after the last act, when the Legislature passes the 2024-25 budget in June.

    In an analysis of the state budget, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) cautioned that there are questions about how Newsom plans to close $8 billion of a huge revenue shortfall facing schools and community colleges.

    Beyond meeting this challenge, the LAO also urged legislators to start planning for education spending beyond 2024-25, when flat or declining revenues are expected to raise difficult financial choices. They could pit funding of ongoing expenses against sustaining ambitious programs like summer and after-school programs for low-income students, additional community schools, money for teacher training in early literacy and math, and confronting post-pandemic learning setbacks.

    “The state faces significant operating deficits in the coming years, which are the result of lower revenue estimates, as well as increased cost pressures,” the analyst said.

    But the immediate enigma is Newsom’s strategy for the $8 billion.

    Newsom is projecting that state revenues to run schools and community colleges will be short $14.3 billion over three years: the budget year that ended in 2022-23, the current budget year of 2023-24, and the coming year. That number is calculated as revenue through Proposition 98, the formula that determines the proportion of the state’s general fund that must be spent on schools and community colleges — about 40%.

    Proposition 98 revenues are sometimes close but never exactly what a governor and the Legislature assume when they approve a budget. Revenues for the past and current years exceed or fall short of what they projected and not what they predict for the year ahead.  

    Budget analysts were particularly handicapped when calculating the 2023-24 budget. They didn’t anticipate the shortfall from 2022-23 and didn’t discover it until fall 2023, because of a six-month delay in the filing deadline for 2022 tax returns.

    Newsom is proposing to divert $5.7 billion from the Proposition 98 rainy day fund to fill in the current year’s deficit as well as what’s needed to sustain a flat budget, plus a small cost of living increase, for 2024-25. Draining the rainy day fund would require the Legislature’s OK.

    The remainder — and biggest piece — is the $9 billion revenue shortfall from 2022-23, which would be $8 billion after other automatic adjustments. That shortfall is technically an overpayment beyond the statutory minimum Proposition 98 funding guarantee. It fell dramatically from what the Legislature adopted in June 2022 to $98.3 billion that revenue actually produced. The biggest decline was in income tax receipts on the top 1% of earners.

    School districts have already spent funding from 2022–23, including on staff pay raises that they negotiated with good faith estimates. Newsom and the Legislature could try to deduct that overpayment from the current and 2024-25 budgets, but such a move “would be devastating for students and staff,” Patti Herrera, vice president of the school consulting firm California School Services, told a workshop last week with more than 1,000 school district administrators in Sacramento.

    As an alternative, Newsom proposes to find reductions from the non-Proposition 98 side of the general fund, which covers higher education, child care and all other non-education expenses, from prisons to climate change programs.

    “We are super grateful there will be no attempts to claw back” the money given to school districts in a past year’s budget, Herrera said.

    Newsom’s challenge is to make districts and community colleges financially whole without increasing the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee. Raising Proposition 98 could create a bigger obligation in the future, including potential deficits after 2024-25 — unless the Legislature raises taxes, a nonstarter in an election year.

    How Newsom is going to do this is a mystery. The one-sentence reference to it in his budget summary says only, “The Budget proposes statutory changes to address roughly $8 billion of this decrease to avoid impacting existing LEA (school districts) and community college district budgets.”

    Both the LAO and School Services said it’s their understanding from the Department of Finance that the payments from the general fund to cover the Proposition 98 overpayment would be made over five years, starting in 2025-26.

    “We have some questions about that proposal. Probably the most pressing one is how is the state going to use revenue that it’s not going to collect for several years to address a funding shortfall that exists right now,” said Ken Kapphahn, the LAO’s principal fiscal and policy analyst for TK-12 education.

    The questions are legal and political. The proposed statutory language, which may be released in a trailer bill in the coming weeks, will reveal how the state Department of Finance will finesse postponing balancing the 2022-23 budget that’s $8 billion out of kilter. Budget hearings next week in the Capitol may indicate how receptive legislative leaders are to further reducing general fund spending, which also is feeling a financial squeeze.

    A search for the extra $8 billion

    Additionally, Newsom is proposing several billion dollars of accounting maneuvers that will book spending in 2024-25 but delay and defer payments for programs and some state salaries until early 2025-26.  Included are $500 million in deferred reimbursements to the University of California and California State University for the 5% budget increase that Newsom committed to funding in 2024-25.

    “Many of these solutions involve moving costs to next year. That is one reason we have the state looking at a large deficit, not just this year, but the following year,” Kapphahn said. “I can’t recall another situation quite like this.”

    Barring a recession, which neither LAO nor the Newsom administration is forecasting, both Newsom and the administration are projecting general fund deficits averaging about $30 billion annually in the three years after 2024-25. Pushing the $8 billion solution for the 2022-23 Proposition 98 deficit, along with other general fund delays and deferrals into those years will compound difficult choices, according to the LAO.

    “Overall, the governor’s budget runs the risk of understating the degree of fiscal pressure facing the state in the future,” the LAO analysis said.

    The LAO suggested other options for resolving the 2022-23 deficit. It recommended applying the remaining $3.8 billion from the Proposition 98 reserve fund that Newsom hasn’t touched and looking for reductions in unallocated one-time funding such as an unused $1 billion for community schools and canceling $500 million for electric school buses. 

    Even with no cuts to Proposition 98 next year, many school districts and charter schools will likely face their own deficits in 2024-25. That’s because the projected cost-of-living adjustment for next year will not be enough to cover the loss of revenue from declining enrollments. The COLA, tied to a federal formula measuring goods and services bought by state and local governments and not consumer products, is currently projected to be 0.76%; it would be the lowest increase in 40 years, with one exception, the year after the Great Recession, in 2009. This would come on the heels of two years of near record-high COLAs of 6.6% and 8.2%.

    The analyst’s office projects the COLA may inch up to 1% by June, when the budget is set. At that rate, a hypothetical school district with 10,000 students would see declining revenues with an enrollment decline of only about 100 students.

    Paso Robles Joint Unified School District in San Luis Obispo County, with about 6,000 students, is among those with declining enrollment since the pandemic. As a result, the district, with about 800 full-time employees, anticipates a reduction of five full-time staff members in 2024-25 and perhaps 40 layoff notices the following year, said Brad Pawlowski, the assistant superintendent for business services.

