اینترنت

برچسب: but

  • Cal State trustees decide this week on 6% tuition rate hike, but with a sunset provision

    Cal State trustees decide this week on 6% tuition rate hike, but with a sunset provision


    Students, faculty and staff protest a potential tuition increase across the California State University system.

    Credit: Michael Lee-Chang / Students for Quality Education

    California State University trustees will decide this week on whether students will see a 6% tuition rate increase over the next five years. 

    But ahead of their Wednesday vote, the nation’s largest public university system has already tweaked the proposal: Any tuition rate increase will sunset after five years and be reevaluated for the 2029-30 academic year.

    The proposal would go into effect in the fall 2024 semester and affect the system’s 460,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The first increase would be $342 for full-time undergraduate students. 

    Last year, CSU assembled a work group to examine sustainable funding in the 23-campus system and found the costs of operating the university system exceeded its revenues. The work group also found that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s multiyear financial compact, made with the CSU to increase enrollment and improve graduation rates in exchange for annual 5% funding increases, did not fully meet the system’s funding needs, said Steve Relyea, chief financial officer for the Cal State system, during a recent call with reporters. 

    “The absence of tuition increases in 11 of the past 12 years has prevented the CSU from having sufficient resources to help keep up with rising costs,” he said. 

    The new tuition proposal would generate $148 million of new ongoing revenue in its first year, said Ryan Storm, the system’s assistant vice chancellor for budget. Over five years, the system would see about $840 million in new funding.

    The increase would also allow CSU to invest more dollars into financial aid. About 60% of undergraduate students would not be affected by the tuition increase because their tuition is covered by grants, scholarships and waivers. Eighty-one percent of undergraduate students receive some form of financial aid.

    “The additional revenue would be invested in the budget priorities that reflect the values and the mission of the university,” Storm said, adding that those priorities include academic and student service support for basic needs and mental health services, improving Title IX practices, improving maintenance and building new facilities, and improving compensation to attract and retain faculty and other CSU employees. 

    Cal State is currently facing a $1.5 billion funding gap, in addition to demands from its faculty and employee unions to improve compensation and wages. Students who are vehemently against the rate increase will rally and protest the proposal during the board meeting Tuesday and Wednesday. 

    The California Faculty Association, which represents the system‘s professors, is against a tuition rate increase even though it has reached an impasse in contract negotiations to improve wages. Currently, CFA is demanding a 12% increase in compensation, while Cal State is offering 5%. The association is also advocating for a semester of paid parental leave and workload relief. It also wants to be involved whenever faculty have contact with campus police. 

    “We’re not buying the austerity message that the CSU is sending out,” said Charles Toombs, president of the faculty association. “We know that the CSU has plenty of money in reserves and in investments, so we know they can fund not only our salary increases in our proposals but also the salary proposals that the other unions are demanding. We just don’t buy that they need to put our salary increase on the backs of students.” 

    But Cal State only has about 33 days of funding — or about $766 million — in its reserves, and the board’s policy is that the system has about three to six months of funding, which it doesn’t, said Relyea, CSU’s chief financial officer. 

    He underscored that the system needs the new tuition revenue to increase salaries. About 70% to 80% of any university’s budget is driven by faculty and staff salary and benefits, Relyea said, adding that the tuition rate increase is “driven by wanting to and needing to compensate faculty and staff at a fair rate that represents the market.” 





    Source link

  • UC regents appear to support future tuition increases, but are skeptical of bigger ones

    UC regents appear to support future tuition increases, but are skeptical of bigger ones


    Student walk up and down the Promenade to Shields Library at UC Davis.

    Credit: Gregory Urquiaga / UC Davis

    Top Takeaways
    • UC is likely to continue raising tuition for each incoming class and then freezing the cost for that cohort of students for up to six years. 
    • The rate of increase each year is based on inflation but has been capped at 5%. Regents appear opposed to increasing that cap.
    • UC is worried about federal cuts and uncertain state finances. Students are concerned about affordability.

    The University of California’s Board of Regents on Thursday indicated support for continuing to raise tuition for each incoming freshman class for at least several more years, though many regents appeared skeptical of hiking the maximum increase allowed each year. 

    Since the 2022-23 academic year, tuition has gone up for each incoming class of undergraduates, ranging from 3.5% to 5%. But the price was also then frozen for the duration of their enrollment, so long as they graduate within six years. The rate of increase each year is based largely on inflation, but is capped at 5%. 

    California residents who entered this past fall pay $14,436 in tuition and systemwide fees, not including some additional campus fees, living expenses and books, and will continue to pay that rate each year. For in-state freshmen starting this fall, their rate will be $14,934, about 3.4% higher. Out-of-state and international students pay significantly higher rates.

