اینترنت

برچسب: budget

  • What Trump’s budget and tax law means for California students

    What Trump’s budget and tax law means for California students


    Students at Wilson Elementary School in Selma participate in mental health awareness activities on May 24, 2023. Students are seen trying toys that can be used as coping mechanisms.

    Credit: Kristy Rangel

    Top Takeaways
    • Cuts to social safety net programs for the United States’ poorest will partly offset the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy.
    • $170 billion to immigration enforcement likely to harm student mental health, research shows.
    • Up to 151,000 children could lose health care in California, though advocates say the number is likely higher, as cuts may impact school-based health services.

    Hundreds of thousands of California’s low-income children and their families will likely see federally funded food support and health care shrink or vanish in the coming years under the mammoth budget and tax law that President Donald Trump rammed through a divided Congress and signed last week.

    Education cuts to come

    The $12 billion in cuts to K-12 schools and colleges that Trump proposed in May and the related $6.2 billion in federal funding that he ordered withheld from schools last week are not connected to the tax and budget bill that Congress just passed. They are the next target of Trump’s plan to hollow out funding for public education.

    The $12 billion cut — about 15% of what the U.S. Department of Education last appropriated for schools and universities — would take effect on Oct. 1, the start of the 2026 federal fiscal year. Trump’s plan would kill funding for educating migrant children and English learners, and end grants to attract candidates to become teachers, while maintaining current funding levels for Title I aid for poor children and students with disabilities.

    Because the forthcoming budget bill will require 60 votes in the Senate to pass, unlike the simple majority that Trump squeezed by last week with the budget and tax bill, opponents are optimistic they’ll be able to blunt some of the proposed cuts. They also believe they’ll get courts to reinstate the $6.2 billion that Trump withheld as of July 1. Congress already appropriated that money for states last February, in effect, to tide them over, since their fiscal year starts earlier, on July 1.

    “The bill will put young people and families at significant risk,” said Dave Gordon, Sacramento County superintendent of schools. “There’s nothing good about any of that. It’s cruel and it’s mean-spirited.”

    Immigrant families are bracing for ramped-up immigration enforcement as those efforts are now infused with an additional $170 billion. Those billions will be pulled in part from the $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid — known as Medi-Cal in California — and $186 billion cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides monthly payments for food to about 5 million Californians, including nearly 2 million under 18.

    State legislators did not set aside funds to account for cuts before approving the state budget, potentially leaving school districts to “absorb the shortfall,” as Visalia Unified stated it is prepared to do.

    Each district is facing a different reality. Some might have enough reserves to maintain current programming, while small and rural districts often heavily rely on federal dollars just to maintain basic educational infrastructure and services, said Fresno County’s schools Superintendent Michele Cantwell-Copher.

    Reduced spending on the poorest Americans will partly offset the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy, along with other features like a small increase in the $2,000 child tax credit. But the remaining $3 trillion will add to the federal deficit and be piled onto a record national debt to become a burden for the next generation of Americans. The higher interest payments on the debt they’ll pay as a portion of the federal budget will crowd out new spending options, including education and child care.

    What follows is a summary of what’s in the 2026 budget law, which will be phased in over several years, and its implications for families and children.

    Cuts to food assistance

    Around $186 billion is cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, also known as CalFresh in California, where over 55% of participants are families with children.

    An estimated 735,000 people are expected to lose their benefits, mainly because of new work requirements, according to the governor’s office.

    “Work requirements do not increase employment, it increases the red tape for vulnerable populations, causing more strain on hospitals with uninsured patients,” said Clarissa Doutherd, executive director of Parent Voices Oakland and a commissioner with First 5 Alameda County.

    The bill extends work requirements to a greater number of people, including those aged 55 to 64 and parents whose children are 14 or older.

    “Schools don’t exist in a vacuum. Cutbacks that impact the health and welfare of families create additional challenges for student support and academic success,” said Troy Flint, chief communications officer with the California School Boards Association.

    Since SNAP participation also determines eligibility for school lunch programs, a drop in enrollment could cut federal meal subsidies and raise state costs for meeting all students’ daily nutritional needs.

    Under the newly signed bill, states will also be required to front a greater amount of the program’s cost.

    States may need to cover between 5% and 15% of the benefits cost starting in 2028 if they have an error rate over 6% for recipients. This is a threshold that data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows only eight states met last year. California was not one of those states.

    It remains unclear what impact the cuts will have on schools, but the state has not provided any additional funding to backfill the cuts.

    Medi-Cal cuts

    Over half of all children in California are enrolled in Medi-Cal, as Medicaid is called in the state. An analysis of the House bill found that up to 151,000 children in California would lose health care coverage, largely due to changes in work requirements and eligibility.

    Mike Odeh, senior director of health policy at Children Now, said the number will likely be higher. The final bill exempts parents of children age 13 and under from meeting work requirements. Odeh said families with children over the age of 14 who do not report monthly work hours will likely lose coverage.

    Medicaid is the fourth-largest federal funding source for K-12 schools nationwide, providing roughly $7.5 billion in school-based health services every year. California is one of 25 states that bill Medi-Cal for school-based health services, including vision and hearing screenings, nursing services, school counseling services and environmental support for special education students.

    If local clinics shut down as a result of Medicaid cuts, more kids are likely to turn to school-based health services for care, Odeh said. “So there will be less resources available for school-based medical services as there’s also more demand for them,” Odeh added.

    Medi-Cal billing is also a core source of sustainable funding for nearly 300 school-based health centers statewide, offering services such as mental health counseling, primary care and speech or occupational therapy.

    School-based health centers are funded by a combination of grant funding and Medi-Cal reimbursements, with no state-funded grants to rely on, according to a spokesperson from the California School-Based Health Alliance.

    The bill also cuts the provider tax, a key source of funding for rural community hospitals, and prohibits the use of Medicaid dollars toward reproductive care at Planned Parenthood clinics, two main sites of health care used by young people in rural, high-poverty communities.

    In recent years, California has expanded efforts to include school-based mental health support in Medi-Cal reimbursement, including support for mental health clinicians, wellness coaches and peer support programs that were initially funded by the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. Newly hired school-based mental health providers may lose a critical portion of funding when some students are no longer eligible to have those services reimbursed by Medi-Cal, according to the California School-Based Health Alliance.

    “We know that kids who are enrolled in Medicaid do better in school,” said Odeh. “They miss fewer school days, they’re more likely to graduate high school and less likely to drop out, they’re more likely to go to college and have fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations as adults.”

    School choice for states that want it

    The budget law will establish the first big federally funded program granting tax credits to underwrite private school tuition. If it proves popular, the program would potentially divert billions of dollars in federal tax revenue that opponents argue would be better spent supporting public schools.

    All but the wealthiest parents would be eligible to receive up to $1,700 in direct tax credits to defray tuition to private schools or potentially use it for homeschooling. Other taxpayers could receive the same tax credit by donating to “Scholarship Granting Organizations,” which would award scholarships to attend private or religious schools in states that take on the program and manage the scholarships. The number and size of the scholarships would depend on the number of Americans who make tax-deductible contributions and the states that offer the program.

    That’s the catch: Congress included an opt-in provision, and California is one of 20 states that currently don’t have a private school choice program. Gov. Gavin Newsom has shown no interest in signing up, and a state Senate committee in March killed a bill that proposed a statewide education savings account. Teachers unions are unalterably opposed, charging that it will primarily subsidize parents who already send their kids to private schools.