    Pawlowski said he came away encouraged after School Services’ presentation that schools will be spared cuts in the next budget, while acknowledging it’s a long time between now and the budget’s adoption.

    “We have seen a common message between the governor and the Legislature to protect education. And that does make me feel good,” he said. But doing so, he added, “will mean finding other ways to make that up outside of Prop. 98. That’s going to be the real challenge.”





    Source link

  • UC has $32 billion in assets targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters, but no plans to divest

    UC has $32 billion in assets targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters, but no plans to divest


    Hundreds of San Diego State students protest in support of Palestinians on April 30, 2024.

    Credit: Jazlyn Dieguez / EdSource

    The University of California disclosed Tuesday that it has $32 billion invested in assets that pro-Palestinian protesters demand the university divest, including weapons manufacturers that sell to Israel.

    The university, however, has no plans to sell off those assets, despite the recent protests and encampments across the UC system, a spokesperson reiterated Tuesday.

    The system’s chief investment officer, Jagdeep Singh Bachher, outlined the investments during a meeting Tuesday of the investments committee for UC’s board of regents. Bachher’s list responded to specific demands from the protesters and included broader investments in U.S. Treasuries, which he added in response to the request that UC divest from assets that support Israel. “The answer to that question is the U.S. government,” he said, referring to the aid and weapons that the government sends to Israel. 

    The full list of investments include:

    • $3.3 billion in weapons manufacturers
    • $12 billion in U.S. Treasuries 
    • $163 million in BlackRock, an asset manager that owns shares of companies that support Israel
    • $2.1 billion in investments managed for UC by BlackRock
    • $8.6 billion in the investment firm Blackstone, also targeted by protesters
    • $3.2 billion in 24 other companies targeted by protesters, including Coca-Cola and Disney

    “So if I interpret the questions and the responses mathematically with numbers, the letter sent to us would suggest that we should sell $32 billion of assets out of the $175 billion,” Bachher said, referring to the system’s entire investment portfolio.

    The investments committee took no action toward divestment Tuesday, nor did it suggest they were considering doing so. 

    When reached Tuesday, a spokesperson for the system also said UC stands behind its April 26 statement opposing the idea of divestment.

    “The University of California has consistently opposed calls for boycott against and divestment from Israel,” UC said at the time. “While the University affirms the right of our community members to express diverse viewpoints, a boycott of this sort impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses.”

    Demands for UC and other universities to divest from Israel have heightened in recent weeks as pro-Palestinian encampments and protests have swept the country since last month, including at UCLA and other UC campuses. 

    Driving the encampments are calls for divestment from companies doing significant business with Israel. The protesters see universities as complicit in Israel’s war in Gaza. More than 35,000 people have been killed in Gaza, including many women and children, according to health authorities. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza followed the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed about 1,200 people.

    Tuesday’s financial disclosures followed a lengthy public comment period in which many commenters called on UC to divest.

    “I wanted to emphasize my support for the Palestinian encampment students and faculty and to strongly support their call for divestment from all investments in the military industrial complex,” said Darlene Lee, a faculty member in UCLA’s teacher education program and a UCLA alum. “Educational funds should go towards education and community and not war.”

    Calls for UC to divest are likely to continue Wednesday, when the regents will convene for the second of their three-day meeting at UC Merced. Ahead of the regents meeting, protesters at UC Merced set up a pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus, making Merced the latest of UC’s 10 campuses to establish such an encampment.

    In a statement posted on Instagram, organizers of the encampment wrote that they are demanding UC to divest, call for a ceasefire in Gaza and end ties with Israel, including study-abroad programs.

    “The UC regents are meeting on our campus. … They will hear us!,” the organizers wrote.





    Source link

  • UC has $32 billion in assets targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters, but no plans to divest

    UC has $32 billion in assets targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters, but no plans to divest


    Hundreds of San Diego State students protest in support of Palestinians on April 30, 2024.

    Credit: Jazlyn Dieguez / EdSource

    The University of California disclosed Tuesday that it has $32 billion invested in assets that pro-Palestinian protesters demand the university divest, including weapons manufacturers that sell to Israel.

    The university, however, has no plans to sell off those assets, despite the recent protests and encampments across the UC system, a spokesperson reiterated Tuesday.

    The system’s chief investment officer, Jagdeep Singh Bachher, outlined the investments during a meeting Tuesday of the investments committee for UC’s board of regents. Bachher’s list responded to specific demands from the protesters and included broader investments in U.S. Treasuries, which he added in response to the request that UC divest from assets that support Israel. “The answer to that question is the U.S. government,” he said, referring to the aid and weapons that the government sends to Israel. 

    The full list of investments include:

    • $3.3 billion in weapons manufacturers
    • $12 billion in U.S. Treasuries 
    • $163 million in BlackRock, an asset manager that owns shares of companies that support Israel
    • $2.1 billion in investments managed for UC by BlackRock
    • $8.6 billion in the investment firm Blackstone, also targeted by protesters
    • $3.2 billion in 24 other companies targeted by protesters, including Coca-Cola and Disney

    “So if I interpret the questions and the responses mathematically with numbers, the letter sent to us would suggest that we should sell $32 billion of assets out of the $175 billion,” Bachher said, referring to the system’s entire investment portfolio.

    The investments committee took no action toward divestment Tuesday, nor did it suggest they were considering doing so. 

    When reached Tuesday, a spokesperson for the system also said UC stands behind its April 26 statement opposing the idea of divestment.

    “The University of California has consistently opposed calls for boycott against and divestment from Israel,” UC said at the time. “While the University affirms the right of our community members to express diverse viewpoints, a boycott of this sort impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses.”

    Demands for UC and other universities to divest from Israel have heightened in recent weeks as pro-Palestinian encampments and protests have swept the country since last month, including at UCLA and other UC campuses. 

    Driving the encampments are calls for divestment from companies doing significant business with Israel. The protesters see universities as complicit in Israel’s war in Gaza. More than 35,000 people have been killed in Gaza, including many women and children, according to health authorities. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza followed the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed about 1,200 people.