    When the regents approved the so-called tuition stability plan in July 2021, they agreed to reconsider it prior to the 2027-28 academic year. Most regents said they want to renew the cohort policy, describing it as a resounding success that has improved campus budgets and brought predictability to students and their families. In the past, tuition increases affected all students from all cohorts, whether freshmen or seniors, at the same time and the same rates, often raising costs in the middle of their education. 

    The regents did not take action Thursday to formally extend the plan and only discussed the policy. A vote on it may be scheduled as soon as November, officials said.

    A number of regents, however, appeared unlikely to support proposals from UC administrators to allow for even greater tuition increases, including one to increase the maximum tuition hike in a given year from 5% to 7%.

    “I think it’s remarkable the success we’ve had, and that’s why I want to continue it,” said Richard Leib, a regent and a past chair of the board. “But I also have the feeling that if it’s not broken, why are we trying to fix it?”

    UC staff said upping the maximum increases could help the system navigate budget problems, including federal cuts to research funding and state funding uncertainties. 

    The president of the UC Student Association, meanwhile, encouraged the regents to get rid of the policy altogether and keep tuition flat after the 2026-27 academic year.

    “In order to ensure that the university can be a space that is accessible to students financially, I strongly urge you all to not renew the cohort tuition model,” Aditi Hariharan, a fourth-year student at UC Davis, said during remarks to the board. She added that keeping the policy would threaten UC’s ability to enroll “a diverse range of students from all economic backgrounds.”

    In defending the plan, UC officials said Thursday that the policy has actually made attending UC less expensive for the system’s low-income students. 

    Shawn Brick, the system’s associate vice provost for student financial support, noted that the state’s Cal Grant program fully covers tuition and fees for qualifying students. Additionally, UC sets aside 45% of revenue generated from the tuition policy for financial aid. That, Brick said, has provided the system’s neediest students with additional aid for other expenses, such as textbooks, that was not previously available.

    Nathan Brostrom, the system’s chief financial officer, said the policy has also generated $375 million in new revenue for campus operations, which has been used to support faculty-to-student ratios and improve student services.

    At the same time, officials said the policy has not been a cure-all and that higher tuition revenue and state budget support have not kept pace with rising costs. 

    The UC staff on Thursday suggested three potential scenarios that would generate even more revenue from the tuition policy. One would be the proposal to increase the maximum annual increase to 7%. Another would be to add another increase, possibly 1%, on top of the inflation-based increase. The third option would be to reduce the amount of revenue that is set aside for financial aid, from 45% to 35%. 

    Most regents who spoke said they disapproved of the proposal to allow for annual increases as high as 7%. Maria Anguiano, the board’s vice chair, said she remains supportive of renewing the original policy, but added that tuition hikes of 7% “no longer feels modest.”

    State Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, an ex-officio voting member of the board, said increasing the cap to 7% would be a “very significant change” and suggested tabling the idea altogether. 

    “If we have an extraordinary circumstance where you all feel the need to increase tuition more than 5% in any given year, you should have to come back to this body and explain why,” she said. 

    Jay Sures was one of the only regents who appeared to support the proposal. He said federal changes and threats have created “true headwinds for this university system” and that there are “issues with what potential state funding could be going forward that could potentially pose a true existential threat” to the system.

    “What would happen if we did have a cap and our shortfall was such that we were in that sort of disaster situation? What are we going to be able to do if we put a cap on it today and we fall into that situation tomorrow?” Sures said.

    Before the UC staff brings an official proposal to the board, they plan to consult with incoming President James Milliken, who takes over on Aug. 1, said Brostrom, the chief financial officer.

    Janet Reilly, the board chair, said the current plan is to bring an action item to the board’s meeting in November, but added that could change.

    “I think that what you are hearing from this group is a lot of gratitude and much satisfaction with the program that we rolled out,” Reilly said. “But still there are questions to be answered.”





    Source link

  • UC Berkeley chancellor tells Congress of commitment to protect Jewish students, but defends free speech

    UC Berkeley chancellor tells Congress of commitment to protect Jewish students, but defends free speech


    Rich Lyons, Chancellor, UC Berkeley, testifies during a House Committee on Education and Workforce Committee hearing on “Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology” on Capitol Hill on July 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Credit: Rod Lamkey, Jr. / AP Photo

    UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons testified Tuesday in front of a U.S. House committee that his campus has “more work to do” to prevent antisemitism, though he also defended free speech and said that pro-Palestinian viewpoints are “not necessarily antisemitism.”

    Lyons, along with the leaders of Georgetown University and The City University of New York, were called to face questioning at the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce hearing focused on antisemitism on college campuses.

    It was the latest of several such hearings held since late 2023 as some Republicans contend that Jewish students have been intimidated and threatened by U.S. campus protests against Israel’s military actions in Gaza, and antisemitism is rampant in academia.

    In his opening remarks, Lyons said Berkeley “unequivocally condemns antisemitism” and that the campus has an “unwavering” commitment to its Jewish students and other community members.

