اینترنت

برچسب: Californias

  • California’s future demands higher-ed coordination now

    California’s future demands higher-ed coordination now


    Credit: Larry Gordon / EdSource

    Despite being the nation’s economic powerhouse with the largest postsecondary system in America, California stands alone among all 50 states without a higher education coordinating entity. This gap has resulted in missed opportunities and unrealized potential — and it’s a systemic failure that leaves real people behind every day.

    Ask Fred P., who applied for unemployment when he lost his job during the pandemic. What California’s systems failed to tell him was that he qualified for the Golden State Education and Training Grant designed to help displaced workers like him. As his savings dwindled and bills mounted, available support remained hidden in bureaucratic silos. Fred only discovered the program months after his unemployment benefits expired — and only because his partner happened to work in state policy and budget.

    Meanwhile, millions of other Californians, without such connections, remain unaware of potential pathways to economic mobility and continue to fall through the cracks of our state’s disconnected education and workforce systems. During the pandemic, over 19 million Californians lost jobs and applied for unemployment, yet very few were informed they qualified for this scholarship program, which should have connected them to training opportunities for career advancement. California allocated $500 million to this program, but two years later, only $20 million had reached just 6,100 individuals. Why? Because the agency administering scholarships couldn’t identify unemployed workers, and the unemployment office couldn’t connect people to the available education funding. Two state systems, both serving Californians, but operating in silos, left resources untapped and communities unsupported.

    This fragmentation creates a maze that widens opportunity gaps, particularly for those without the social capital or resources to guide them through complex systems. At the start of the pandemic, over 5 million Californians intended to enroll in college in the next two years, but many — especially especially Latino, Black, Native American residents, first-generation college students, Californians with children, and those working low-wage jobs — face a gauntlet of barriers that numerous disjointed access programs fail to address. Meanwhile, more than a billion dollars in education and workforce development funding goes unused, while Californians seeking better opportunities have trouble finding quality training opportunities to reach their career goals, and employers struggle to find qualified workers for open positions.

    These disconnected systems don’t just create inconvenience — they perpetuate cycles of poverty. For Californians living on the margins, the cost associated with college —an established path to economic mobility — is a huge barrier and makes it seem out of reach. Meanwhile, over a hundred programs exist that could defray the financial burden and increase college access. But, without coordination, these public benefit programs designed to improve economic stability remain inaccessible to those who need them most. When systems don’t talk to each other, the promise of these programs remains unfulfilled, leaving workers, families and employers struggling in an economy that demands better solutions.

    The solution is clear: coordination. And it’s now within reach. Both Gov. Gavin’s administration and key legislative champion Assemblymember Mike Fong have aligned in their support of establishing the California Education Interagency Council. This council would bridge the divides between our TK-12 education, higher education, workforce development, and social services systems, creating a coherent ecosystem that powers economic growth and resilience for individuals and the state.

    This isn’t about adding bureaucracy — it’s about setting up the needed infrastructure to fulfill the promise of economic mobility and good jobs for Californians — the driving reason so many pursue higher education in the first place. With this council in place:

    • Unemployed workers would be connected to education and training programs that would strengthen their re-entry to the workforce.
    • Residents experiencing financial hardship who receive public benefits would enter into education pathways that lead to living-wage careers, creating intergenerational economic mobility.
    • Students would easily navigate clear paths from high school through college to meaningful employment.
    • Schools and colleges would receive actionable labor market insights to shape programming.
    • Employers would find skilled workers to fill critical positions, strengthening California’s economy.

    Collectively, these outcomes strengthen California by fostering a robust economy and thriving communities built on shared prosperity.

    Finally, the council would enhance accountability by tracking outcomes across systems, identifying what works and what doesn’t, and ensuring programs reach their intended recipients. A coordinated approach is especially critical now, during challenging budget times. California must ensure every dollar works. The proposed council would maximize returns on billions of existing investments by eliminating redundancies, filling workforce gaps, and ensuring that programs help the people they are designed to serve.

    For too long, we’ve relied on spot-fixes and piecemeal solutions. We’ve watched promising initiatives fall short of their potential. The time has come, with alignment between the governor’s office and the Legislature, to build the coordination infrastructure that connects Californians with opportunity. Our state’s promises of prosperity and bright futures depend on it.

    •••

    Su Jin Jez is CEO of California Competes, a nonprofit working to solve California’s higher education and workforce issues through research, advocacy and collective action.