    Tuesday’s financial disclosures followed a lengthy public comment period in which many commenters called on UC to divest.

    “I wanted to emphasize my support for the Palestinian encampment students and faculty and to strongly support their call for divestment from all investments in the military industrial complex,” said Darlene Lee, a faculty member in UCLA’s teacher education program and a UCLA alum. “Educational funds should go towards education and community and not war.”

    Calls for UC to divest are likely to continue Wednesday, when the regents will convene for the second of their three-day meeting at UC Merced. Ahead of the regents meeting, protesters at UC Merced set up a pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus, making Merced the latest of UC’s 10 campuses to establish such an encampment.

    In a statement posted on Instagram, organizers of the encampment wrote that they are demanding UC to divest, call for a ceasefire in Gaza and end ties with Israel, including study-abroad programs.

    “The UC regents are meeting on our campus. … They will hear us!,” the organizers wrote.





    Source link

  • $10 billion school construction bond headed to Nov. 5 ballot: what’s in it?

    $10 billion school construction bond headed to Nov. 5 ballot: what’s in it?


    Construction site at Murray Elementary in Dublin Unified in 2022.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Legislators are poised to place a $10 billion construction bond for K-12 schools and community colleges on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot. If voters agree, the money will replenish a pool of state matching money that ran dry for building new schools and for fixing old ones – benefiting many districts.

    With 34 authors and co-authors, Assembly Bill 247, laying out the details of the bond, is expected to pass easily. It will receive a hearing today, only two days after it was made public after weeks of negotiations. The Assembly and Senate are expected to approve it on Wednesday, the deadline for final wording for November initiatives.  Approval will require two-thirds majority support.

    “California urgently needs a statewide school bond to repair dilapidated and unsafe school facilities and to invest in our children to meet 21st century educational and workforce needs,” stated Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), chair of the Assembly Education Committee and primary author of AB 247.

    The last school construction bond, passed in 2016, was for $9 billion. Since then, needs have piled up. The Legislature has added a new grade, transitional kindergarten, and appropriated $4 billion to turn schools into community schools, demanding more space for services, from tutoring to mental health. Increasing threats from flooding, heat, and fires raise the need for climate-resilient responses, from shade structures to energy and air conditioning upgrades.

    The bond will allow districts to use the money for all of those purposes and seek a supplemental grant to construct or renovate transitional kindergarten classrooms and build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them. The bond would also set aside $150 million to remove lead from school water.

    School districts must pass bonds through property taxes to take advantage of state subsidies. Critics have long charged that the formula for matching money—60% of any qualifying cost of a modernization project and 50% for new construction—has sharply disadvantaged school districts with low property values per student. With larger tax bases and the ability to spread the tax burden, property-rich districts can issue larger bonds, gobbling up a disproportionate share of the state-matching money.

    The state’s $10 million bond will use a slightly different formula, offering a little more to districts with lower property rates.  But the system will remain largely intact – and unconstitutional, said reform advocate John Affeldt, managing attorney for the public interest law firm Public Advocates. In February, it filed a complaint with state officials, threatening a lawsuit on the grounds that the facilities program discriminates against students in low-wealth districts and denies them an opportunity for an equal education.

    The bill’s authors have slightly modified the distribution formula. A sliding-scale system will give districts with high rates of low-income students and, to a lesser extent, low assessed property per student as much as an additional 5 percentage point match: 65% for renovations and 55% for new construction.

    Public Advocates recommended using assessed property value per student, which it says is the most important variable when measuring capacity to raise local money to modernize schools, as the yardstick to determine the size of districts’ state match.

    The bill creates a point system for rewarding extra money that emphasizes the percentage of low-income students, foster children, and English learners in a district. Affeldt said it likely will award Los Angeles Unified, with a high rate of poor students but above-average property tax wealth per student, extra undeserved state money.  

    The maximum 65% match won’t help property-poor districts, from 3,500-student Del Norte Unified in the rural north to 46,000-student San Bernardino City Unified, highlighted in Public Advocates’ complaint. Districts like these districts would need an 80% to 90% state match to raise enough money to fix critical conditions and add facilities that property-wealthy districts take for granted – but there cannot be enough funding for them as long as every district is guaranteed a 60% state match, Affleld said.

    Public Advocates will consult the residents and community organizations it represents in property-poor districts about what the next step will be, Affeldt said. “But what I can say is the Legislature could not have written a better roadmap to get sued.”

    The $10 billion bond will be divided as follows:

    $8.5 billion to K-12. Of that:

    • $3.3 billion for new construction, which will include seismic retrofits, climate measures, preschool and health facilities, and replacement of unrepairable school buildings at least 75 years old; 
    • $4 billion for modernization, which would include replacing portables at least 20 years old and $115 million carved out for the lead in water abatement;
    • $600 million for qualifying charter schools;
    • $600 million for career technical education facilities.

    $1.5 billion for community colleges.

    The $8.5 billion will cover only a portion of districts’ needs, and more than $3 billion may already be spoken for. The State Allocations Board keeps a list of approved projects that have not received funding. As with past state construction bonds, the bill would put these projects at the front of a new line; they’d get first dibs on the new money.

    Funding for the state bond will be distributed, as in the past, on a first-come, first-served basis for those districts that can navigate the complex application process. Here, too, critics say favors large districts, which have full-time facilities staff who are well-versed in the system, and small property-wealthy districts that can afford consultants.

    The authors of AB 247 have included two provisions to mitigate this. It will send the California Department of Education $5 million to provide technical expertise for completing applications for priority schools in small districts — those with fewer than 2,500 students with low assessed value per student and high numbers of low-income students.

    Additionally, the bill calls for setting aside 10% of the new construction and modernization money for small districts and front them a piece of their expected award for grant management. However, the set-aside applies to all small districts, including property-wealthy districts that could consume a big share of the 10% total.

    In another nod to fairness, the bond will expand financial hardship assistance in which the state covers the full cost of projects for districts too small to issue a bond; since 1998, these districts have received about 3% of state bond money. Eligibility would increase from a maximum of $5 million in bonding capacity to $15 million.