    “I am the first to say that we have more work to do. Berkeley, like our nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in antisemitism. And as a public university, we have a solemn obligation to protect our community from discrimination and harassment, while also upholding the First Amendment right to free speech,” he added. 

    The Trump administration is currently investigating Berkeley and many other campuses over possible antisemitism and has threatened to withhold funding if it believes those campuses aren’t protecting Jewish students.

    Democrats, however, have said Republicans are insincere in their concerns and are weaponizing antisemitism to attack higher education. Democrats on Tuesday also criticized Republicans for ignoring other forms of hate on college campuses, such as Islamophobia. 

    Like many campuses across California, UC Berkeley was the scene of pro-Palestinian protests in spring 2024, when students there erected an encampment that stayed up for weeks. However, the encampment was dismantled in May after protesters reached an agreement with then-Chancellor Carol Christ, and the campus avoided violent conflicts that besieged some other campuses, including UCLA. 

    Lyons, who took over as chancellor last summer, faced less scrutiny Tuesday than CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez. But Lyons did field generic and generally hostile questions from Republican members of Congress about antisemitism on the campus, as well as ones focused on faculty hiring policies and the foreign funding the campus receives. 

    Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, used most of his allotted five minutes to directly question Lyons, asking him why “antisemitism is so pervasive” at Berkeley.

    “Antisemitism is pervasive in the world. It’s pervasive in this nation, in society,” Lyons responded. “I think our universities are reflections of our society, especially a large public university.”

    During the same round of questioning, Lyons added that he believed that the increase in antisemitic incidents could be attributed to the war in Gaza, but also said that if somebody is expressing pro-Palestinian beliefs, that’s not necessarily antisemitic.”

    Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, a group of 82 Jewish faculty members at UC Berkeley in a letter to the House committee said they “reject the claim” that Berkeley has an antisemitic environment.

    “We write to affirm that we feel secure on campus and support the administration’s efforts to balance safety with respect for free speech,” they added, referring to the Berkeley administration.





    Source link

  • City Council removes student newspaper from city property, but they won’t stop us

    City Council removes student newspaper from city property, but they won’t stop us


    California State University, Fullerton

    Credit: CSU Fullerton/Flickr

    I have been a part of the Daily Titan staff since I was a freshman, and every week, we distribute a new print edition to City Hall, the public library and the police department.

    The Fullerton City Council just made that illegal. 

    I’m in my second semester as editor-in-chief of the Daily Titan, Cal State Fullerton’s editorially independent student newspaper. I previously served on the paper’s editorial staff for two years. 

    On May 6, the Fullerton City Council voted 3-2 to reaffirm a policy that would ban nongovernmental publications from distribution on city property. 

    The council also voted to add a “community newspaper rack” to the library — a space that the Daily Titan can share with the community newspaper Fullerton Observer and any other entity that wishes to publish. 

    The best justification that City Council members provided for their decision-making was the potential for litigation from a local blog that had asked if it could distribute its papers on city property. 

    As editor-in-chief, I can’t help but interpret this as an attack on press freedom in Fullerton. 

    The Daily Titan regularly covers important items related to the city of Fullerton in addition to our campus coverage. In the past year, we’ve reported on a City Council candidate’s arrest, a parklet program that the city decided to eliminate despite public outcry, and the nearly $10 million deficit the city is staring down — to name a few. 

    I run a student paper, but my staff and I recognize the growing trend of news deserts — geographic areas with limited or no access to reliable, diverse and independent news.

    Since Fullerton isn’t regularly covered by news outlets that meet that criteria, the Daily Titan steps up to help residents be informed. A growing number of college and high school newspapers across the country are doing the same thing.

    And despite this setback with City Hall, we won’t stop doing our job. 

    The reporting of student journalists is now impacting communities like the local dailies of yesteryear, according to an article published in Poynter in April. 

    The article details how universities now build their curriculum around the notion that student journalism is more impactful than ever. Student journalists are stepping up and covering cities like paid reporters once did. 

    And while the Daily Titan doesn’t operate as a newswire service like the other university publications detailed in the article, we’re able to serve many of the same purposes. 

    The Daily Titan holds Fullerton city leaders accountable for their actions. Those same city leaders are making decisions as if we don’t matter. 

    At the April 1 council meeting, when the newspaper ban was first discussed, multiple City Council members used the term “free speech area” to describe where a proposed community newspaper rack would be in the library. 

    Their colloquial terminology for the proposed newspaper rack is laughable. 

    The mere notion that city property should have free speech restricted to a certain area is anti-democratic, and the lack of clear and just leadership from council members is disappointing. If we don’t like your policies, should we only sit at a certain table to discuss them? 

    Multiple City Council members — one who is also a professor at Cal State Fullerton — claim to support student journalism after the policy was enacted. 

    From my perspective, no, they don’t. 