    Lance Christensen, a longtime advocate of school choice and a former candidate for state superintendent of public construction, criticized Newsom and state leaders for locking California out of a program “providing billions of dollars in K-12 scholarships to poor and middle-class families in other states so their kids can get an education tailored for their needs.”

    California proponents of school choice, however, are hopeful that the federal tax credits could enhance passage of their own Children’s Educational Opportunity Act, establishing a state-controlled Education Savings Account. Supporters are collecting signatures to place the initiative on the 2026 statewide ballot. It would provide parents with $17,000 — the equivalent of public school funding per student — to enroll their children in a private school or cover expenses such as tutoring or special education services.

    Billions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    The massive infusion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, will likely increase anxiety among immigrant families, lead to more absences from schools and harm children’s mental health, according to research.

    “The children of immigrants, any time they’re away from their families, we hear examples that they’re worried at school about what might happen to their parents. That’s a huge mental toll that we’re asking every one of these kids that is an immigrant or lives in a mixed-status family to carry with them every day, 24 hours a day,” said Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez, deputy director of Californians Together and co-chair of the National Newcomer Network.

    The funding is aimed at expanding detention centers to hold adults and families with children while their immigration cases are pending, and increasing the number of ICE agents.

    Immigration raids in California increased significantly toward the end of the latest school year, causing upheaval and fear among students whose family members — and sometimes themselves — were detained or deported.

    ICE’s methods in the state have included arresting U.S. citizens, detaining toddlers and elementary school students, and arresting immigrants with active legal asylum cases at their scheduled court appointments.

    “We already see families keeping their kids home from school and keeping their kids home from summer activities because they’re fearful to leave their houses,” Cruz-Gonzalez said.





    Source link

  • 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

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

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


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

    In The Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION released the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

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

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


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

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

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

    David Dayen writes in The American Prospect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

  • What the new state budget holds in store for education

    What the new state budget holds in store for education


    California State Capitol in Sacramento.

    Credit: Juliana Yamada / AP

    This story was updated June 28 to reflect that Gov. Newsom signed the budget bills.

    Top Takeaways
    • Education remains largely protected despite a weak budget.
    • Compromise allowed UC and CSU to dodge large proposed cuts.
    • TK-12 schools see new funding for early literacy, after-school and summer school, and teacher recruitment and retention.

    Education will remain mostly shielded from the pain of weak projected state revenues in a 2025-26 budget compromise between Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature. The deal means that public universities, in particular, will dodge bigger cuts proposed by Newsom in January.

    The Legislature passed a budget on Friday, and Newsom signed a series of bills later in the day. They include Assembly Bill 121, which includes details on TK-12 and early childhood education; AB 123, which covers higher education, and AB 102, the overall budget.

    TK-12 schools will receive significant one-time funding for new or expanded programs, thanks in part to higher revenue in the current year than the Legislature expected.

    The surplus, along with deferrals – an accounting gimmick in which some payments to districts are delayed – will help bridge the gap from a drop in revenue expected in 2025-26. It will enable the state to keep transitional kindergarten on track to fully expand to all 4-year-olds this fall.

    Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors, called it “a remarkable budget in a remarkably bad budget year.”

    “There are so many really, really painful cuts being made on the non-school side of the budget,” said Gordon, who lobbies on behalf of hundreds of school districts statewide. “TK-12 does very, very well in comparison.”

    How well are schools funded in this budget?

    Schools and community colleges are guaranteed a minimum level of funding each year — typically 40% of the state revenues — thanks to Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988. Funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges is projected to drop $5 billion from 2024-25 to about $114.6 billion.

    The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in this budget is 2.3%. The federal formula that determines it feels anemic in a state with such high housing costs.

    “A COLA at that level, while relatively normal, will feel like a cut at the local level because fixed costs at a school district rise each year 4.5-5% without making any adjustments — just doing what they did the year before,” said Michael Fine, CEO of FCMAT, the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team. “That has to be made up locally some other way.”

    However, a new, one-time $1.7 billion discretionary block grant should help districts address any shortfalls created by declining enrollments and rising expenses.

    How about universities?

    The University of California and California State University systems were mostly spared. Neither system faces cuts, but 3% of their base funding will be deferred until 2026-27. That amounts to $129.7 million for UC and $143.8 million for CSU. In the meantime, both systems will be able to access a no-interest loan to cover the difference in 2025-26.

    The budget also defers previously promised 5% funding increases for both systems until future years. In 2022, Newsom pledged 5% budget increases for UC and CSU in exchange for the systems working toward a number of goals, including increasing graduation rates and enrolling more California residents. Rather than getting those 5% increases in 2025-26, 2% of the hike will be deferred for both systems until 2026-27 and the remaining 3% will be deferred until 2028-29.

    There is also $45 million in new funding for Sonoma State University to help support a plan to turn around the campus, which has been forced to eliminate about two dozen degree programs and discontinue its NCAA Division II sports because of CSU cost reductions. 

    Who are the winners and losers in this budget?

    New initiatives for early literacy and a new mathematics framework are getting a lot of financial support. There’s a robust expansion of after-school and summer programming, as well as support for new teachers. More details about those are below.

    One of the biggest losers in this budget is ethnic studies. There’s no funding for the 2021 legislative mandate that was supposed to be offered at high schools this upcoming school year. It was supposed to be a required part of a high school diploma beginning in 2029-30.

    This is “extremely disappointing” for advocates of ethnic studies, according to Theresa Montaño, a professor of Chicano Studies at California State University, Northridge, who advocates for ethnic studies through the university level.

    Some districts will move ahead with their own ethnic studies requirements, but Montaño is worried that many districts will see it as an excuse to drop it altogether. Montaño said supporters will continue to advocate for legislators to fund ethnic studies, particularly through the professional development of teachers new to the discipline.

    Montaño doesn’t know specifically why the initiative was dropped from the budget, but she has heard rumblings that controversies in local districts and the federal government’s push to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives may have contributed to its demise.

    How is the budget balanced?

    Accounting maneuvers balanced the budget mostly through a combination of deferrals and one-time funding.

    The Prop. 98 rainy day fund will provide $405 million, which will be completely depleted by the end of 2025-26. The budget also defers $1.88 billion of Prop. 98 funds a few weeks after the end of this budget year.

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office, which offers nonpartisan fiscal analysis, isn’t a fan of these methods, and criticized them in the Governor’s May Revision. It recommended that the budget avoid deferrals and instead reject some of the new one-time spending proposals. That advice was largely not heeded in this final budget.

    Why is this such a tight budget year?

    California’s budget is always volatile due to its reliance on the whims of the stock market and the wealthy. We’re not in a recession, but federal tariff increases have created economic uncertainty. Newsom blamed federal economic changes for the shortfall between his January and May proposals.

    Devastating fires in Los Angeles have also, to a lesser extent, affected the state’s economy and resulted in increased state spending. 

    The outlook for the budget may worsen further, depending on whether there are cuts to education at the federal level.

    How else did community colleges fare?

    On top of the cost-of-living adjustment, the budget features new funding for the state’s system of 116 community colleges. That includes:

    • $100 million to support enrollment growth in 2024-25 and $139.9 million to do the same in 2025-26
    • $20 million for emergency financial aid
    • $15 million for Dream Resource Liaisons, college staff who support undocumented students
    • $25 million for the Career Passport initiative

    However, the budget also reduces some funding for the system, including cutting $150.5 million for the Common Cloud Data Platform, a project to help colleges share data with one another. 

    What about financial aid?

    The Cal Grant, the state’s main program for financial aid, will get more funding as a result of caseload increases. Funding for the Cal Grant will be $2.8 billion in 2025-26. 

    What is the state doing to recruit teachers?