    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

  • Financial aid fraud is growing at California’s community colleges

    Financial aid fraud is growing at California’s community colleges


    The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is one of many across the state trying to combat bad actors who enroll to steal financial aid. The district, which includes Foothill College, shown above, is now using artificial intelligence to sniff our scammers.

    Credit: Barbara Kinney

    Since the Covid-19 pandemic, California’s community colleges have been plagued by scammers who pose as students and enroll to steal financial aid — and now it’s getting even worse. 

    The state’s 116-college system has lost more than $7.5 million to financial aid fraud this year, state data shows. That’s already much higher than the colleges reported losing all of last year. Most of it is federal aid, in the form of Pell Grants intended for low-income students. 

    Colleges have increased their efforts to detect and deter the fraud through both more human interaction and automated detection. Officials believe they are getting better at doing so, but the increasing losses show that the college system is still vulnerable to scammers, who are often part of sophisticated crime rings, some overseas. 

    Community colleges have long been susceptible to fraud, since they are generally open access and usually don’t deny admission to students who meet basic requirements as the more selective University of California and California State University do. The problem was made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic. The shift to remote instruction “created fertile ground” for fraudsters, said Paul Feist, a spokesperson for the chancellor’s office overseeing California’s community colleges. The scammers wanted to get their hands on the nearly $2 billion in federal stimulus dollars available for emergency student aid available across the colleges. 

    That stimulus aid is now depleted, but the fraudsters aren’t slowing down, according to the data EdSource obtained through a public records request. In 2024, through September, community colleges in California reported disbursing more than $7.6 million in aid that they later wrote off as fraud. The data was provided to EdSource in late October, but the system did not yet have October data available.

    The $7.6 million is up from about $4.4 million that was reported lost all of last year. And that was much larger than the $2.1 million that was reported lost between September 2021 and the end of 2022. September 2021 is when the state chancellor’s office asked colleges to begin reporting monthly about application, enrollment and financial aid fraud. EdSource requested those reports via the state’s Public Records Act. In response, the state shared data on the amount of fraud reported each month but redacted the names of individual colleges. 

    Some officials attribute the latest spike in fraudulent activity to the Department of Education rolling back verification rules for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), requiring colleges to verify fewer applications. Fraudsters may have seen those changes and sensed an opportunity to get their hands on aid. 

    Pretending to be legitimate students, the fraudsters apply online for admission. Some frauds are caught there, but those who successfully get admitted and enroll in classes can request financial aid, which colleges often distribute to personal bank accounts via direct deposit. 

    Some colleges, as a result, are going back to the old-fashioned method of requiring students to show up in person and prove they are real before they can become eligible for aid. Others, acknowledging the possibility of human error, are also turning to automated methods, including using artificial intelligence to detect suspicious applicants. 

    It is also likely that the colleges are more consistently reporting the fraud. When the chancellor’s office first began asking the colleges to report monthly, there was only “modest participation,” a chancellor’s office official said in a 2022 memo. Now, colleges are reporting at higher rates, though some have still not submitted their reports for months. College officials also believe they have improved at detecting fraud over the past three years.  

    Feist said it can take more than six months from when a scammer applies online for colleges “to detect, investigate and confirm” the fraud. He added that he expects the college system to have better information about the scope of the fraud by the end of this year.

    The scams can have consequences for actual students. With a finite number of seats for each course, real students are often left on waiting lists and unable to enroll in necessary classes because fraudsters are taking up space.

    For the colleges, combating the fraud is a never-ending battle. They have to constantly adapt to the fraudsters, who themselves evolve and come up with new tactics. 

    “This past year, essentially, we would think we’re a step ahead and then the next day we would be a step behind. We were always playing cat-and-mouse,” said Nicole Albo-Lopez, vice chancellor of educational programs for the Los Angeles Community College District. 

    Fraud going up

    In total, colleges since fall 2021 have reported distributing $14.2 million in financial aid that they wrote off as fraud. Federal aid has accounted for the majority of that, but colleges have also distributed more than $3 million in state and local aid to the scammers.  

    Feist noted that is a small percentage — less than 1% — of the total aid the colleges have distributed to students in that time. 

    The fraud initially spiked in 2021, when the colleges had billions of dollars available in emergency financial aid grants for students. Between March 2020 and March 2021, the federal government passed three pandemic relief bills and awarded California’s community colleges $4.4 billion, of which $1.8 billion was allocated for emergency grants. 

    The financial aid office at East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park.

    Distribution of emergency grants ended in 2023, but the fraud did not. Some colleges have reported eye-popping losses of federal aid, leading to the $7.6 million the system has lost so far this year. 