    Supporting student journalism doesn’t mean breaking the status quo for an unclear reason. 

    Supporting student journalism doesn’t mean limiting the reach of important, unbiased news coverage. 

    Many student journalists first joined the Daily Titan to learn how to hold community leaders accountable through reporting and writing. The publication provides a platform for us to learn in a way we can’t in a classroom. 

    While we’re still doing that — and don’t plan to stop anytime soon — the Fullerton City Council succeeded in teaching us another lesson, a harsher one.

    A lesson in how governments can work to suppress diverse voices. 

    A lesson in how student journalists can fall victim to petty City Council conflicts. 

    And a lesson that, given the Trump administration’s disdain for the press, is all too familiar. 

    Take the Associated Press (AP) for example: The wire service had to go to court to reinstate its ability to be admitted to White House press conferences after President Donald Trump didn’t like how AP refused to change a stylebook entry for the Gulf of Mexico. 

    As journalists, we can continue to fight for our right to exist. It’s a jarring reality that litigation might be the most effective way to accomplish that. 

    What citizens can do is pay attention to the City Council and think critically about its actions. And remember what’s happened in the past four years the next time they vote. 

    Remember that journalism needs to be protected and uplifted to support a free and fair democracy. 

    Not pushed to the back of the library.

    •••

    Emily Wilson is a journalism student at California State University, Fullerton, editor-in-chief of the university paper, the Daily Titan, and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • On California funding formula’s 10th anniversary, celebrate progress but double down on fairness

    On California funding formula’s 10th anniversary, celebrate progress but double down on fairness


    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    Former governor Jerry Brown headlines a party next week toasting the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), California’s ten-year-old reshaping of school finance, the nation’s most ambitious effort to target public investment toward narrowing disparities in student achievement.

    In 2013, Brown and the Legislature recast state funding to shift dollars toward districts that serve greater shares of low-income and non-English-speaking children. The logic remains compelling: educators labor to bring all children over proficiency hurdles in reading and math, so greater resources must go to students who have the farthest to climb.

    Party goers in Sacramento do have cause to celebrate. The extra funding has worked to lift performance among students living in areas of concentrated poverty. Test scores, graduation rates, and college readiness have all seen increases stemming from the extra funding, according to research from the Learning Policy Institute and the Public Policy Institute of California.

    Education funding also soared under both Brown and Gov. Gavin Newsom, fueled by a robust economy, the voter-approved Proposition 98 set aside for schools, and pandemic-era aid from Washington. State funding for K–12 education has grown more than 40% since 2017.

    But California’s schools still produce grossly unequal results among racial and economic groups. While reading proficiency among fourth graders climbed from 40% to 49% between 2014 and 2019, with slightly greater gains for low-income students, racial disparities failed to budge. White children in California have continued to achieve at three grade levels above Latino peers over the past quarter century, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress — gaps were even larger for Black children. The picture is similar for math.

    The good news: Brown’s funding formula helped sustain progress made by educators and kids since 2002, continuing to boost average test scores, especially in districts with concentrated poverty. The sobering news: inequalities among students remained unmoved despite gains for all demographic groups in reading and math.

    So, what have we learned over the past decade that could inform more potent school finance policies?

    First, only a small slice of local control funding — just 7% — is dedicated specifically to districts serving the largest concentrations of low-income families. For some, the impact was eye-popping: districts in which nearly all students are from impoverished families enjoyed a 13% gain in the share meeting grade-level standards. But most low-income students do not attend schools in these districts and so receive much less targeted funding. And schools with concentrated poverty in economically mixed districts lose out on this additional funding.

    Policy makers and researchers remain in the dark over whether local boards mirror the spirit of the formula when allocating dollars between schools, and this holds consequences for kids. If districts spend dollars equally across all students, then low-income kids only partially benefit, even as the formula targets districts with more high-need students.

    Newsom did target fresh funding to low-performing schools this year, dubbed the equity multiplier. The dollar augmentation is modest, but the new mechanism recognizes “that we have not sufficiently structured the reform to get dollars to highest-needs schools in a consistent way,” Jessenia Reyes, a policy analyst at Catalyst California in Los Angeles, told us.

    Second, how districts choose to deploy their funding matters. Local control funding operates like a dump truck, unloading extra dollars to the district — it’s not a backpack, where targeted dollars follow the child. Districts do not always target extra funds to the students who generate them: for each dollar a school generates due to its socioeconomic “need,” spending goes up only by 63 cents in the average district; the rest is spread more equally across all other schools in the district. Data suggest this targeting, or lack thereof, varies considerably across districts.  

    Los Angeles Unified — pressed by equity advocates — has pioneered a Student Needs Equity Index that pinpoints the most challenged schools, then distributes $700 million in flexible dollars to their principals and teacher leaders. Despite equaling less than 5% of the district’s yearly budget, this progressivity among schools has helped to boost reading scores for English learners.