    Over the past decade, the state has allocated $1.6 billion for strategies to counter the teacher shortage, which seem to be effective. One lingering question has been whether that priority will continue after Newsom leaves office.

    Newsom and the Legislature answered with $464 million in the 2025-26 budget — enough to continue three recruitment programs and add a new one, paying candidates seeking teaching credentials $10,000 stipends for student teaching. Unpaid student teaching has been cited as a primary reason teacher candidates fail to complete their credentials. The budget includes:

    • $300 million in new funding for student teacher stipends
    • $70 million to extend the Teacher Residency Program
    • $64 million to extend the Golden State Teacher Grant program, which offers college tuition for those who agree to teach in hard-to-staff subjects or underserved districts
    • $30 million to extend the National Board Certification program, which offers a professional learning community, pathways to leadership, and tools to deepen teachers’ impact

    How is California boosting early literacy?

    Newsom this year threw his support behind major legislation to change how children are taught to read, and is jump-starting the process with substantial funding. Advocates wish this had happened a few years ago when the state was swimming in post-Covid funding, but nonetheless are thrilled.

    Assembly Bill 1454, which is likely to pass the Legislature this fall, calls for the state to choose evidence-based textbooks and professional development programs that include phonics and strategies of “structured literacy.” The budget will include $200 million for training teachers in transitional kindergarten through grade 5 — enough money to reach about two-thirds of teachers, said Marshall Tuck, CEO of the advocacy nonprofit EdVoice, co-sponsor of the bill. And it will increase funding for hiring and training literacy coaches by $215 million, on top of the $250 million already appropriated.

    “Gov. Newsom has made early literacy a state priority in a tight budget year when there are few new expenditures. Investing nearly a half-billion dollars is great for kids,” Tuck said.

    What about math?

    Math instruction received some new money in the budget, although not of the magnitude of literacy. The $30 million in 2025-26 for professional development will be on top of the $20 million last year for training math coaches and school leaders in the new math frameworks adopted two years ago. County offices of education, working with the UC-backed California Mathematics Project, will lead the effort. An additional $7.5 million will create a new Math Network.

    The effort shows potential, but “implementation and rollout will be key,” said Kyndall Brown, executive director of the Mathematics Project. It will take hundreds of millions of dollars to provide for what’s very much needed: a math specialist in every elementary school, he added.

    What does the budget include for transitional kindergarten?

    The budget includes $2.1 billion to fund the final year of expansion of transitional kindergarten, an extra grade before kindergarten, which will be available to all 4-year-olds beginning in the fall. This includes $1.2 billion ongoing to reduce the ratio in TK classrooms from 1 adult for every 12 children to 1 adult for every 10 children.

    How is the budget tackling the state’s child care crisis?

    The budget provides $89.3 million to increase rates for subsidies provided to all child care and preschool providers that serve low-income children.

    It does not increase the number of children to be served by subsidized child care beyond the current year’s number. The Legislature set a goal to serve 200,000 new children by 2028, compared to 2021-22, but so far has only increased the number of subsidies available by 146,000.

    The budget also reduces the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program by $30 million. This program allows foster care families to have immediate access to child care for children placed in their care. The reduction is less drastic than what had been proposed by the governor.

    How did after-school and summer programs fare?

    More families will be able to take advantage of after-school and summer programs thanks to increases in the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program. These programs both extend the learning day for students and serve as a form of child care for working families.

    At the press conference for his May revision, Newsom touted this expansion as a “big damn deal.”

    This budget lowers the threshold for school districts to be eligible for this funding. Previously, only school districts where 75% of their students were socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners or foster youth were eligible. The budget drops that eligibility cutoff to 55%. 

    Will universal school meals continue?

    This budget continues to guarantee two free school meals a day for every child. There is also $160 million in one-time funding for kitchen infrastructure that improves a school’s capacity to serve minimally processed and locally grown food. That funding can also be used for that locally grown food itself. Of that, $10 million is specifically dedicated to nutrition staff recruitment and retention. 

    Does this budget address any cuts to education by the Trump administration?

    No.

    Education funding has been a major target of the second Trump administration. This includes some cuts — many challenged in court — to federal grants for teaching preparation and research. It also includes a bid to shrink and ultimately shutter the U.S. Department of Education. The administration has also specifically threatened California’s funding because of its inclusion of transgender students in athletics or sexual education.

    But you won’t find any attempt in the state budget to respond to what is happening in Washington. That’s partially a consequence of it being a weak budget year, but it’s also the right thing to do, despite the fact that educators are on edge about potential cuts, according to Gordon, who is a consultant for hundreds of school districts in the state.

    “If the state rushed in and paid for everything, it lets [the federal government] off the hook,” he said.

    Is there money for schools affected by the Los Angeles wildfires?

    The fires affected both school enrollment and taxes, which won’t be paid by those affected until fall. The budget sets aside $9.7 million to backfill taxes. TK-12 schools, including charter schools, that rely on attendance for their state funding will be held harmless for any major dips.

    Graphics by Andrew Reed.





    Source link

  • Rainy day fund would bail out schools, community colleges in Newsom’s 2024-25 state budget

    Rainy day fund would bail out schools, community colleges in Newsom’s 2024-25 state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom discusses his proposed state budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, during a news conference in Sacramento on Jan. 10, 2024.

    Credit: Office of the Governor

    Gov. Gavin Newsom would protect schools and community colleges from the brunt of an $11.3 billion projected drop in state revenue for education, under a proposed 2024-25 state budget he released on Wednesday. The budget calls for covering all current levels of funding and existing commitments for new and expanded programs, plus a less than 1% cost-of-living increase for next year.

    The three-year decline in revenue, both for schools and the overall $38.7 billion in the state general fund, is $30 billion less than the Legislative Analyst’s Office had projected a month ago, easing the burden of balancing the budget and avoiding the possibility of drastic budget cuts or late payments — at least for community colleges and TK-12.

    However, Newsom is proposing to defer the promised 5% increases in revenue to both the University of California and California State University systems. UC and CSU would borrow that funding this year and get reimbursed in next year’s budget.

    “We are deferring but not delaying, and there’s a distinction in the law that will allow UC and CSU just for one year to be able to borrow against that commitment,” Newsom said.

    Newsom would protect schools and community colleges by withdrawing about $7 billion from the $10.8 billion TK-14 rainy day fund to cover the current year’s shortfall and meet the minimum obligation in 2024-25. The state would not seek reimbursement for what turned out to be funding above the minimum Proposition 98 statutory obligation for the prior two years.

    Proposition 98 is the funding formula determining the portion of the state’s general fund that must be spent on TK-12 and community colleges. With the addition of transitional kindergarten, that share will rise about one percentage point to 39.5% of the general fund. In 2024-25, Proposition 98 funds will be $109.1 billion. That would be about $3.5 billion more than the revised projection for 2023-24, reflecting expectations of improved state revenues in the next fiscal year.

    The Legislature was handicapped when it passed the 2023-24 budget last June. There were indications but no hard numbers that economic conditions were worsening, because the deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16 in response to massive flooding last winter. As it turned out, state revenues had fallen sharply from slower home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.

    But with the stock market rebounding since then, Newsom said more optimistic revenue projections for next year and savings in state government operations would account for two-thirds of the difference between the state Department of Finance revenue projections and the legislative analyst’s forecast. A remedy for dealing with a two-year, $10-plus billion drop in Proposition 98 funding would account for the rest of the disparity. In a news conference, Newsom chided the “ready, fire, aim” projections of the news media and others for assuming a more dire financial outlook without the latest data.