    One college, its name redacted in the data shared with EdSource, reported losing $405,395 in April, $344,296 in July and $119,262 in May. Another college lost $193,286 in April and $76,303 in June. When colleges write off aid distributions as fraud, it’s typically because the recipient stops attending classes altogether after receiving the aid.

    At the same time, dozens of colleges did not report fraud numbers for at least one month this year, raising the possibility that the actual amount of aid lost to fraud is even higher than what has been reported.

    Some officials theorized that the federal government’s relaxed FAFSA verification requirements could be playing a role. Typically, about a quarter of FAFSA applications are selected for verification, which involves the colleges verifying the information a student reports on their application. Under the new rules, colleges are now required to verify a much lower share of FAFSA applications — even lower than during the pandemic, when rules were also relaxed, according to the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. 

    The changes were implemented to help colleges more quickly process aid applications, particularly after the FAFSA delays that plagued colleges and students last academic year.

    Victor DeVore, the dean of student services at the San Diego Community College District, said it is likely that the relaxed FAFSA verification led to more scams.

    “It’s letting people know that, ‘Oh look, they’re relaxing their verification rules, so now I have a better chance of trying to get some aid fraudulently,’” he said. 

    At the same time, colleges have also been have getting better at identifying the fraud. 

    This year, about 25% of applications have been flagged as possible fraud, up from 20% last year. “Part of the reason is that our systems are becoming more effective at detecting fraud, even as the attempts become more sophisticated,” Feist said.

    ‘Nobody’s trained in this’

    There are three stages of fraud: Application fraud, when scammers try to get admitted to the college; enrollment fraud, when they attempt to get a spot in a class; and financial aid fraud, when they successfully receive aid after enrolling.

    Fraudsters often target classes with no prerequisites, since those are easier to access, said Tina Vasconcellos, vice chancellor of the Peralta Community College District, which is based in Oakland and has four colleges in Alameda County.

    Spencer O’Bosky, a computer science major at Los Angeles Pierce College, tried several times in the spring to enroll in online math classes, only to see them fill up shortly after they opened for registrations. 

    When he eventually was able to enroll in one, some of the other students listed on the course roster didn’t turn in any work and were dropped as suspected scammers. 

    “I always thought I was the only one experiencing this, but then I heard about it happening a lot,” O’Bosky said. “I think it’s terrible. It stops people from being able to sign up for these classes.”

    To keep the fraudsters out, several college officials said they have turned to a simple yet effective tactic. When a student is flagged as suspicious, staff ask them to either come to campus in person or join a video meeting to prove they are a legitimate student. 

    But some still slip through the cracks, especially as scammers get more sophisticated.

    “Nobody’s trained in this. We have humans doing this all over the state, all over every state trying to figure out how to mitigate this issue that nobody’s trained for,” Vasconcellos, the Peralta vice chancellor, said.

    To reduce human error, colleges have looked for ways to automate fraud detection. 

    The state chancellor’s office last year piloted a new ID proofing system, working with the online platform ID.me to verify identities of applicants. Feist said the verification system “has been effective in helping to reduce the amount of fraud and help mitigate local workloads” but added that “bad actors continue to shift their attacks.”

    Some fraudsters now steal identities and submit the stolen but legitimate information — like a real address and real forms of identification — when applying, said Jory Hadsell, the vice chancellor of technology for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. When the fraudster sets up direct deposit, they only need a bank account and routing number, not a name to match the one on their application. 

    Scammers also changed their approach at the San Diego district after officials there successfully started sniffing them out by detecting that they were using virtual private networks (VPNs), which create a connection between the user’s computer and a network in another location, making it appear like the fraudster is in that location. For example, one student applied with their VPN set to a Los Angeles location, but their IP address showed they were actually in China.

    Rather than VPNs, the fraudsters this past year started using burner phones, which come with a business IP address, said DeVore, adding that it’s harder to determine whether those are legitimate. “They switched up their game,” he said.

    To add another layer of fraud detection, the Foothill-De Anza district is one of two in a trial test with an artificial intelligence platform, Lightleap, to identify potential scammers by analyzing “key data and behavioral elements,” according to a report presented to the state’s board of governors this summer.

    The AI platform, for example, can identify “fraud clusters,” such as when many applications are coming from the same IP address, Hadsell said. 

    Vasconcellos, who wants to similarly use AI at the Peralta district, said she is hopeful it will become a more common fraud detection tool, both at her district and across California.