    When local boards award extra funding to their most hard-pressed schools, contentious politics may come to light. Spreading new dollars across all schools holds broad appeal to labor leaders and parents. But “if we are really trying to implement equity, some kids may not need the [additional] resources,” said Ana Teresa Dahan, managing director of GPSN, the nonprofit formerly known as Great Public Schools Now.  

    Third, as we learn more about how spending varies among schools, we arrive at the effects of something quite sacred: teacher seniority. More experienced and highly qualified teachers tend to migrate to more affluent schools. So, serious efforts to equalize school budgets require incenting the best teachers to remain committed to poor communities.

    Even when districts focus extra resources on their most challenged schools, principals often assign more senior teachers to high-achieving kids, as we found in Los Angeles. More robust targeting of funds among schools may fail to narrow gaps within schools until principals are better coached to weigh strategic options.

    Yes, policy leaders deserve to pause and party on, celebrating a decade of high hopes and discernible progress in elevating disadvantaged students. But avoid the hangover. Fresh policy options and sober attention to school-level spending and staffing are urgently needed.

    •••

    Bruce Fuller, professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley, is the author of When Schools Work.
    Julien Lafortune, an education economist, is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Early literacy grants work, but three years is not enough

    Early literacy grants work, but three years is not enough


    A student holds a flash card with the sight word ‘friend’ during a class at Nystrom Elementary in the West Contra Costa Unified School District in 2022.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    I once believed that improving reading at a failing school could be a finite job. I thought it meant bringing in a new curriculum, showing teachers how to use it and then lingering long enough to ensure that students receive consecutive years of high-quality instruction.

    I was terribly wrong, but my misbelief brought me to work on California’s Early Literacy Support Block (ELSB) grant, and for that I’m grateful.

    The early literacy grant resulted from a class-action lawsuit. Students sued California for lacking a plan to address low reading achievement. The result was a $53 million settlement to provide the state’s lowest-performing schools with supplemental funding and guidance. A recent evaluation by researchers at Stanford University found the focus on early literacy turned out to be worth more than the grant’s dollar amount — the program was 13 times more effective than general increases in school spending.

    During an EdSource Roundtable on literacy, Mark Rosenbaum, lead attorney in the lawsuit noted, “If this is a pilot program, it has succeeded. We don’t need a task force; we don’t need more studies; we just need a commitment to expand it to every kid, every teacher and every school.”

    Improving reading instruction requires a literacy plan backed by strong leadership. It means coordinating resources, monitoring progress, and changing course when needed. It demands making decisions based on evidence, not adult preferences, and prioritizing early literacy so that every child gets off to a good start reading.

     I was on a team that helped eligible schools draft literacy action plans for the grant funding. I’d hoped this work would inform statewide planning, but despite the program’s success, California is no closer to a literacy plan.

    And worse, in a few months, schools like mine will lose the funding and support that made us briefly successful.

    When the program launched, I joined Nystrom Elementary, in West Contra Costa Unified, as a literacy coach. At the time, 91% of our second-graders needed to learn kindergarten phonics, as did 65% of upper graders. Working fast, we created a “walk-to-read” block in which grade level bands (e.g., first and second grades) pooled their students and sorted them into groups according to assessment data. Each teacher taught two of the groups. Our plan required collaboration and created peer accountability for teaching a new curriculum.

    In the second year, teachers led. They facilitated professional development, refined instruction and analyzed student data. We began to pick up momentum. By the middle of the year, the need for second grade intensive intervention was cut almost in half (from 86% to 46%). By the year’s end, according to the district’s reading comprehension assessment, Nystrom Elementary had the highest growth.

    This year, we turned our attention to improving writing and language instruction. We’ve forged a partnership with SAiL Literacy Lab to bridge the divide between what researchers know about language development and how we teach our students.

    Each year, we’ve adjusted our literacy action plan, incorporating what we’ve learned from research, practice and our student data. We’ve spent our literacy block grant funds on curriculum, coaching and intervention to strengthen classroom instruction, but our staff’s commitment to the plan is what improved achievement. 

    Good literacy plans in California are rare, and wasted opportunities abound. Walk into any school and you are likely to see curriculum (some of it brand new) collecting dust. Our literacy coaches often say they are kept busy with subbing, yard duty and other tasks that don’t improve classroom teaching. Reading interventionists often feel isolated in their work, unsure how much they are contributing to their school’s overall success. Most rare in California are strong literacy plans that are backed by secure funding.

    The money from the Early Literacy Support Block Grant is drying up, but my school’s work is not done. It never will be.

    More than 95% of our students are from low-income households and our non-stability rate (students who enroll and disenroll, often due to unstable housing) is over 26%. Our school will always have intervention needs, teachers requiring support and data demanding analysis and action. These needs are not problems, as long as they are met with a plan and funding.