    Many districts, nonetheless, will face financial stress. More than two-thirds are facing declining enrollment, which will lower their share of state funding. And the 1% inflation adjustment for 2024-25 will not cover cost increases and, for some districts, negotiated staff raises. Districts are receiving an 8% cost-of-living adjustment this year, down from a 13% bump in 2022-23.

    Newsom’s January budget will now undergo six months of negotiations with the Legislature over their priorities. Revenue updates by June will reveal whether his optimism will hold up, and what the Legislature must do if it doesn’t.

    Newsom reiterated that the state would uphold its education commitments to schools using record post-Covid revenues. These include the addition of transitional kindergarten and appropriating $8 billion combined to create community schools and add summer programs and after-school hours for low-income students.  These would continue to be funded at promised levels.

    Also surviving is an additional $300 million for the state’s poorest schools. The governor said that this proposal, known as an “equity multiplier,” is also a high priority by the California Legislative Black Caucus. Another priority that Newsom mentioned is funding for the UCLA Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.

    “In the face of a large deficit, it’s reassuring that the governor committed to maintaining his transformative investments in education, including community schools, universal TK, and the equity multiplier,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney for the student advocacy nonprofit Public Advocates. “That the governor particularly called them out with a ‘don’t touch’ message to the Legislature indicates he’ll fight hard to maintain them.”

    New ideas for mitigating student absences

    Despite $6 billion in one-time state funding for post-pandemic learning recovery, chronic absences soared to 30% in 2022-23 and remained high last year. Statewide post-pandemic test scores also plummeted in math and English language arts in 2022-23 statewide and almost remained flat last year.

    Recognizing that students can’t learn when they aren’t in school, Newsom is proposing changes in the law that will allow school districts to provide attendance recovery programs in response to chronic absences and loss in learning because of floods, wildfires and other climate conditions. Districts, in turn, would benefit from offsetting revenues lost from student absences. The new law would specify that districts could fund Saturday programs and intercessions to respond to students with many absences.

    Districts would be required to offer students access to remote instruction, including enabling families to enroll in neighboring districts “for emergencies” lasting five or more days. A budget trailer bill will spell out details, including whether students could seek tutoring under this option.

    The budget calls for $6 million to research hybrid and remote learning and develop new models.

    “We have to use the experiences of recent years to think forward for ensuring that kids can gain access to the learning and instructional opportunities that they deserve,” said Hedy Chang, founder and executive director of Attendance Works, a group that tracks chronic absenteeism.

    Addressing a teacher shortage

    Newsom also proposes to relax some requirements to become a teacher, due to a persistent teacher shortage. Teacher candidates will no longer have to take a test or coursework to prove they have the basic skills to earn a credential, according to the state summary of the budget. The state will now recognize completion of a bachelor’s degree as satisfying the basic-skills requirement.

    Currently, teacher candidates must pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test, a combination of other tests, or complete specific coursework to prove they have the basic skills to teach. The CBEST tests reading, math and writing skills and is usually taken before a student is accepted into a teacher preparation program.

    The governor’s budget calls for streamlining the process of credentialing aspiring arts teachers in response to the passage of Proposition 28, the groundbreaking arts education initiative. It directs the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education authorization for career technical education teachers. This pathway currently only exists for secondary education, and many arts education advocates have pressed to expand it to elementary school classrooms.

    “Governor Newsom’s proposal is an important step in the right direction,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “The money from Prop 28 is the enabler, but students will only benefit when schools use it to hire great arts teachers in all grade levels.”

    The budget summary also refers to several other proposals that will make it easier to become a teacher, although it offered no additional details about those proposals.

    The budget proposal also includes:

    • $20 million as the first step toward implementing the long-debated math framework that the State Board of Education adopted last July. A county office of education would be chosen to work with math experts and nonprofits to train math coaches and leaders, who in turn would teach high-quality instruction. State law would spell out that existing state learning loss funding should focus on teacher training in math.
    • $5 million to increase support for the California Cradle-to-Career Data System.
    • $122 million to increase funding for universal school meals.

    The budget contains good and bad news for districts seeking immediate funding for facilities. Newsom would reduce the General Fund by delaying $550 million for new and retrofitted facilities for adding transitional kindergarten. And he proposes to cut $500 million he committed to the state School Facilities Program, which has run out of state funding. However, Newsom committed to negotiate a multibillion-dollar school facilities bond with the Legislature for the November 2024 ballot.

    Questions on the size of the bond needed to win voter support and whether it should include higher education must be answered, Newsom said. “All that’s being worked on, but a real issue to address is that we’ve exhausted the previous bond, and it’s important to advance a new one.”

    Higher education

    In 2022, Newsom made agreements with both UC and CSU to give annual 5% base funding increases over five years in exchange for increasing enrollment and improving graduation rates.

    Under his latest proposal, UC and CSU would borrow a combined $499 million this year — $258.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU. That includes this year’s 5% increase for the systems as well as $31 million for UC to increase enrollment of resident undergraduate students.

    If lawmakers agree to Newsom’s plan, the two systems would receive two years’ worth of 5% budget increases in next year’s state budget to make up for this year’s deferrals.

    “These decisions will position our state and its students for a prosperous future once budgetary challenges subside,” Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, said in a statement Wednesday. “During economic downturns, the University of California’s role in California’s economic development is even more important, and we are grateful to state leaders for their visionary leadership and commitment to maintaining the funding compact.”

    Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said that given the state’s financial challenges, the governor’s plan acknowledges his financial commitment to CSU students while also attempting to address the state’s budget situation. But the proposal also puts the system in a precarious position. 

    “This proposal would deliver the same level of funding per fiscal year as originally outlined in the compact, although with additional risk to the CSU if the state’s budget condition further erodes and the state cannot fulfill this restructured commitment,” Garcia said. “We will explore our funding options to advance compact-related goals during the one-year delay and will proceed with financial prudence as we review the impacts and implications of this budget proposal.” 

    Newsom’s spending plan would not fund a significant expansion of the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid program. He and lawmakers agreed in 2022 to overhaul the Cal Grant beginning in 2024-25 by simplifying the awards and extending eligibility to more students, but only if state revenues were sufficient to do so. With the state facing a shortfall, the governor is not committing funding to that expansion, though negotiations on the issue are expected to continue through the spring. A spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance said Wednesday that the department will wait until May to make a final determination.

    Newsom also proposed doing away with a program that would provide interest-free loans to colleges and universities to build affordable student housing. In total, that would save $494 million for the state’s 2024-25 budget: $194 million that was appropriated last year plus $300 million this and every year through 2028-29.

    Mike Fong, chair of the Assembly’s higher education committee, said in a statement that he’s disappointed that Newsom proposed eliminating the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and didn’t include funding to reform the Cal Grant. 

    “We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education,” Fong said.

    Early education   

    The budget largely holds steady for early education and child care. It maintains ongoing funding for the newly expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and earmarks $1.7 billion toward long-awaited increased pay for child care providers. It also continues to gradually add subsidized child care slots, with about $2 billion going to fund about 146,000 new slots to be filled by 2024-25, toward an ultimate goal of 200,000 new slots.

    “Overall, the proposed budget stays true to the historic investments California has made in pre-K and child care,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit organization that runs many Bay Area child care and preschool centers. “Yet schools and child care providers are struggling to expand due to a lack of staff, facilities funding, and post-pandemic challenges. We must do more now to support this growth, otherwise low-income babies and preschoolers will be left out.”

    EdSource reporters Michael Burke, Ashley S. Smith, Mallika Seshadri, Betty Márquez Rosales, Karen D’Souza, Diana Lambert and Emma Gallegos contributed to the article. 