    California has no regular or consistent method of helping with school facilities. Since 1998, when the current formula for sharing state bond proceeds took effect, voters have approved $54 billion in bonding. A string of successful bond approvals was broken in 2020 when voters defeated a proposed $15 billion bond measure, which, by bad luck of the draw, was Proposition 13. Voters may have confused it with the anti-tax measure of the same number in 1978.

    Prop. 13 would have given CSU and UC $4 billion of the total. A bill competing with AB 247 would have, too. Weeks of negotiations settled with a smaller bond and no money for the universities. And that cleared the way for a separate $10 billion non-education bond that will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. It will focus on climate change, with funding to shore up defenses against wildfires, floods, and rising sea levels.





    Source link

  • LAUSD board votes to add $9 billion school construction bond to November ballot 

    LAUSD board votes to add $9 billion school construction bond to November ballot 


    LAUSD’s Nueva Vista Elementary School in Bell.

    Photo Credit: Betty Márquez Rosales

    Voters in November will decide whether to give the Los Angeles Unified School District $9 billion in bond money to upgrade and improve school facilities, the school board decided unanimously Wednesday. 

    The bond is the largest ever put on the ballot by Los Angeles Unified and is just shy of a statewide school bond measure for $10 billion that will also be on the November ballot. For LAUSD’s bond measure to pass, at least 55% of voters will need to vote in favor — which would lead to an uptick in property taxes by roughly $25.04 for every $100,000 of assessed value, according to a district estimate.

    District officials stated that the money is critical, and its schools’ needs urgent. 

    “We have seen schools that are built as Taj Mahals, with the latest and greatest technology, with beautiful green spaces, with outdoor classrooms, with stunning athletic facilities,” Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said Wednesday. “Then you drive down the road one mile, and you see a completely different world that I cannot explain, and frankly, I cannot accept.” 

    More than 60% of LAUSD campuses are at least a half-century old, according to a board report. And schools across the district have more than $80 billion “of unfunded school facility and technology needs.”

    Meanwhile, the costs of construction continue to grow — and have soared by 36% in the past four years, according to the report. 

    If passed, the $9 billion in bond money would help with efforts, including: 

    • Ensuring schools have adequate safety features and are seismically sound 
    • Modernizing campuses in-keeping with “21st century learning”
    • Improving disability access 
    • Reducing discrepancies across older and newer schools 
    • Expanding outdoor spaces, transitioning to a new food service model and improving energy efficiency

    According to district materials, roughly “525 school buildings may need to be retrofitted, modernized, or replaced for earthquake safety.” 

    Amid widespread support at Wednesday’s meeting, Michael Hamner, the chair of LAUSD’s Bond Oversight Committee, said the district did not involve his committee enough in the bond’s development. 

    “While we understand the district’s infrastructure needs are greater than the pool of resources currently available to fund them, the process by which this bond measure was developed and put forward, without consultation of key stakeholders groups such as ourselves — and therefore outside public view — prevents us from providing any meaningful comment,” he said Wednesday. 

    In response, Carvalho stated that while the process of moving forward with this bond was condensed, the district will “not spare any opportunity” to consider the views of various stakeholders. 

    Amidst a declining district enrollment, some have also claimed the district should wait to move forward with a bond measure until they have a better understanding of their needs — especially as LAUSD is relying on taxpayers’ money. 

    Carvalho doubled down, however, on the project’s urgency. 

    He said that regardless of potential changes to enrollment and square footage, the district’s  “critical need for facilities improvement will still be by far an excess of what we currently have and what we will have in the near future.” 

    According to school board member Rocio Rivas, improved facilities are associated with better academic outcomes, improved attendance and better mental health among students.  

    “Kids know when they have not the best — they don’t have it as good,” Board President Jackie Goldberg said Wednesday. “And they do feel, somehow or another, that maybe [they’re] just not worth as much.” 





    Source link

  • Michael Tomasky: Why No One Cares that Trump Is Raking in $1 Billion a Month

    Michael Tomasky: Why No One Cares that Trump Is Raking in $1 Billion a Month


    Why did Trump run for President in 2024?

    1. To stay out of jail.
    2. To destroy our government.
    3. To make money.

    All three answers are correct. Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, recounts the latest financial scandal associated with Trump–the sale of Trump crytocurrency that is pulling billions into family pockets. And he tries to figure out why the story appears to have faded, instead of blowing up as a mind-boggling violation of the emoluments clause. That’s the part of the Constitution that says Presidents are not supposed to be getting rich by being President, especially by any sort of gift from foreign powers. Trump evaded that restriction in his first term, when he owned the hotel closest to the White Hiuse, and visiting potentates rented the most lavish suites. That was small potatoes. An investment firm in Abu Dhabi just put $2 billion into Trump cryptocurrency. Tomasky asks: does anyone care?

    He writes:

    Nicolle Wallace had Scott Galloway on her MSNBC show Thursday. She began by asking him what he makes of this moment in which we find ourselves. Galloway, a business professor and popular podcaster, could have zigged in any number of directions with that open-ended question, so I was interested to see the direction he settled on: “I think we essentially have become a kleptocracy that would make Putin blush. I mean, keep in mind that in the first three months, the Trump family has become $3 billion wealthier, so that’s a billion dollars a month.”

    Stop and think about that. A presidency lasts, of course, 48 months (at most, we hope). Trump has been enriching himself at an unprecedented scale since day one of his second term—actually, since just before, given that he announced the $Trump meme coin a few days before swearing to protect and defend the Constitution.

    And now, we know that he’s having a dinner at Mar-a-Lago in two weeks for his top $Trump investors, whose identities we may never know. How might these people influence his decisions? This whole arrangement is blatantly corrupt. And The New York Times had a terrific report this week about Don Jr. and Eric going around the world (Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia) making deals from which their father will profit.

    I read these stories, as I’m sure you do, and I think to myself: How on earth is he getting away with this? It’s the right question, but we usually concentrate on the wrong answer.

    For most people, they think first of the Democrats, because they’re the opposition, and by the traditions of our system they’re the ones who are supposed to stop this, or at least raise hell about it. Second, we might think about congressional Republicans, who, if they were actually upholding their own oaths to the Constitution, would be expressing alarm about this.

    They both shoulder some blame, but neither of those is really the answer. Every time I ask myself how he gets away with this, I remember: Oh, right. It’s the right-wing media. Duh.