    As Rosenbaum noted in the EdSource Roundtable: “This grant is only for three years. … That was the best we could get in the settlement, but that makes no sense if you care about kids. I wouldn’t say about my kids, ‘I will do what you need for three years, and then we’ll do the best we can afterwards.’ These schools, these educators, need what they need forever.”

    This year, California spent over $225 million on coaching and intervention, but a literacy plan was not a condition for schools receiving the funds. Another $248 million was recently added to bring in a new cohort of schools, but those with expiring literacy plans were not prioritized.

    Because California lacks a strategic plan to improve literacy (the very reason for the lawsuit years ago), effective literacy plans may soon become dreams deferred. The irony of this cuts deep.

    •••

    Margaret Goldberg is a literacy coach in West Contra Costa Unified School District and co-founder of The Right to Read Project, a group of teachers, researchers and activists committed to the pursuit of equity through literacy.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Musk Is Gone But His DOGS Live On, Embedded in Agencies

    Musk Is Gone But His DOGS Live On, Embedded in Agencies


    Elon Musk left Washington, where he enjoyed the exalted status of being Trump’s brain. He returned to Texas, his new home. Where he launched into a Twitter tirade against Trump.

    But he left behind a still large contingent of DOGS (Department of Governmental Subsistence).

    Who are they?

    ProPublica has been tracking them.

    In an effort launched shortly after DOGE’s creation, ProPublica has now identified more than 100 private-sector executives, engineers and investors from Silicon Valley, big American banks and tech startups enlisted to help President Donald Trump dramatically downsize the U.S. government.

    While Elon Musk has departed the Department of Government Efficiency, the world’s richest man is leaving a network of acolytes embedded inside nearly every federal agency.

    At least 38 DOGE members currently work or have worked for businesses run by Musk, ProPublica found in an examination of their resumes and other records. At least nine have invested in Musk companies or own stock in them, a review of available financial disclosure forms shows.

    ProPublica found that at least 23 DOGE officials are making cuts at federal agencies that regulate the industries that employed them, potentially posing significant conflicts of interest. One DOGE member tasked with overseeing mass layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, did so while owning stock in companies the agency regulated.

    At least 12 remain, on paper, employees or advisers of the companies they worked at before DOGE, a review of financial disclosure forms shows. And at least nine continue to receive corporate benefits from their private-sector employers, including health insurance, stock vesting plans or retirement savings programs. These employment agreements could create a situation in which a DOGE staffer would be shaping federal policies that affect their employer.

    The people behind DOGE are largely men in their 20s and 30s, most of whom bring no government experience to the task. Many of them previously worked in finance.

    ProPublica’s list — the largest of its kind by any news organization — allows readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the backgrounds of the people assigned to one of the Trump administration’s signature efforts. It comes at a crucial moment, as some of the first-generation DOGE members are leaving the government and a new crop is joining.

    “Even though Elon Musk and some of his top officials are shifting their attention to other issues, I see no indication that the DOGE team members who remain will slow down their work to test the legal and ethical boundaries of using technology in the name of improving government services,” said Elizabeth Laird, a director at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology.

    While the Trump administration asserts it is the most transparent in history, DOGE operates shrouded by the shadows of bureaucracy.

    Many of its staffers have deleted their public profiles, have wiped the internet of their professional backgrounds or were encouraged by leadership not to discuss their work with friends. At the behest of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court halted a court order Friday that would have required DOGE to turn over information to a government watchdog — challenging whether the group will ever be subject to public records requests. The Trump administration has banned DOGE staffers from speaking publicly without approval.

    To cast a light on this secretive group, ProPublica began reporting in February on Musk’s influence inside the Trump administration, cataloging who was part of DOGE and how associates of the billionaire tech mogul were taking up senior posts across agencies. Our DOGE tracker, the first such list published by media outlets, is the culmination of hundreds of conversations with sources across government.

    Today, we are adding 23 staffers to our tracker, taking the total to 109. They are spread throughout the government, from the Department of Defense to the General Services Administration to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Open the link to see the list of DOGGIES.

    By any measure, Musk failed.

    First, he said he would cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Then, he said he would cut $1 trillion.

    Then, he dropped his target to $165 billion.

    Even that number is disputed because federal courts keep ruling that DOGS firings should be nullified and workers should return to their jobs. Other “savings” were canceled out by the costs of benefits. By some measures, the DOGS game may have cost money, not saved it.

    One thing is certain: the federal deficit will grow after Trump’s first year in office, thanks to tax cuts for the top 1%.



    Source link

  • New California teaching standards are welcome, but state must implement them consistently

    New California teaching standards are welcome, but state must implement them consistently


    On Feb. 8, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing will be considering significant revisions to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the framework that helps define common expectations for what all teachers should know and be able to do. As veteran teachers with over 40 years of teaching between us, we know how important it will be for students and teachers that the state adopts these revisions and that it allocates funding to support their implementation. 