    Source link

  • Advocates, education leaders speak out on Newsom’s initial plan for state budget

    Advocates, education leaders speak out on Newsom’s initial plan for state budget


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom presented the first pass on the 2024-25 state budget.

    It includes his ideas for addressing an $11 billion drop in funding for TK-12 and community colleges and a larger projected general fund deficit affecting child care and higher education.

    We asked a cross-section of education leaders and advocates for their initial impressions of the governor’s proposals.

    Their contributions reflect diverse perspectives on education, from preschool through CSU and UC.

    What follows are excerpts of conversations and public statements. We will seek other voices as budget negotiations between Newsom and the Legislature, tempered by revenue updates, continue through the budget’s passage in June.

    — John Fensterwald, Editor-At-Large

    Yolie Flores, CEO and president, Families in Schools

    “We are deeply concerned about the governor’s proposal to lower teacher requirements to address teacher shortages. Parents want, and their children deserve, highly qualified educators, especially in the face of pandemic-related learning loss and alarming literacy rates among third graders. 

    Lowering standards would be inconceivable in addressing shortages in the nursing and medical professions. Instead of lowering standards, parents would support better incentives for teachers, improved working conditions, and investments in teacher training programs so that “lowering requirements” stops being the go-to measure. 

    We urge the governor to prioritize the long-term well-being of our students by maintaining rigorous qualifications for educators.”

    Jeff Freitas, president, California Federation of Teachers

    “The governor’s budget presented a $38 billion deficit over a three-year span, and he has staved off steep cuts. Not saying that there aren’t some cuts to education, but steep cuts to education didn’t happen, demonstrating that public education is a priority for him, which we appreciate.

    The budget doesn’t address some of the issues that we need to address in education — the staffing crisis, as well as student services that we need to increase in support of all of our education system. And when I talk about public education, I’m talking early childhood through the university system. So we have housing issues for our students at the higher ed level as well as other student support services at the K-12 level.

    We’re the fifth-largest economy in the world. We should have an equivalent education system that matches being the fifth largest economy in the world. We don’t have that. And so we believe that legislators and the leaders and the governor need to be bold and take action. Taxes or revenue should not be taken off the table. That’s the only way to achieve what we think is a fully funded education in California.”

    Manny Rodriguez, director of policy and advocacy for California, The Institute for College Access & Success

    (Rodriguez is addressing the proposal to eliminate the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Program and the failure of the budget to act on reforming the Cal Grant program.)

    “We see housing investments, especially affordable student housing investment programs, as the different side of the same coin on college affordability. On one side, you have those direct drivers of cost — housing, books, supplies. On the other side, there is financial aid: how to get dollars into the pockets of students to pay for the drivers of cost.

    If we can’t guarantee investments to help students with housing now or into the future because of the budget situation, and we’re not investing in financial aid, it will be harder for students to afford the continually rising cost of attending college.”

    Scott Moore, CEO, Kidango, a nonprofit operator of child care and preschool centers  

    “Overall, the proposed budget stays true to the historic investments California has made in pre-K and child care. Yet schools and child care providers are struggling to expand due to a lack of staff, facilities funding, and post-pandemic challenges.  We must do more now to support this growth, otherwise, low income babies and preschoolers will be left out.”

    John Gray,  president and CEO, School Services of California, a consulting firm

     “Although still somewhat skeptical, many in the education world must be sighing in relief with the governor’s budget. We had been expecting the worst since the (Legislative Analyst’s Office’s) economic forecast. The governor’s budget would benefit from historic rainy day funds to address spending levels exceeding revenues generated in 2022-23.

    While they won’t experience mid-year cuts, deferrals, or unfunded COLAs, many districts will nonetheless face the combination of a COLA below 1% and significant declining enrollment. Their reprieve may be short-lived.”

    Lance Christensen, vice president of education policy, California Policy Center

    “The governor presented a budget that is delusional, because he calls for a budget emergency to be declared without declaring the budget emergency. It will require the Legislature to do a bunch of things he’s not willing to do himself. The budget will require further, deeper cuts in Proposition 98 funding, and I don’t believe that when the April personal income tax revenues come out, the state situation’s going to be any better. 

    It will be fascinating to watch what will happen in the Legislature, where nearly one-quarter of the legislators have not had to deal with a budget problem yet. We have a new speaker and new Senate president pro tem, too. We will see what their priorities are. Unfortunately, I think legislators will leave a lot of the hard choices to the local school boards, especially if they have to go back to temporary revenue anticipation notes and other borrowing while the state defers payments.”

    Sara Noguchi, superintendent of Modesto City Schools

    “As California faces a deep revenue shortfall, I’m encouraged that the proposal continues to prioritize the investments that we’ve made over the last five years. Maintaining the Local Control Funding Formula is also encouraging.

    I am interested in the career education master plan and am encouraged by what might come out of that as we expand opportunities for our students to learn about and prepare for the jobs of the future that will fuel our economy in California and beyond. I am pleased that the governor promised to continue the commitment to work with the Legislature for a facilities bond. It is greatly needed, especially as we add another grade with transitional kindergarten.”

    Anya Hurwitz, executive director, SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language)

    “Everybody is pleasantly surprised that, at least at this stage, education overall seems to be at less of a dark and awful cliff than what was predicted. I’m appreciative for the governor and his commitment to education and particularly the focus on equity.

    We want to continue to underscore the need to invest in and recognize that multilingual education requires specific attention and focus, and so will continue to beat the drum around the need to prioritize multilingual education and understand that it requires commitment and investment. If we’re ever going to get to the vision of the English Learner Roadmap or certainly the Global California 2030 Initiative, that’s going to require a concerted effort. There’s a lot more work to be done.”

    Josh Hagen, policy director, Campaign for College Opportunity

    “The governor has largely protected higher education from funding cuts. The bottom line is that the funding will be there. It may be through a deferral, it may be coming next year, but that work can ultimately continue, and we’re really grateful for that.” 

    The theme for us (in negotiating with the Legislature) is going to be promoting stability and maintaining those investments.”

    Martha Hernandez, executive director, Californians Together

    “We’re applauding the governor’s commitment to education. We did see a commitment to universal TK, before- and after-school programs and, of course, the equity multiplier.

    There’s a commitment to expanding the teacher pipeline, and we’re hopeful that this also includes the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development grant. We got funding, but we know that with the budget deficit, things can get scooped up, so we’re hoping that it remains in the budget.

    We’re very focused on the math framework. We want to make sure that materials and professional development related to the math framework include access and equity to the math content.”

    Alberto Carlvaho, superintendent, Los Angeles Unified

    “We thank Governor Gavin Newsom for proposing a state budget that protects school funding and continues the course of implementing recent initiatives such as Universal Transitional Kindergarten and universal school meals.

    The revised 2024-25 cost-of-living-adjustment is significantly lower than currently reflected in Los Angeles Unified’s multiyear projection, which will make it more challenging as school districts transition away from the one-time Covid-relief federal funding.  We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and the Legislature to implement fiscal solutions that recognize varying economic realities across the state such as cost of living and inflation, and minimize the impact and disruption to our school communities.”

    Vincent Stewart, vice president, policy and programs, Children Now

    “While we recognize the deficit affecting the governor’s budget proposal, we can’t continue the decades-long trend of de-prioritizing California’s kids that has led to alarmingly poor outcomes. Education and early care, from preschool to post-secondary, should be first in line for any increases and last for any decreases. 