    “We just need to keep learning and keep trying to get ahead of it,” Vasconcellos added. “They keep changing, and we have to keep changing to address whatever new things, new ways they’re trying to get through.”

    Delilah Brumer, a former member of the EdSource California Student Journalism Corps, contributed reporting.





    Source link

  • California’s college financial aid chief on FAFSA chaos, concerns about Trump and more

    California’s college financial aid chief on FAFSA chaos, concerns about Trump and more


    Daisy Gonzales, the executive director of the California Student Aid Commission, speaking at Hancock College in 2019.

    Credit: California Community Colleges

    When Dr. Daisy Gonzales took over as executive director of the California Student Aid Commission in June, she stepped into the position at a tumultuous time on the financial aid front, marked by state budget deficits, outside schemes to defraud financial programs and concerns over what President-elect Donald Trump will mean for undocumented students.

    Among her first priorities: making sure more students apply for financial aid this year following declines in 2024 amid the chaotic and oft-delayed rollout of the federal government’s revamped Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The U.S. Department of Education last month made the 2025-26 version available. Most students in California use that form to access both state and federal aid for college costs. FAFSA completions in the state declined by an estimated 10% among incoming freshmen in 2024, mirroring a national decline, as students and families found it difficult to access and complete the form in a timely manner.

    The state student aid commission (pronounced See-Sack by insiders) oversees more than $3.5 billion in state grants available to college students mainly based on need. That includes the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid awards that come in various types for tuition, living allowances and career or technical programs. The commission also oversees the Middle Class Scholarship, which can provide substantial grants to underwrite attendance at California’s public colleges and universities for students from families earning up to $217,000 a year.

    In addition, the commission runs the California Dream Act Application for undocumented students, who can use it to apply for Cal Grants despite not being eligible for federal aid. Some students, including those who have citizenship or legal residency but an undocumented parent, may still be fearful to fill out any financial aid applications out of concern that information will be shared with the federal government. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to deport undocumented residents when he takes office next year. State officials promise that Dream Act information will not be shared.

    Meanwhile, community colleges in California and across the country continue to be plagued by financial aid fraud. Scammers, posing as students, enroll at the colleges for the sole purpose of stealing financial aid. California’s community colleges have lost more than $7.5 million this year alone to such fraud. 

    Dr. Gonzales was deputy chancellor of California’s community college system before joining the aid commission in July. She also served as the system’s acting and then interim chancellor. She was selected to her current post by the 15 members of the commission, 11 of whom are appointed by the governor and another four by the Legislature.

    Previously, she was a consultant for the Budget and Appropriations Committees in the state Assembly. She has a bachelor’s degree from Mills College and received both a master’s degree and a doctorate in sociology from UC Santa Barbara.

    She recently spoke with EdSource. The following conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. 

    What is the Student Aid Commission doing to ensure students are completing the FAFSA this year?

    We’ve been working differently with Cal Volunteers and training all of their volunteers to learn about financial aid, because they’re the boots on the ground. And even working differently with our segments. I’ve been really grateful to the community colleges. I gave them the data of those districts and colleges where we are leaving students behind, and they immediately got to work doing professional development, deploying messaging. (Cal Volunteers is a state office charged with increasing volunteering. Its College Corps program provides stipends for college students who volunteer.)

    It was also important that I could hear directly from students. So I’ve also launched a student council where all the student associations (at local community college districts) have appointments on that council, and then they are activating their associations to educate students about financial aid, the deadlines, and even solutions to some of the common barriers that they face.

    President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to deport undocumented residents. What guidance are you giving to undocumented students or students who have undocumented parents and are worried they could expose them by filling out the FAFSA?

    We believe in providing students and their families with the information that will allow them to consider all of their options. We know that there are many concerns around privacy protections for individuals without a Social Security number.

    Last year, the commission opened the Dream Act application to students from mixed-status families (those with both documented and undocumented individuals), and we are maintaining that. And so for any student, particularly if you’re a first-time applicant, if you have a family member, a parent, or a spouse that is a part of your application that does not have a Social Security number, you are being invited to complete the Dream Act application. We also have to inform you that as a part of not completing a FAFSA, you will not be able to benefit from federal aid. And our job is to help you understand that it’s your choice. And that applying is a family decision. Here at the commission, we protect your data. However, there are no similar federal reassurances that we can provide.

    Are you doing any messaging to make sure students know that any information they submit via the California Dream Act Application is not shared with the federal government?