    Wendy was evaluated this year by her principal. When they reviewed the standards Wendy was expected to know during observations, she realized that she’s seen this document many times before in her career; the same standards have been in place since 2009. These antiquated standards don’t reflect the strategies Wendy uses, the needs of her students, or even the technology integration embedded in the instruction. However, this is the tool her principal must use to determine Wendy’s effectiveness, and to highlight any areas in need of support. It is long past time for the state to revise these important guides. 

    For Juan, who is a mentor and instructor for student teachers and new educators, these standards matter because they serve as a guide for the Teaching Performance Expectations, which are used by teacher preparation programs and the commission to train and credential all new teachers. New teacher induction programs center the support they provide for new teachers around the standards as well. Because of this, every developing educator Juan has worked with has had to align their instruction and most importantly, the reflective practice that drives their continuous improvement, around the content of the standards. New educators who come closest to mastering these standards have the highest probability of being hired, being retained and ultimately having long successful careers.

    In 2020, the commission formed a committee of educators to rewrite the standards. Equity-minded education stakeholders across the state were hopeful, excited even, when the draft of new standards was completed in February 2021. These new standards have the power to change what teaching and learning looks like in California. They promise improved guidelines that support social-emotional learning and build school communities that emphasize cultural responsiveness. The standards expect teachers like us to create learning environments that are inclusive, respectful and supportive, while also using evidence-based best practices to guide rigorous instruction. They give us a “north star” we can use to effectively orient our ongoing practice and a lens through which we can reflect on it and grow as educators.  

    We are thrilled that after more than three years since the commission began this review process, the commission is moving forward with standards that better reflect what our students need. But new standards alone will not get the job done. The commission must also have a robust and thoughtful implementation plan. To support this effort and provide clearer guidance on implementing new standards, we and our colleagues in the Teach Plus Policy Fellowship conducted a series of interviews with teacher preparation and induction leaders.

    To ensure that the standards are implemented with the fidelity our students deserve, California is going to need to support their implementation with funding necessary for schools and districts to meet the unique needs of their respective educational communities. In addition, colleges of education and induction programs will need adequate funding to create and implement new coursework and professional development for not only new teachers, but teachers currently in the classrooms who have never used the new standards as a tool for growth and development. Without standards that are implemented consistently, students are the victims of a terrible educational lottery. Students whose teachers have been supported with meaningful professional development will have the opportunity to thrive, while the rest of the students will be deprived and potentially disadvantaged in their life in and beyond school. 

    President Joe Biden has said, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” The new standards underscore that we value culturally responsive teaching, social-emotional learning, and asset-based pedagogy among other instructional approaches. However, if the state does not commit to providing financial support to local educational agencies to do this work well, then the standards are merely empty platitudes. If we are really serious about raising the academic achievement level of all our students, then there is no better investment than that of ensuring that our educators have the tools necessary to help students reach their full learning potential. 

    •••

    Juan Resendez is a civics, world history and religions teacher at Portola High School in Irvine and an alumnus of the Teach Plus Policy Fellowship. 

    Wendy Threatt is a National Board Certified fourth grade teacher at Felicita Elementary in Escondido and a senior policy fellow with Teach Plus.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Trump Is Trying to Seize Control of Public Broadcasting, But Judge Blocks Him, for Now

    Trump Is Trying to Seize Control of Public Broadcasting, But Judge Blocks Him, for Now


    Trump is determined to defund NPR and PBS. He claims they are radical, far-left media outlets. The federal funding these media receive is funneled through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

    In his effort to control CPB, Trump told three members of the board of CPB that they were fired. Trump intends to control every outlet of public information, either by threatening their funding or (if private) suing to intimidate them. This is fascism.

    The CPB board sued and said that it was created by Congress to be independent of political direction.

    A federal district judge in DC, appointed by Obama, issued a decision that caused both sides to claim victory. The decision said that the board members would not suffer irreparable harm if removed, but that CPB is an independent agency. The judge declined to block the firings but CPB treated the ruling as a victory for its independence.

    Brian Stelter of CNN described the decision:

    Yesterday a federal judge declined to immediately intervene in Trump’s attempt to remove three Corporation for Public Broadcasting board members, “ruling the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood the firings were unlawful or that they would suffer irreparable harm,” The Hill’s Sarah Fortinsky reports.

    “But CPB officials celebrated the ruling as a win, pointing to part of the ruling that acknowledges that ‘Congress intended to preclude the President (or any subordinate officials acting at his direction) from directing, supervising, or controlling the Corporation.’” The entity’s statement on the matter is titled “Court Recognizes CPB’s Independence.”

    The bottom line: CPB is keeping its board members in place and continuing to fight. 