    We applaud the governor’s prioritization of child care rate reform, youth mental health, and educational equity through continued investment in LCFF, TK, and higher education compacts. We are, however, concerned with eliminating the 24/7 hotline for youth in foster care, taking back dollars from state preschool, and a low COLA triggering possible teacher layoffs. We look forward to working with the governor and Legislature to restore these cuts and secure California’s investment in its future.”

    Mala Batra, CEO, Aspire Public Schools 

    “We serve some of the state’s most vulnerable students and always favor bringing an equity lens to funding. We are pleased funding for community schools and expanded learning opportunities, especially following the height of the Covid pandemic, are preserved.  

    There’s a lot of public facilities funding that we’re not eligible for. It would be really helpful to see that SB 740 in particular (establishing annual grants to offset facility costs for charter schools that service a high percentage of low-income students) remains intact.  Not having access to many of the public facilities, bond offerings and various funding streams makes that a critical funding stream for us.”

    Eric Premack, executive director, Charter Schools Development Center 

    “I’d call the governor’s budget proposal “blessedly boring.” We would like to see more on the teacher supply front, especially to streamline California’s Byzantine teacher credentialing mandates in lieu of nickel-and-dime programs that don’t address the needless complexity. 

    We also look forward to seeing the details of his instructional-time proposals. California is stuck in the Stone Age regarding attendance accounting and punishes schools for making efforts to provide more instruction. There are a number of things in current law that make it really hard to provide extra instruction for students. 

    The state is spending a tremendous amount of money funding what we call phantom kids for declaring enrollment protection. In our view, money is increasingly being used to delay inevitable cuts rather than to prepare for action and make the changes needed to adjust to a smaller student population. That money should be redirected into providing additional instruction.”

    Sarah Lillis, executive director, Teach Plus California

    “We understand that this is just the beginning of the budget process, but we are pleased and appreciate the governor’s ongoing commitment to our students and transforming TK-12. As the conversation continues and the understanding of resources may change, we hope that that commitment continues. It becomes harder and harder to ensure that we’re protecting and serving our students, in particular our most marginalized students, when it comes to making cuts or deferrals or belt-tightening.

    Our teachers are pleased about the ongoing commitment to invest in a sustainable and diverse educational workforce. And in particular, we are pleased there is a pot of funds for professional development around the new math frameworks. The transformational potential of some of these policy changes requires ongoing investment in the training of support of teachers and educators to implement that change.”

    Rachel Ruffalo, senior director of Strategic Advocacy, Education Trust-West 

    “We are relieved that Governor Newsom isn’t addressing the state budget deficit by mortgaging the futures of our students of color and multilingual learners. Instead, we appreciate that he has chosen to protect and, in some cases, expand recent leaps forward in educational justice. 

    We appreciate that the governor has chosen to shield and even accelerate several promising TK-12 programs that are on the cusp of benefiting students of color. We are especially glad to see that his budget proposal would rightfully protect the rollout of key TK-12 initiatives (e.g. transitional kindergarten, expanded learning opportunities, and the Golden State Pathways Program) and expand the implementation of the new math framework. We will continue to work with lawmakers to ensure that these equity-centered programs are prioritized. “

    Mike Fong (D-Alhambra), chair, Assembly Higher Education Committee 

    “I appreciate the work on this draft budget and understand the difficulty and challenges that the 2024-25 fiscal year presents; however, I am disappointed in the governor’s proposal to eliminate the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and provide no allocation to implement the 2022 Cal Grant Reform Act. We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education.

    I avidly support the governor’s goal to ensure our students are prepared to enter the workforce. Developing a Master Plan for Career Education will require collaboration with diverse stakeholders and the Legislature.  I look forward to working with the governor’s office and all parties on this critical issue.”

    Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

    “I am grateful to Governor Newsom that there are no major reductions or pullbacks in vital education programs. By preserving our Educator Workforce Investments, Community Schools Investments, and Learning Recovery Investments, we ensure that our students, families, and educators have what they need to improve literacy, math proficiency, and social–emotional wellness. We are pleased to see the Proposition 98 guarantee slightly up from its projected value but disappointed in the Average Daily Attendance decline, with COLA at .76 percent when it was projected to be at 3.5 percent.

    Even as we tighten our belts in a tough budget year, we refuse to return to the days when children went hungry at school simply due to missing paperwork or a lack of lunch money. We must show moral clarity about the resources our children need to learn, grow, and thrive, and this budget reflects that clarity.” 

    Albert Gonzalez, president, California School Boards Association

    “The governor reinforced his commitment to education by funding schools above the Proposition 98 Minimum Guarantee, maintaining the Local Control Funding Formula at existing levels, providing for the full rollout of universal transitional kindergarten, preserving resources for student mental health, safeguarding previous gains in special education funding and signaling support for a potential school facilities bond on the November 2024 ballot. 

    The budget proposal isn’t perfect — we’re concerned to see a cost-of-living adjustment below 1%, reduced school facilities funding, the continued use of unfunded mandates, and a lack of consideration for the unique challenges faced by small, rural and basic aid school districts. Yet, overall, the governor’s decision to tap into the Proposition 98 Reserve and avoid cuts to critical funding for TK-12 schools and early education demonstrates a fairly prudent approach during a difficult budget year.”





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal calls for expanding arts ed pathway

    Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal calls for expanding arts ed pathway


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Faced with an ongoing teacher shortage, many California arts education advocates have been championing the use of career technical education (CTE) to attract new arts teachers to help fulfill the state’s historic arts mandate. The sticking point has been that the credential has only been applied to secondary classrooms, leaving elementary students out. 

    That may change if Gov. Gavin Newsom’s initial 2024-25 state budget becomes law. This proposal, subject to change in May, when the numbers are revised in response to shifting economic conditions and policy issues, calls for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education pathway for career technical education teachers. This expansion would allow more working artists to share their expertise with California students, a move many arts advocates praise.

    “Newsom is paving the way for a more vibrant and well-rounded educational experience, fostering creativity and skill development at every stage,” said Allison Gamlen, visual and performing arts coordinator for the San Mateo County Office of Education. “Empowering CTE teachers with the ability to bring their expertise to elementary classrooms is a positive step that will enrich the artistic learning experience for young students.”

    Expanding this credential into elementary schools might help recruit working artists, from musicians to animators, who are passionate about their craft into the school system, which is struggling to find staff in the wake of the pandemic.

    “It’s really exciting,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. He said the governor’s direction to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing about expanding the career technical education pathways for arts educators to include elementary schools “will help all 6 million children in public schools across California benefit from the additional funding Prop. 28 provides for arts education.”

    While many arts advocates are excited, some also caution patience, given the exhaustive nature of the bureaucratic process. The budget may well undergo significant changes during the May revision, for example.

    “Teaching artists will now have another pathway into employment at schools to meet the needs of Prop. 28,” said Eric Engdahl, professor emeritus at CSU East Bay and past president of the California Council on Teacher Education. But “knowing how state bureaucracies work and the laws that govern their actions, I don’t think this will produce any new teachers for at least two years, quite possibly more.”

    One key concern has been whether artists have sufficient knowledge of best practices for younger children. Some are concerned that teaching third graders requires a different skill set than eighth graders, for instance. 

    “Elementary has different foundational considerations, including meeting young students’ developmental and reading needs,” said Letty Kraus, director of the California county superintendents’ statewide arts initiative. “The developmental piece is an important one.”

    Kraus believes the state should solve the staffing problem by widening the existing arts educator pipeline. 

    “Rather than push CTE down into elementary, I think it is important to look at our existing credentialing system and consider how to increase statewide access to credentialing pathways, including virtual,” she said, “and also how to remove financial barriers and support credential candidates while they complete their student teaching.”