    After the election, I wrote a column that went viral about how the right-wing media made Trump’s election possible. Fox News, most conspicuously, but also Newsmax, One America News Network, Sinclair, and the rest, along with the swarm of right-wing podcasters and TikTokers, created a media environment in which Trump could do no wrong and Kamala Harris no right.

    Think back—I know you’ve repressed it—to that horror-clown-show Madison Square Garden rally Trump held the week before the election. It was, as the Times put it, a “carnival of grievances, misogyny, and racism.” A generation or two ago, that would have finished off his campaign. Last year? It made no difference. No—it helped. And it helped because a vast propaganda network—armed with press passes and First Amendment protections—spent a week gabbing about how cool and manly it was.

    Newsflash: They’re still at it.

    First of all, Fox News is basically the megaphone of the Trump administration. In Trump’s first 100 days in office, key administration officials, reports Media Matters for America, appeared on Fox 536 times. That, obviously, is 5.36 times per day; in other words, assuming that a cable news “day” runs from 6 a.m. to midnight, that’s one administration official about every three hours. I’ve seen occasional clips where the odd host challenges them on this point or that, but in essence, this is a propaganda parade.

    I tried to do some googling to see how Fox is covering the meme coin scandal. Admitting that Google doesn’t catch everything, the answer seems to be that it’s not. On the network’s website, there was a bland January 18 article reporting that he’d launched it; an actually interesting January 22 piece summarizing a critical column by The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell, who charged that it was an invitation to bribery; and finally, an April 24 report that the coin surged in value after Trump announced the upcoming dinner—“critics” were given two paragraphs, deep in the article. (Interesting side note: Predictably, other figures on the far right have aped Trump by launching their own coins, among them former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley.)

    But it’s not just Fox, and it’s not just on corruption. It’s all of them, and it’s on everything. You think any of them are mentioning Trump’s campaign promise to bring prices down on day one, or pointing out that all “persons” in the United States have a right to due process? Or criticizing his shambolic tariffs policies? I’m not saying there’s never criticism. There is. But the thrust of the coverage is protective and defensive: “Expert Failure & the Trump Boom” was the theme of one recent Laura Ingraham segment.

    So sure, blame Democrats to some extent. A number of them are increasingly trying to bring attention to the corruption story, but there’s always more they could be doing. (By the way, new DNC Chair Ken Martin announced the creation one month ago of a new “People’s Cabinet” to push back hard against Trump. Anybody heard of it since?)

    And of course, blame congressional Republicans. Their constitutional, ethical, and moral failures are beyond the pale, and they’re all cowards.

    But neither of those groups is the reason Trump can throw a meme coin party and nothing happens; can send legal U.S. residents to brutal El Salvador prisons; can detain students for weeks because they wrote one pro-Palestinian op-ed; can shake down universities and law firms; can roil the markets with his idiotic about-faces on tariffs; can whine that bringing down prices is harder than he thought; can empower his largest donor, the richest man in the world, to take a meat-ax to the bureaucracy in a way that makes no sense to anyone, and so much more.

    It’s all because Trump and his team operate within the protective cocoon of a media-disinformation environment that allows just enough criticism to retain “credibility” but essentially functions as a Ministry of Truth for the administration that would have shocked Orwell himself.

    And just remember—a billion dollars a month.

    Don’t be surprised to see Trump-branded stuff on the White House website any day now. Trump Bibles, Trump sneakers, MAGA hats, Trump watches, Trump trading cards, etc. why not?



    Source link

  • A guide to what a $10 billion construction bond on the ballot could mean for your school

    A guide to what a $10 billion construction bond on the ballot could mean for your school


    West Contra Costa Unified’s Stege Elementary School in Richmond.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    More than 1 in 4 school districts are asking local voters to approve a record $39 billion in school construction bonds on the Nov. 5 ballot. Those that pass will jockey for some of the $10 billion in matching state funding that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are asking voters to approve by passing Proposition 2.

    The facility needs of districts are huge and growing, even as the state’s overall enrollment is projected to decline over the next two decades.

    Decades-old “portable” classrooms are falling apart; many air conditioners are malfunctioning, and classrooms without them are sweltering. Roofs leak, plumbing is corroding, wiring is fraying. 

    Parents worry about open access to insecure campuses. Schools lack room for new transitional kindergarten classes and plans for climate-resilient, energy-efficient buildings. Increasingly popular career and vocational education programs need up-to-date spaces.

    Districts’ priorities will vary, and so will their capacity to pay for them. As in the past, districts with high property values, which often correlate to higher-than-average incomes of homeowners, will have a leg up on their property-poor neighbors in terms of what they can ask their taxpayers to approve. Some districts will check off items on their wish list; other districts will resort to triage, fixing what’s most falling apart.

    In March 2020, amid first reports of a new pandemic on the horizon, statewide voters defeated a state construction bond with an unlucky ballot number. As a result, the state fell further behind in helping districts repair and rebuild school facilities.

    “The defeat of Proposition 13 in 2020 and the pandemic made local districts more hesitant to put bonds on the ballot in 2022, so there is a lot of pent-up need,” said Sara Hinkley, California program manager for the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley, which has extensively analyzed facilities needs in the state. 

    “The number of bond measures and the total amount reflect the aging and deferred maintenance of California schools, as well as the increasing urgency of HVAC and schoolyard upgrades to grapple with extreme heat.”

    The center estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are more than 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 years old or older.

    Proposition 2 won’t significantly reform a first-come, first-served funding system if it passes, but it will clear out a backlog of unfunded school projects and partially replenish a state-building fund that has run dry.

    With so much on the ballot competing for attention, Proposition 2 may escape many voters’ attention. Here are answers to questions that should help you fill out your ballot.  

    What’s on the ballot this year?

    School districts have placed 252 bond proposals to raise $39.3 billion; 15 community college districts are asking voters to pass $10.6 billion worth of bonds, for a total of 267 proposed bonds valued at $49.9 billion. They range from a proposed $9 billion bond issue in Los Angeles, the state’s largest district, to $3 million sought by Pleasant View Elementary School District for repairs to its only school in Porterville.

    How is school construction funded?