    Source link

  • UC has enrolled more Californians, but lawmakers say it’s not enough

    UC has enrolled more Californians, but lawmakers say it’s not enough


    UC Davis

    Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

    State lawmakers Wednesday demanded that the University of California system make more space for California residents — particularly at its most competitive campuses — even if it means charging higher tuition to those who come from out of state.

    The number of non-resident students has declined at most UC campuses, ticking down from 17.7% to 16.3% systemwide over the past two years. Increasing pressure from the Legislature led the state to create a plan in the Budget Act of 2021 to increase the enrollment of Californians in the UC system over five years. The system has enrolled more in-state residents — but not enough to meet targets set by the state.

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, noted that most UC campuses reject more than half of their applicants, including many highly qualified California residents.

    “This is frustrating for a lot of Californians,” Alvarez said during an Assembly budget hearing addressing college enrollment in the state.

    Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, shared a story from a constituent who said she graduated with a 4.67 GPA, took 12 AP courses and was a varsity captain. She told him she applied as a political science major at four competitive UC campuses and was rejected from all, only to enroll at an out-of-state school.

    “What would you tell this student about why she can’t attend the UC campus of her dreams?” Muratsuchi said.

    A report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) called it “frustrating” that during a time of “tremendous demand,” the UC system fell nearly 1,400 full-time equivalent students short of its target to enroll more in-state students this year, as set by the 2023-24 Budget Act.

    Assembly members said they also have concerns about nonresidents increasingly edging out California residents at a few CSU campuses. Nonresidents made up 17% of enrollment at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and 14.6% at San Diego State in 2022-23. 

    The LAO report notes that community college enrollment has begun to rebound after a precipitous decline during the pandemic. But its decline has created a domino effect by reducing the number of students transferring to CSU. Enrollment at the University of California has been growing, but it has not kept pace with student interest, as indicated by the rapidly rising number of applications. Unique applications to the UC system increased by 30% from 2013 to 2022.

    Looking to the future, the systems — especially the community colleges and CSU — face continuing challenges attracting enough students. The report also noted that the numbers of traditional college age students are expected to decline in the coming years, just as they have in California’s K-12 school system.

    Muratsuchi asked whether it might be time to rethink the way funds are allocated, not just between campuses but also between UC and CSU campuses. He pointed to the increased demand at UC campuses and declining interest at many CSU campuses.

    The UC system does plan to address demand from California residents in the long term by adding between 23,000 and 33,000 full-time equivalent students by 2030. UC Merced and UC Riverside would account for 30% to 35% of that growth, while UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego would account for half or more of that growth. The UC system contends that this plan would rely on state funding to pay for an increase in California residents.

    Seija Virtanen, associate director of state budget relations for the University of California Office of the President, said the UC system became more reliant on nonresident students to backfill massive budget cuts during the Great Recession of 2008. Each nonresident student pays nearly three times the tuition paid by resident students.

    For 2024-25, Californians will pay $14,436 for undergraduate tuition, while nonresidents will pay $48,636.

    “If we were to remove those funds, it would be catastrophic for our campuses,” Virtanen said.

    Currently, the state is providing the UC system with an additional $31 million each year to support more California residents attending UC campuses, supplanting the funds that nonresidents bring in. Over the last two years, UC has enrolled over 2,600 fewer nonresidents. It has also enrolled nearly 5,900 additional in-state residents, but that is nearly 1,400 students short of the state target.

    Alvarez proposed raising tuition for nonresidents to cover this $31 million in annual funds from the state. Using back-of-the-napkin math, Alvarez noted that passing along $31 million in tuition to 20,000 nonresident students would increase their tuition by about $1,500 each year. There are an estimated 36,630 nonresident students in the UC system. Alvarez suggested a follow-up hearing to discuss raising nonresident tuition.

    During public comment, UC alumni-regent Keith Ellis agreed that it would be “worthy” to give the plan to raise nonresident tuition serious consideration.

    CSU, where most campuses have seen enrollment drop, has room in its budget to add 24,000 full-time students, according to the LAO report. Only four of the 23 campuses — Fullerton, Long Beach, San Diego and San Luis Obispo — have increased their enrollment since fall 2019. 

    Seven campuses are enrolling at least 20% fewer students than four years ago, including campuses in Sonoma, the Channel Islands, the East Bay, Chico, Humboldt, Bakersfield and San Francisco.

    Nathan Evans, deputy vice chancellor for academic and student affairs at CSU, said there is a plan to reallocate resources from campuses that have seen a sustained drop in enrollment to those where there is more demand. He said this reallocation needs to be done over several years.

    “We’re not going to pull the rug out from any institution,” he said.

    Evans noted that demographic changes in rural areas in Northern California and the Bay Area mean enrollment is not likely to rebound. The number of families with college-age students has been declining in these areas. 

    Evans said the CSU system is also working on increasing enrollment through partnerships with K-12 districts, marketing and attempting to reengage students who may have stopped out.





    Source link