    Some arts education experts warn that teaching a subject is not the same as practicing it.

    “I am concerned about having CTE teachers teaching a core subject like arts, math and science —mastering a subject doesn’t mean you can teach it,” said Abe Flores, deputy director of policy and programs at Create CA, an advocacy group. “I know how to read, but it doesn’t mean I can adequately teach a student to read.”

    Others say that the new credential should require adequate training in child development as well as pedagogical concerns.

    “Since it is now in the CTC’s court, they will have to create a pathway that ensures preparedness,” said Engdahl. “A CTE credential requires classes in addition to industry experience, and the CTC should be looking at those classes closely.”

    Engdahl has confidence that aspiring arts educators will apply due diligence to their professional development. 

    “As for teacher preparedness, I am not really too concerned. When I was a teaching artist, and having worked with teaching artists for many years, I have noticed that their classroom preparedness is generally excellent.”

    However, classrooms today are not what they were before the pandemic, and many children are coping with mental health issues as well as learning loss. That raises the stakes for all new teachers, Engdahl notes, not just arts educators.

    “If there is an area of concern, it is in the changes in schools after Covid,” said Engdahl. “Students and schools are different now, and it is more challenging helping students to heal and learn.”

    This urgency to adapt to shifting school needs is one reason Beutner believes change is called for.

    “You have to meet the students where they are,” said Beutner. “You also have to meet the aspiring teachers where they are.”





    Source link

  • Expanding Cal Grants? Tight state budget makes it unlikely this year

    Expanding Cal Grants? Tight state budget makes it unlikely this year


    Community college students like those at Fresno City College would benefit the most from Cal Grant expansion.

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

    A long-awaited expansion to financial aid in California, once expected to go into effect this year, is now facing uncertainty.

    As part of California’s 2022 budget deal, lawmakers agreed to reform the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid program, to make it easier to understand, and expand eligibility by about 150,000 additional students, most of them low-income community college students. 

    But the 2022 agreement was contingent on sufficient state revenues to implement the reform, which would cost an estimated $365 million annually. And with California now facing at least a $38 billion deficit, Gov. Gavin Newsom has not committed to funding the reform, casting serious doubt on whether it will be included in this year’s budget. 

    That’s concerning to college access advocates and students who say the current Cal Grant program is too complicated and leaves out some of the state’s lowest-income students while the cost of attending college continues to rise. 

    Key lawmakers and other supporters say they plan to push for expanding the Cal Grant this year, even if they can’t get everything they initially hoped.  

    The Cal Grant, California’s key financial aid program, gives undergraduates grants of as much as $13,752 annually for tuition and fees, depending on the college. Students can also receive grants for living expenses. But the program is layered and confusing, awarding students different amounts depending on where they attend. Eligibility requirements also vary.  

    In his 2024-25 budget proposal, Newsom maintains the state’s funding for college financial aid, including $2.5 billion for Cal Grant and $636.2 million for Middle Class Scholarship, but skips a one-time funding increase for the scholarship that was part of last year’s budget agreement.

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, chair of the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on education finance, said he has directed his staff to look at each element of Cal Grant reform and identify what can be done under this year’s budget constraints. He plans to hold hearings on the issue this spring.

    “It was a significant commitment to increase access to more students,” Alvarez said in an interview. “And to the extent that we can create access to more students, if it has to be done in smaller steps, I’m willing to entertain that.”

    The proposed reform calls for multiple changes. It would simplify the structure of the program by narrowing it to only two awards: one Cal Grant for community college students and another for students at four-year colleges. The current program has eight different Cal Grant awards, creating what critics say is an unnecessarily complicated system for awarding aid.

    Earning a Cal Grant would also be easier. While some Cal Grants are currently lottery-based, all aid would be guaranteed under the new system to eligible students. And more students would be eligible thanks to the elimination of certain requirements.

    For community college students, there would no longer be a grade point average requirement. University of California and Cal State students would need a 2.0 GPA — down from the 3.0 GPA currently required. There would also be no requirements specifying age cutoffs or how long a student has been out of high school that currently exist for UC and Cal State students, rules that prevent many older students from getting aid.

    Income eligibility would be based on federal Pell Grant rules. For both awards, students would be eligible if their family’s household income is low enough to qualify for a Pell Grant. The median household income of a Pell Grant-eligible student is about $59,000. Officials say using the Pell Grant as a bar for eligibility will help increase the number of students eligible.

    Eligible community college students would get an annual award of at least $1,648 to go toward nontuition expenses like housing and food. Most of those students already pay nothing in tuition. The awards for UC and Cal State students would cover the full cost of tuition, which in 2024-25 will be $14,436 for entering in-state UC students and $6,084 for entering in-state Cal State students. The awards won’t cover nontuition expenses, but students would still be free to seek federal, private and UC-administered aid to cover those costs. 

    In total, the changes would expand Cal Grant eligibility from just over 340,000 students to about 492,000 students, the California Student Aid Commission estimates.

    Expanding aid to that many students would be costly, especially in the short term, but it could have long-term financial benefits for the state, argued Jake Brymner, deputy director of policy for the California Student Aid Commission. Not being able to afford college is the main reason many students either choose not to enroll at all or don’t finish college.

    “This is so critical to our talent pipeline, to California’s workforce and to our ability to maintain robust state revenue on a wide tax base with folks who are moving into meaningful careers,” he said.

    Newsom’s staff has yet to rule out the possibility that Cal Grant reform could be implemented this year. “We don’t speculate,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance said. “The law always envisioned us making a determination in May and we have not made any determination yet.”

    The state’s revenues, however, speak for themselves. Newsom said during his January budget proposal that the state faces a $38 billion deficit. That was $30 billion lower than what the state’s Legislative Analyst Office had estimated. Lisa Qing, a policy analyst with that office, said in an email that Cal Grant expansion “would not be triggered under existing law” based on current revenue projections.

    Qing added, though, that lawmakers could change existing law, such as by creating a different set of conditions to trigger Cal Grant expansion at a future date.

    “There should be some sort of negotiation,” said David Ramirez, the UC Student Association’s governmental relations chair and part of the Cal Grant Reform Coalition. The coalition includes higher education advocacy organizations, civil rights groups and students who want to see the reform implemented. 

    “It was really troublesome to not see it funded at all” in Newsom’s January budget proposal, added Ramirez, a senior at UCLA studying geography, environmental studies and labor studies.

    One potential solution, Ramirez said, could be to cut funding for the state’s Middle Class Scholarship and use those dollars to fund Cal Grant reform. 

    Convincing lawmakers to cut funding from the Middle Class Scholarship could be difficult, Ramirez acknowledged. But he said it would keep with his goal of prioritizing the state’s lowest-income students.

    “It’s a very political thing, making sure that there’s funding for the Middle Class Scholarship, because people want to please their constituents,” he added. 

    Another potential compromise would be to implement some but not all elements of the reform, but Ramirez said the coalition is still trying to “assess and identify” which parts of Cal Grant reform should be prioritized over others.

    Knowing what might be possible should become clearer this spring when Alvarez’s committee  holds its hearings on the topic.

    “The commitment is focused on increasing access to higher education for more students,” Alvarez said. “That’s what Cal Grant reform was about. And I don’t think anybody changed their mind about the importance of increasing access and reducing the cost of higher education for students.”