    Unlike school districts’ operating money, which mostly comes from the state’s general fund, school construction and repairs remain largely a local responsibility, paid for by bonds funded by property taxes. Over the past 20 years, voters approved $181 billion in local bonds for public school and community college facility projects, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  

    That compares with $31.8 billion over the same period in state facilities bonds passed for school district and community college construction, plus $4.6 billion from the general fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom directed toward school construction. Altogether, the state has chosen to bear only 17% — one-sixth — of the total costs of school construction since 2001.

    Bonds are essentially loans that are paid back, commonly over 25 or 30 years, with interest. In the past 10 years, interest rates have ranged from about 2% to nearly 5% and now are coming down again. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would cost the general fund about $500 million annually for 35 years to pay back Proposition 2’s principal and interest.

    What does it take to pass a bond?

    The passage of a local bond requires a 55% approval rate. Despite the higher threshold than a simple majority, voters have approved 80% of local bonds on the ballot since 2001, according to CaliforniaFinance.com. The exception was in 2020, when voters defeated about half of local bonds, along with Proposition 13. The passage rate bounced back in 2022 to 72% — perhaps a good omen for proposals on Nov. 5 . 

    It takes only a 50% majority to pass a state construction bond. A voter survey in September by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 54% of likely voters said they would vote yes on Proposition 2, with 44% voting no.

    The bulk of state funding for school and community college construction came in the early 2000s, during fast-growing enrollment and boom years for the state economy. However, the state issued no state bonds for a decade after 2006. The 2016 bond, Proposition 51, the last that voters approved, allocated $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for the state’s 115 community colleges. All of that funding has been distributed. 

    Are there limits to how much districts can tax property owners for school bonds?

    Yes. Property taxes from school construction are capped at $60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for unified districts, $30 per $100,000 for elementary or high school districts, and $25 per $100,000 for community college districts. A person whose home assessed value is at $400,000 (often significantly less than the market value) could pay up to $240 in annual property taxes in a unified district to pay off bonds’ principal and interest. Districts will stretch out the timeline for projects to stay under the limit.

    How will Proposition 2 be divvied up?

    The $10 billion will split:

    • $1.5 billion for community colleges
    • $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
      • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
      • $3.3 billion for new construction
      • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
      • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
      • $115 million set aside to remove lead in school water

    Will all of this money go toward new projects?

    No. 

    Unfunded projects left over from Prop. 51 in 2016 that are deemed eligible for funding will go to the front of the line. That’s how the system worked in the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around, and the Legislature applied the same language to Prop. 2. The rationale is that districts spent time and money hiring architects and engineers and drawing up plans, and shouldn’t be penalized for efforts done in good faith.

    Those existing projects could consume half of the $8.5 billion for TK-12 funding. As of Aug. 31, the Office of Public Instruction, which tracks projects for funding, reported 1,000 school projects requesting $3.9 billion were already in line, with requests dating back to 2022. These break down to 812 modernization projects potentially eligible for $2.6 billion and 189 new construction projects eligible for $1.3 billion. The deadline for school districts to apply is Oct. 31, so the list may yet grow. 

    The Office of Public Construction cautioned that although the districts have filed paperwork, they have not been evaluated and approved for funding by the State Allocation Board under the rules in effect for Proposition 51. Some may have been built with local funding and are waiting for a state match.

    With $40 billion in local projects on the ballot and probably a net of $4 billion available for modernization and new construction, there likely will not be enough to fund more than a portion, leading to the establishment of a new list of unfunded projects.

    How does the match work?

    The state awards matching money to districts to defray the qualifying cost of individual school projects; it does not provide a lump sum award for all of the districts’ requests.  The state pays a uniform amount per student based on a school’s enrollment. Districts with growing enrollment, buildings over 75 years old, and a shortage of space can receive funding for new construction. 

    As with past state bonds, the state will split the cost of new construction; the state will contribute a higher match for modernization projects — 60% by the state and 40% by the district.

    A new feature in Proposition 2 will provide a slightly larger state match — up to an additional 5 percentage points on a sliding scale system to districts with both high rates of low-income students, foster children and English learners, and, to a lesser extent, with a small bonding capacity per student, another measure of ability to issue construction bonds. Low-income districts like Fresno Unified and Los Angeles Unified will be eligible for 65% state assistance for renovations and 55% for new construction, lowering their share to 35% and 45%, respectively.

    Is the formula fair?

    Analyses by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley have concluded that the current system favors property-wealthy districts. Property-poor districts serving low-income families can’t afford bonds to qualify for state modernization subsidies to repair and upgrade schools. 

    The center’s data showed that the quintile of districts with the lowest assessed property value — those with a median of $798,000 of assessed value per student — received $2,970 per student in state modernization funding from 2000 to 2023, while the districts in the highest quintile, where the median assessed property value was $2.3 million per student, received $7,910 per student — more than two-and-a-half times as much. 

    Another factor is that matching money is distributed first-come, first-served, which favors large districts and small property-wealthy districts with an in-house staff of architects and project managers adept at navigating complex funding requirements.

    Does Proposition 2 address these complaints?

    To an extent, yes.

    • Proposition 2 would dedicate 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction to small districts, defined as those with fewer than 2,501 students. First-come, first-served wouldn’t apply to them.
    • Proposition 2 would expand financial hardship assistance in which the state pays for the total cost of projects in districts whose tax bases are too low to issue a bond. Eligibility would triple the threshold for hardship aid from a maximum of $5 million to $15 million in total assessed value; additional dozens of mostly rural districts would become eligible. Some have never issued a bond to fix schools that urgently need attention. Since 1998, about 3% of state bond money has been spent on hardship aid.
    • The higher state match for districts with large proportions of low-income students and English learners is a step toward addressing inequalities. However, critics led by the public interest law firm Public Advocates charge that it does not go far enough and uses flawed measures. Districts like 3,500-student Del Norte in the far north of the state  and 46,000-student San Bernardino Unified in Southern California would need an 80% to 90% state match to raise enough money to fix critical conditions and add facilities that property-wealthy districts take for granted, they argue.

    What else is new in Proposition 2?

    The bond will allow districts to seek a supplemental grant to construct or renovate transitional kindergarten classrooms and build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them.