    We redid our website so that we could have a very clear message around our data security. You can also then click on that message and it’ll show you additional information that’s important as you’re making your decision on whether to file a California Dream Act Application or FAFSA. We’ve also been deploying messages. For the first time, at least in the last several years, we actually sent out a notice that went to all education leaders — meaning the K-12 superintendents, the higher education presidents and CEOs. They all got the same message. And it was a message saying that our job is clear. We need students to stay enrolled. We need to offer them a safe option. And that is the California Dream Act Application.

    There has been a big push by lawmakers in recent years to reform the Cal Grant by simplifying it and making more students eligible for aid, especially low-income community college students. That reform hasn’t happened because of state budget constraints. Is it still a priority of yours?

    I’m here with a very clear mission to transform financial aid. I believe that it’s something that we can do together. And in doing so, then that means we are building financial aid pathways that are centered in student success. Yes, we need Cal Grant equity to be a reality, but that’s not yet funded.

    But there are still so many other things that we can be doing. So, for example, I envision a California financial aid system that’s actually predictable. What would it look like to have an expedited renewal process for aid? I hear that as the No. 1 burden for students and families. 

    Another example I can give you is foster youth. They end up having to fill out two to five different applications. So at the commission, they might do three applications, if they qualify for those programs. And then when they get to a college, they still have to fill out an application for institutional aid. And so I challenged the team here at the commission, and I said, “What would it look like to create one application where we can ask students about all of the additional special programs that California has?” We need to be able to do this differently. 

    Even though Cal Grant reform was not funded in the latest state budget deal, there have been other ideas floating around about how to come up with that funding. One suggestion was to create a new tax that would raise dollars for financial aid. Are there other creative ways to possibly raise new funding?

    There are many other states that do have additional taxes, particularly on alcoholic beverages. There are also so many different ways that I think we can move the needle here in California. I think we can do a better job in general communicating with students about what exists, how do they access it, and how we can actually help them achieve their end goal much faster. There are many other things that we can and should be doing.

    What are your expectations for the 2025-26 state budget? Are you worried there could be further cuts to financial aid?

    Nothing can be taken for granted, especially in a difficult year. We have a number of new legislators. So for me, it’s about reeducating, reaching out, building that relationship, especially with new elected officials. We’ve had to cut funding for the commission already by 7.95%. All state agencies received the same reduction. There was also a hiring freeze here at the commission. And all of this happened before I arrived. I don’t take anything for granted. I know it’s a really difficult year, but I also know that poverty has been increasing in the state. And so when I go out and advocate, I’m advocating for our students, and I’m defending the dollars that we have while helping California build pathways for many more Californians.

    On another topic, California’s community colleges have lost millions of financial aid dollars this year and in recent years to fraudsters. Is there anything the student aid commission can do or is doing to alleviate the fraud? Or does that responsibility fall to the colleges?

    I think the challenging thing about fraud is it keeps getting more sophisticated. Our campuses play a really critical role in identifying that fraud. And they are best positioned. But the commission can be a part of the alert system and a part of the professional development process. I’ve also asked for additional IT positions through the state budget process to be able to deal with some of these situations.





    Source link

  • When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?

    When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?


    restorative justice

    Alison Yin for EdSource

    During a recent work trip to another state, I ran into an acquaintance I’d met a few times at education conferences. After our initial chit-chat about jet lag, they brought up a sentiment I’ve increasingly heard lately: Surely I must be glad to do education work in California, where equity isn’t a bad word; where diversity is championed, and state leaders are quick to defend the programs, practices and policies that support students of color.

    It’s becoming harder to fix my face when I hear these words. Rhetoric is one thing, actions and data are another. And in a state where the current trajectory won’t have all Black students at grade level in math until at least 2089, I worry that our focus on saying the right words is taking the place of doing the right thing. 

    Before I get written off as too angry, let me be clear that there are absolutely things to celebrate in California’s approach to education. But here is where the conundrum lies for me. Why is it that California pursues so many positive steps forward in education, but continually sidesteps significant action that would lead to tangible results for Black students? 

    EdTrust—West’s report “Black Minds Matter 2025: Building Bright Black Futures,” comes a decade after we originally issued a call to action for California leaders by launching the Black Minds Matter campaign in 2015. We found a big disconnect between the dreams and aspirations of Black students and the opportunities our education systems give them to succeed. Black students are more likely to attend schools with novice teachers. Black students have the lowest high school graduation rate in California. Fewer Black students are going to college after high school than 10 years ago, and Black students are still underrepresented at California State University and the University of California. On nearly every indicator we analyzed, the education systems charged with caring for our students fail to support Black students. Wouldn’t you be angry if these were your kids or family members? 