    Source link

  • Jan Resseger: Trump’s Ugly Budget Bill Defunds Public Schools


    Jan Resseger is a social justice warrior who fights for the underdog. She describes here how Trump’s budget enacts the fever dreams of evangelicals and billionaires. He would change federal aid from its historic purpose–equitable funding–and turn it into school choice, diverting funds from the poorest children to those with ample resources. Since 1965–for 70 years–federal education funding for public schools has enjoyed bipartisan support. Trump ends it.

    She writes:

    Earlier this week, Education Week‘s Mark Lieberman released a concise and readable analysis of the likely impact for public education of two pieces of federal funding legislation: the “Big, Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill currently being debated in the U.S. Senate to shape public school funding beginning right now in FY 2025, and also President Trump’s proposed FY 2026 federal budget for public schooling in the fiscal year that begins October 1st.

    Trump’s  FY 2026 budget proposal saves Head Start.

    Lieberman shares one important piece of positive news about Trump’s treatment of Head Start in next year’s federal budget: “Some programs survived the cut—including Head Start.” In early May, the Associated Press‘s Moriah Balingit reported: “The Trump administration apparently has backed away from a proposal to eliminate funding for Head Start… Backers of the six-decade-old program, which educates more than half a million children from low-income and homeless families, had been fretting after a leaked Trump administration proposal suggested defunding it… But the budget summary… did not mention Head Start. On a call with reporters, an administration official said there would be ‘no changes’ to it.”

    Federal funding for U.S. public schools looks bleak.

    Lieberman’s assessment of federal public education funding is not so encouraging.  Overall, “The administration is aiming to eliminate roughly $7 billion in funding for K-12 schools in its budget for fiscal 2026, which starts Oct. 1. Several key programs will be maintained at today’s funding level, without an increase: “Flat funding amounts to a de-facto cut given inflation. The administration is proposing to maintain current funding levels for key programs like Title I-A for low-income students ($18.4 billion), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B for special education ($14.2 billion) and Perkins grants for K-12 and postsecondary career and technical education ($1.4 billion).”

    What has been historically a key purpose of federal public education funding—to compensate for vast inequity in the states’ capacity and the states’ willingness to fund public education—is being compromised.  Lieberman explains that much of federal funding, “is currently geared toward supporting special student populations including English learners, migrants, students experiencing homelessness, Native students, and students in rural schools. Longstanding federal programs that support training for the educator workforce; preparing students for postsecondary education; reinforcing key instructional areas like literacy, civics, and the arts… would disappear. A new K-12 grant program would offer a smaller pool of funds to states and let them decide whether and how to invest in those areas. And for the first time, all federal funding for special education would flow to states through a single funding stream…. Experts view Trump’s budget as part of an effort to roll back a half-century of effort by the federal government to help make educational opportunities more consistent and equitable from state to state and district to district.”

    The “Educational Choice for Children Act,” an alarming federal school voucher bill, is hidden inside the “Big Beautiful” bill.

    Lieberman worries about the enormous tuition tax credit voucher plan embedded deep in the weeds of the “Big, Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill now being considered in the U. S. Senate: “Separate from the federal budget process, Congress is currently advancing a massive package of tax changes, including a proposal for a new tax-credit scholarship program that fuels up to $10 billion a year in federal subsidies for private K-12 education. Annual spending on that program could approach the amount the Trump administration is proposing to cut from elsewhere in the education budget.”  The voucher proposal is called the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).

    In a separate analysis of the “Big, Beautiful” bill as the House passed it in late May, Lieberman describes this proposed ECCA tuition-tax-credit voucher program: “House lawmakers narrowly approved a sweeping legislative package with $5 billion in annual tax credits that fuel scholarships and related expenses at K-12 private schools. The federal subsidies would come in the form of dollar-for-dollar tax credits for individuals and corporations that donate to largely unregulated state-level organizations that give out scholarship funds for parents to spend on private educational options of their choosing. Any student—even in states that have resisted expanding private school choice—from a family earning less than 300 percent of the area median gross income would be eligible to benefit from a scholarship paid for with a federally refunded donation.”

    Lieberman adds: “No other federal tax credit is as generous. The Internal Revenue Service doesn’t currently supply tax credits worth the full donation amount for any cause, as the private school choice scholarship credit would do. The federal government currently offers tax credits on donations for disaster relief, houses of worship, veterans’ assistance groups, and children’s hospitals at roughly 37 percent of the donated amount.  A $10,000 donation to those causes would yield a tax credit of $3,700.  By contrast, under the proposed legislation, if a taxpayer donates $10,000 to a scholarship (voucher)-granting organization, the IRS would give them a tax credit of $10,000.”

    The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy’s Carl Davis explains that because these federal school vouchers are primarily a tax shelter, they might appeal to wealthy people who are not even supporters of school privatization: “The tax plan…  includes a provision granting extraordinarily generous treatment to nonprofits that give out vouchers for free or reduced tuition at private K-12 schools. While the bill significantly cuts charitable giving incentives overall, nonprofits that commit to focusing solely on supporting private K-12 schools would be spared from those cuts and see their donors’ tax incentive almost triple relative to what they receive today. On top of that, the bill goes out of its way to provide school voucher donors who contribute corporate stock with an extra layer of tax subsidy that works as a lucrative tax shelter. Essentially, the bill allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying capital gains tax as a reward for funneling public funds to private schools.” “We estimate the bill would reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next 10 years as currently drafted, or by $67 billion over the next ten years if it is extended beyond its four-year expiration date… As currently drafted, the bill would facilitate $2.2 billion in federal and state capital gains tax avoidance over the next 10 years.”

    The Brookings Brown Center on Education Policy’s Jon Valant warns that the vouchers are so deeply buried in the “Big, Beautiful” bill that lots of people would not be aware of the plan’s existence until after it is passed: “The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) continues to move, quietly, towards becoming one of America’s costliest, most significant federal education programs. Now part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, ECCA would create a federal tax-credit scholarship program that’s unprecedented in scope and scale.  It has flown under the radar, though, and remains confusing to many observers…  ECCA’s stealthiness is partly due to the confusing nature of tax-credit scholarship programs. These programs move money in circuitous ways to avoid the legal and political hurdles that confront vouchers.”

    Valant explains how tax-credit vouchers work: “Tax-credit scholarship programs like ECCA aren’t quite private school voucher programs, but they’re first cousins. In a voucher program, a government gives money (a voucher) to a family, which the family can use to pay for private school tuition or other approved expenses. With a tax-credit scholarship, it’s not that simple. Governments offer tax credits to individual scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). These SGOs then distribute funds… to families.”

    Valant creates a scenario that shows how this tax credit program could help the wealthy and leave out poorer families. A rich donor, Billy, donates $2 million in stock to an SGO: “Billy’s acquaintance, Fred, lives in the same town as Billy, which is one of the wealthiest areas in the United States. In fact, Fred set up the SGO, looking to capture ECCA funds within their shared community… Like Billy, Fred doesn’t particularly care about K-12 public education… It might seem that Fred’s SGO couldn’t distribute funds to families in their ultra-wealthy area, since ECCA has income restrictions for scholarship recipients. That’s not the case. ECCA restricts eligibility to households with an income not greater than 300% their area’s median income. In Fred and Billy’s town, with its soaring household incomes, even multimillionaire families with $500,000 in annual income are eligible… So, Fred is looking to give scholarship money to some wealthy families in his hometown.”

    Valant summarizes the result if the “Big, Beautiful” bill is enacted: “This bill would introduce the most significant and costliest new federal education program in decades. It has virtually no quality-control measures, transparency provisions, protections against discrimination, or evidence to suggest that it is likely to improve educational outcomes. It’s very likely to redirect funds from poor (and rural) areas to wealthy areas.”



    Source link