    Districts must write an overall plan documenting the age and uses of all facilities when submitting a proposal for Prop. 2 funding. The lack of data has made it difficult to determine building needs statewide.

    What would happen if Proposition 2 is defeated?

    In the last 30 years, voters have nixed state construction bonds twice, but never twice in a row. If voters do that next month, the unmet building needs of districts struggling to address them will mount. The price to fix them will rise, forcing difficult choices on how to scale back and reorder priorities.

    The $9 billion bond issue passed in 2016 would cost $11.8 billion to cover the same work in 2024, 31% more, according to a U.S. inflation calculator. A $10 billion bond passed in 2002 would require $17.5 billon in funding today.

    The escalation in materials and labor costs since the pandemic may continue to soar — or maybe not. Voters on Prop. 2 will have to decide whether to take that gamble.

    “We believe that voters will understand the value of making the critical repairs and classroom upgrades that our students need and deserve,“ said Rebekah Kalleen, legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing or CASH, the lobby representing school districts and school construction contractors campaigning for Prop. 2.





    Source link

  • California voters say yes to $10 billion school construction bond

    California voters say yes to $10 billion school construction bond


    A student sits in the hallway at San Juan Unified’s El Camino Fundamental High School in Sacramento.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    This story was updated to include additional information on community college projects.

    Californians on Tuesday decisively passed a $10 billion initiative to support construction projects by TK-12 schools and community colleges. The victory of Proposition 2 will authorize the first state bond for school construction since 2016 and replenish state funding that had run dry.

    With initial results from all precincts, 56.8% of voters backed the bond measure, and 43.2% opposed it. Still to be counted are mail-in ballots not yet received and provisional ballots. Support for the bond broke 60% in Los Angeles, Alpine, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Mendocino, Alameda, Yolo, Marin and San Mateo counties. Only counties in the state’s far north opposed it.

    Proposition 2 was one of two $10 billion state bonds on the ballot; the other was Proposition 4 for funding efforts to abate the impact of climate change. Proposition 2 supporters had worried that voters might choose one over the other, but both passed easily.

    “What has been clear is that people support it when they understand what Proposition 2 will do and its impact on schools,” said Molly Weedn, spokesperson for a pro-Proposition 2 campaign. “People are seeing the need in real time. When you have a leaky roof, it only gets leakier.”

    The campaign, organized by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), representing school districts and school construction interests that underwrote the effort, had not yet issued a statement Wednesday.

    Even as enrollment in most districts is projected to continue to fall over the next decade, the need for unattended repairs and replacement of aging portable classrooms and buildings has mushroomed. The Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are more than 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 years old or older. 

    Climate change has exposed more of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air and underscored the need to replace aging or defective heating and cooling systems.  

    The last state bond proposal, in March 2020, coincided with the emergence of Covid-19; anxiety over the virus contributed to its defeat as well as a majority of local districts’ construction bonds. Districts on the rebound from the pandemic were reluctant to ask voters to pass bonds in 2022.

    Reflecting a suppressed demand for addressing facilities, a record 252 school districts asked voters on Tuesday to pass local construction bonds totaling $40 billion; an additional 13 community colleges proposed bonds totaling $10.6 billion. Thus, the demand for state help will far exceed the new funding.

    Proposition 2, funded by the state’s general fund, needed a simple majority of voters to pass while local school bonds, which require increases in property taxes, require a 55% majority approval. A quick look at some of the larger proposals indicated voters were largely supportive, passing a $9 billion bond in Los Angeles Unified, a $900 million bond in Pasadena Unified and a $1.15 billion bond in San Jose Unified for upgrading facilities, with $283 set aside for housing for staff.

    The portion of state funding for school districts will be distributed to projects on a matching basis, with the state contributing 50% of the eligible funding for new construction and 60% of the cost for renovations.

    An estimated $3 billion in unfunded school projects from the 2016 bond measure, Proposition 55, will get first dibs at Proposition 2’s new construction and modernization money under the existing rules. Some of these projects have already been completed and will receive the funding retroactively. The rationale is that districts undertook the projects with the expectation that they would eventually receive state aid.

    Once Proposition 2 runs out of money, a new line of unfunded projects will be formed for the next state bond. Interest and the principal for Proposition 2 will be repaid from the state’s general fund, at an estimated cost of $500 million per year for 35 years, according to an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    How money will be spent

    The $10 billion will split as follows:

    • $1.5 billion for community colleges
    • $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
      • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
      • $3.3 billion for new construction
      • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
      • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
      • $115 million to remove lead from school drinking water

    The portion of Proposition 2 for community colleges will help renovate existing buildings, construct new classrooms and even replace sewage lines. The chancellor’s office earlier this year already approved 27 projects — totaling about $709 million — that will be covered by the bond measure in a first round of funding. They include projects across the state, from Shasta College in the north to Imperial Valley College near the Mexico border.

    Across the college system, with 115 brick-and-mortar community colleges, more than half of the buildings were built more than 40 years ago, said Hoang Nguyen, director of facilities for the system. 

    “It’s not like we’re sitting on newer facilities or anything like that. Our campuses are older,” he said. “So this proposition would be of great help.”

    The state’s largest district, the Los Angeles Community College District, got approval for four projects in the first round. That includes a new building to house Los Angeles Trade-Tech’s automotive technology, diesel technology and rail systems technology programs, as well as a new kinesiology building at Los Angeles City College. There will also be sewer replacement at Los Angeles Valley and Pierce colleges.

    “We’d like to think that our students, if they’re learning in these beautiful new buildings, will feel motivated to complete their training, get their certificates and get an education,” said Leigh Sata, the district’s chief facilities officer.

    The portion for TK-12 will set aside 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction for small districts, defined as those with fewer than 2,501 students. It will also expand financial hardship assistance in tiny districts whose tax bases are too low to issue a bond. The state will pick up the full tab for those districts.

    The bond will also allow districts to seek supplemental money to build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them. But, contrary to the wishes of early education advocates, it won’t dedicate funding to one of the most pressing needs that districts face: adding more classrooms or renovating existing space for transitional kindergarten students.