    Our reports, policy work, and that of other researchers and advocacy organizations show how many efforts proclaimed as supportive to Black students are performative and piecemeal, or watered down or abandoned altogether, like the changes made to the Black Student Achievement Program in Los Angeles and the quashing of 2023’s Assembly Bill 2774. 

    This work, and some of our previous statements about the pace of progress in the state, have pissed people off. It confounds me that some folks in power are more upset about the ways we describe the data on how schools and colleges are doing for Black students than they are about how schools and colleges are doing for Black students. We have to remember that there are real people behind these data points.

    Some folks told us not to share this data and advocate strongly for Black students right now. The political climate is too tenuous to speak up for Black students, they said. We need to fly under the radar rather than speak loudly and boldly, they said. It is not lost on me that the individuals suggesting this quieter path are well-intentioned. However, as professor Shaun Harper points out, now is precisely the time for organizations and educational institutions “to showcase DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) activities to confirm that they are not the racist, divisive, discriminatory and anti-American activities that obstructionists erroneously claim”. 

    California may be in the crosshairs, but we are also at a crossroads.

    The dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education is being framed as returning education to the states. So, let’s take them up on that in ways that not only reaffirm our values verbally, but also through new, bolder actions.

    Many of our recommendations are not new, except one: We need a California Commission on Black Education Transformation. Our current education infrastructure is failing far too many Black students. As we outline in our report and will continue to share in upcoming materials, we are not proposing that this commission act as another task force, but rather that it serves as an entity with power and authority around resources and accountability measures. We need an overhaul, and now —when states are being told they are empowered to lead on education — is the time to do it. 

    What I reminded the colleague I saw at the recent conference is this: The fight for racial justice has always been an uphill battle, even in California. Yet what we have in California — or at least what I am hoping we have — are leaders who will not only not back down, but will embrace the call to be bold.

    I’ve advised college students and been an adjunct professor. I would never tell a student to temper their expectations for themselves. I would never say to a student not to fight for what is right because it is hard. I hope California doesn’t, either. 

    •••

    Christopher J. Nellum, Ph.D., is executive director of EdTrust—West, a nonprofit organization advancing policies and practices to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in the California education system. 

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate

    Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate


    Alison Yin / EdSource

    Members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus recently introduced a new bill (AB 1468) to address concerns that the state’s new ethnic studies mandate has been and will continue to be used as a vehicle for sneaking dangerous antisemitism and anti-Israel content into our classrooms. Unfortunately, AB 1468 will only serve to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, these concerns.

    In 2021, California became the first state to require an ethnic studies course for high school graduation with the passage of AB 101. Despite good intentions, this mandate has been plagued by fundamental and unresolved problems. Chief among them is that it allows school districts to choose their own curriculum, leading many to adopt materials and training from consulting groups such as the Liberated Ethnic Studies Consortium, which promote a highly politicized approach to ethnic studies, exacerbating concerns about classroom bias and antisemitism.

    Recognizing this looming threat and knowing that content standards are required for all other California courses required for high school graduation, the Jewish legislators have introduced a bill to establish state-approved standards to prevent antisemitic content and ensure ethnic studies is taught in a way that respects all communities.

    The lack of content standards, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more troubling is the absence of any consensus on what kind of subject ethnic studies even is. Some proponents view it as an inclusive, objective examination of the history, culture and contributions of various ethnic groups in the state. This understanding appears to have guided California legislators in passing the ethnic studies mandate with AB 101, whose author stated, “California is one of the most diverse states in the country, and we should celebrate that diversity by teaching a curriculum that is inclusive of all of our cultures and backgrounds.”

    Others, however, hold a radically different view. They believe high school ethnic studies should replicate the university-level discipline, which focuses primarily on four racial groups and is rooted in ideologically driven frameworks that emphasize systemic oppression and promote political activism, often incorporating antisemitic content. This approach, championed by state university ethnic studies faculty, teachers unions and Liberated consulting groups, has infiltrated many school districts.

    The lack of consensus about the very nature of ethnic studies has led to fierce battles over curricula, which have played out in contentious school board meetings and costly legal challenges, underscoring the folly of implementing a mandatory ethnic studies course without any common understanding of the subject.