    Except for the set-aside for small districts, Proposition 2 will continue allotting matching money on a first-come, first-served basis, which favors large districts and small, property-wealthy districts with an in-house staff of architects and project managers adept at navigating complex funding requirements.

    It also won’t significantly provide a bigger state match for districts with low property values; many lack a large enough tax base to issue bonds to meet basic building needs. Data from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley shows that property-wealthy districts, with more taxable property per student, have received a disproportionately higher share of matching state funding over the past 25 years.

    One of the system’s outspoken critics is the nonprofit public interest law firm Public Advocates. Its managing partner, John Affeldt, said Wednesday that in passing Proposition 2, “Voters recognized the reality that so many facilities need significant modernization. But I don’t think voters are also aware of and approving the underlying distribution of the bond funds that send so many more dollars to high-wealth districts instead of low-wealth districts.

    “We’ll continue to be a voice to make sure the state creates a system that equitably treats all its students,” he said.

    EdSource reporter Thomas Peele contributed to the article.





    Source link

  • Conflict over race, LGBTQ issues cost schools more than $3 billion last school year

    Conflict over race, LGBTQ issues cost schools more than $3 billion last school year


    Conservative groups and LGBTQ+ rights supporters protest outside the Glendale Unified School District offices in Glendale on June 6, 2023. Several hundred people gathered at district headquarters, split between those who support or oppose teaching that exposes youngsters to LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

    Credit: Keith Birmingham/The Orange County Register via AP

    Conflicts between parents, teachers and school leaders over parental rights policies focusing on LGBTQ+ students, limitations on teaching about race and racism, and book bans have come with a cost — both socially and financially.

    The conflicts are disrupting school districts, negatively impacting schools and classrooms, and costing districts money that could be used to better serve students, according to “The Costs of Conflict, The Fiscal Impact of Culturally Divisive Conflicts on Public Schools in the United States,” released last month.

    Researchers from UCLA, the University of Texas at Austin, American University and UC Riverside conducted a national survey of K-12 public school superintendents from 46 states — 467 in all — and found that these conflicts are prevalent.   

    Since the 2020-21 school year, uncivil discourse and hostile political rhetoric at school board meetings and on school campuses has been an ongoing problem. Two-thirds of the school superintendents surveyed for the study said they have experienced moderate to high levels of culturally divisive conflict in their districts, including misinformation campaigns, violent rhetoric and threats.

    Cultural conflicts cost U.S. school districts about $3.2 billion last school year, according to the study. Researchers estimate that districts with high levels of conflict spent about $80 per student. Districts with moderate levels of conflict spent $50 per student, and districts with low conflict spent $25 per student.

    “This is costing us general fund dollars,” said a superintendent from a midsize school district in a Western state. “In the 2023-24 school year, the district spent an additional $100,000 on security, hiring armed plainclothes off-duty officers … because people coming to the board meetings are unpredictable and sometimes violent.” 

    Researchers allowed superintendents to remain anonymous in the report.

    The superintendent also said the district spent more than $500,000 in legal fees on lawsuits associated with a board member and a campaign against the LGBTQ+ community, and lost $250,000 in outside funding from social services organizations because of the dispute. It also spent $80,000 on recruiting and training new staff to replace teachers, counselors and administrators who left because they did not want to work in such a divisive setting. 

    “Culturally divisive conflicts have substantial costs to the public and to our capacity as a state to mount quality learning experiences for all students,” said John Rogers, director of the UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education and Access and lead researcher on the report. “It has a fiscal cost that we’ve tried to lay out with some specificity, and it has broader social costs as well — there’s an undermining of social trust, there’s a deepening sense of stress and all of this is hugely consequential for how educators experience public schools and how young people are experiencing public schools.”

    Costs of conflict can’t always be counted in dollars

    Average-sized school districts of about 10,000 students spent about $811,000 each last school year to cope with cultural division, according to the study. The money was spent on legal fees, added security, additional staff time and on community, school board and government relations. Districts also incurred indirect costs because of staff turnover related to the conflict and because staff had to take time away from their other duties to deal with discord.

    According to the survey, the largest expense for districts with cultural conflict came from staff turnover, with districts of about 10,000 students spending between $148,000 and $461,000, depending on the level of conflict. 

    One superintendent said that cultural conflict has caused “incredible stress on leaders and teachers as they navigate imaginary slights and online drama in the community.” A Pennsylvania superintendent called the emotional stress and anxiety “nearly crippling.”

    “This research makes clear that culturally divisive conflicts in the nation’s schools are generating fear, stress and anxiety that is disrupting school districts and taking a personal toll on the educators and staff members who work in them,” Rogers said. 

    The stress has also led to increased staff absenteeism at schools, even in districts with lower levels of conflict, according to the report.

    Half of the superintendents surveyed said they had been personally harassed at least once during the school year. Ten percent reported being threatened with violence, and 11% had their property vandalized.

    As a result, superintendent turnover has also increased — from 14.2% to 17.1% — over the past four years. More than 40% of the superintendents who left their jobs in the last year said their decision was related to conflict, stress and politics, according to the report.

    “The relentless demands of leading a district can easily overshadow their own well-being, which, if neglected, not only affects their personal health but also the health and stability of students, educators, and families they serve,” said Rachel S. White of the University of Texas at Austin in a statement. “Reducing the extent to which superintendents experience unwarranted divisiveness is an important step to change the trajectory of increasing superintendent churn.”  

    Superintendents who were surveyed expressed concern that the time they spent managing cultural conflict, including responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, and unsubstantiated rumors and misinformation, is keeping them from focusing on improving instruction.

    California not immune to divisive conflict

    Rogers said that while cultural conflict wasn’t as common in California as in other parts of the country in 2021-22, it has grown over the last few years.

    Donald Trump’s election is likely to bring more cultural division to school campuses, Rogers said.

    “I think that a Trump victory will lead some on the right to take a message that these sorts of cultural attacks, that have been playing out across the United States and across California in the last couple of years, are an effective strategy for mobilizing the base and for energizing the electorate,” said Rogers, in an interview the day before the election.

     “A Trump victory will mean that Donald Trump will have more of a presence in our public life in the months to come. And so, that too will mean that he will be using language and framing that will further activate attacks on public schools around these culturally divisive issues.”





    Source link