    The folly becomes even graver when considering that the primary justification for an ethnic studies mandate — its supposed improvement of student outcomes — is wholly unfounded. The single empirical study claiming to demonstrate the academic benefits of ethnic studies was thoroughly debunked by scholars at the University of California and the University of Pennsylvania, who warned that “no conclusion” could be drawn from its data. Worse, an ethnic studies mandate forces students to take a controversial course with no demonstrable academic benefits in place of one with clear value, such as world history.

    The mandate’s serious flaws were well-known before the passage of AB 101, which raises the question: How could state legislators establish a law requiring all students to take a course with no agreed-upon subject matter, content standards or proven academic benefits and, under the Liberated approach to ethnic studies, that was likely to sow divisiveness and incite antisemitism?

    Unfortunately, the Jewish Caucus’ idea of adding standards to a deeply flawed mandate, though well-intentioned, will not fix the problem. Given the entrenched influence of teachers unions, university ethnic studies faculty and Liberated consultants over who teaches high school ethnic studies and how it’s taught, any attempt to add standards will inevitably be co-opted by these groups, further entrenching an ideological version of ethnic studies that is divisive, controversial and harmful to Jewish students. Moreover, AB 1468 risks giving a false sense of security to concerned parents and community members while failing to address deeper issues.

    Now is the time to reconsider — not reinforce — the ethnic studies mandate.

    Thankfully, a critical provision in AB 101 has been largely overlooked: The mandate is only operative when the Legislature provides funding for it, which has not yet occurred. And given California’s current financial crisis and the fact that the mandate is estimated to cost the state a whopping $275 million annually, it’s unlikely to become operational anytime soon. This presents an opportunity for legislators to do what is best for all California students: Instead of trying to salvage a foolhardy mandate that is beyond repair, legislators must work to repeal it.

    Without a state-funded graduation requirement, school districts could still offer ethnic studies as an elective or even a local graduation requirement, allowing communities to decide whether the course serves their students’ needs. However, given the cost, controversy and administrative burden involved with implementing an ethnic studies requirement without state support, it is doubtful many districts will proceed with it on their own. As a result, the ethnic studies industry — especially consulting groups like Liberated and university-based teacher training programs —will lose their primary source of demand and begin to wither, removing a major driver of politicized and antisemitic content in California classrooms.

    Legislators now face a clear choice: double down on a mandate that divides communities, burdens schools, and fails students, or take this opportunity to end it before it does further harm. Repealing AB 101 isn’t just prudent policy — it’s a necessary course correction.

    •••

    Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is the director of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating antisemitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.

    The opinions in this commentary are 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

  • Academic gaps ‘allowed to linger’ among California’s Black students over past decade, report says

    Academic gaps ‘allowed to linger’ among California’s Black students over past decade, report says


    Aleka Jackson-Jarrell, coordinator of the Heritage Program at Adelanto High in California’s High Desert, regularly meets with Black students to make sure they stay on track to graduate and meet A-G requirements that enable them to apply to a public university.

    Emma Gallegos/EdSource

    In the areas of chronic absenteeism, suspension and reading proficiency, the rates for Black students in California remain largely the same as they were a decade ago. That is the focus of a new report, Black Minds Matter 2025, which provides new insight and recommendations on education for Black students in California a decade after the first iteration of the report was published by Education Trust-West.

    “This report really meets the moment that we’re in when we’re seeing so many cuts to education funding and programs that are inevitably going to impact Black students,” said Melissa Valenzuela-Stookey, director of research at the prominent nonprofit behind the report that advocates for equity in education.

    Ten years ago, Black students were nearly three times more likely than white students to be suspended, and while suspension rates among Black students have since declined from 14% to 9%, the rate is still three times higher than white students, according to data from the California Department of Education included in the report. The chronic absenteeism rates are similar: in 2016-17, Black students had the second-highest rate of chronic absenteeism of any student group, just under Native American students — a statistic that remained the same in 2023-24.

    “None of the opportunity gaps or outcome gaps explored in this report are new — all have been allowed to linger over the past decade,” concluded the report authors.

    Black students represent about 5% of California’s student population from transitional kindergarten to 12th grade. That totals about 287,400 students, with about a third of them living in Los Angeles County, per 2023-24 state data. About 150,000 Black students are enrolled at institutions of higher education, both public and private.

    “We constantly have in the front of our minds that there are students and families and communities behind every single data point,” said Valenzuela-Stookey. “For that reason, it felt really important to not mince words and just bring to bear the information that we have about what conditions students and families are facing and are up against; despite the fact that they enter those systems with really ambitious aspirations, something is pushing against them, and that something is systemic.”

    The “ambitious aspirations” Valenzuela-Stookey mentioned refers to a finding by The United Negro College Fund in which 9 in 10 Black students agreed that earning a college degree is important, plus additional studies that found Black parents “are highly engaged and invested in their children’s educations, particularly in the early years,” per the report.

    The report, published Thursday, highlights multiple key findings, including:

    • The percentage of Black students in California at grade level in math increased from 16% to 18% in the decade since 2015-16 but has remained the lowest of all student groups
    • The gap between California’s Black and white students who have met or exceeded the state’s reading proficiency exams, known as California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, has not changed significantly since 1998
    • Three in 4 Black students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, which is 13 percentage points higher than the statewide average
    • The rate of Black students completing A-G course sequences in high school, which are required to attend the University of California and California State University systems, has increased by just 4 percentage points in the last decade
    • While the number of Black children enrolled in transitional kindergarten more than doubled from 2021 to 2023-24, the rate still makes up less than half of the number of Black 4-year-olds who are eligible to enroll
    • Black elementary school students report feeling sadness more frequently than any other student group
    • The number of Black teachers remained disproportionately lower than the share of Black students statewide; just over a quarter of school districts employ Black teachers at a rate proportionate to their Black student population
    • The rate at which Black students participate in dual enrollment increased by only 6 percentage points in the last seven school years, from about 11% to nearly 17%, while other student groups increased between 8 and 14 percentage points
    • Black college students in California face the highest rates of food and housing insecurity

    “This status quo is not an accident — it is the consequence of systems designed to produce unequal outcomes operating largely unchecked for centuries,” the report’s authors wrote. “It is also the consequence of incremental changes made in place of what’s called for: much more fundamental transformation.”

    A deeper look into some of the data cited in the report reveals alarming trends. For example, dual enrollment rates increased among all student racial groups between 2015-16 and 2021-22, per an analysis of state data by Policy Analysis for California Education, but Black students recorded the lowest rate of growth — at nearly 17% in 2021-22, just under the rate of dual enrollment participation for Asian students in 2015-16.

    Also, according to data from the California Community Colleges, within their first year in community college, Black students were completing and passing transfer-level coursework at a rate lower than their peers, with a difference of 30 percentage points between Asian students at 77% and Black students at 47%.

    While the report’s authors acknowledged the pandemic exacerbated some of the academic gaps, many existed long before Covid lockdowns began, and the data included in the report reflected that longevity. “It was really important for us to make sure that people had a long view of how entrenched these systemic inequities are because the solutions to them should follow from how long they’ve been baked into our systems,” said Valenzuela-Stookey.

    In addition to sharing the stark disparities, the report’s authors highlighted a handful of programs and initiatives they believe are working to close the gaps.

    These include a teacher residency program called The Village Initiative and created in collaboration with the Watts of Power Foundation; Los Angeles Unified School District; and California State University, Dominguez Hills. Fifteen Black male teachers were part of the program in 2023, and the partnership estimates they will place 113 fully credentialed, Black teachers in school over the next decade.

    Farther north, at Berkeley High School, the campus’ African American Studies Department is credited for the high rate of graduating within four years among the Black student population, at nearly 95% in the latest school year, compared to the statewide average of just over 86%.

    One of the overarching recommendations proposed by the authors was the creation of a Commission on Black Education Transformation, made up in part by Black students, parents and educators. This would be a standing state commission with the authority to make actionable decisions, including the allocation of resources to ensure follow-through from state and local agencies on policies related to academic progress for Black students.

    Other recommendations include:

    • Mandating that all high schools incorporate the 15-course A-G curriculum required for eligibility to the UC and CSU systems
    • Increasing award amounts for the existing Cal Grant program to aid students with non-tuition costs
    • Prioritizing the hiring and retention of Black educators in both TK-12 and higher education
    • Expanding pandemic-era supports, such as before- and after-school programming and academic tutoring
    • Requiring that all school staff receive training to end the disproportionate impact on Black students of punitive disciplinary practices
    • Modifying the state’s Local Control Funding Formula to target funds based on an index of metrics such as levels of adult educational attainment and homeownership rates
    • Instructing school districts to report “evidence-based strategies” aimed at supporting Black students in their Local Control and Accountability Plans

    Valenzuela-Stookey noted that her team sees both the progress and persistent gaps over the last decade “as a reminder that policy change is just the first step in closing a lot of these opportunity gaps that are highlighted in the report, and implementation and on-the-ground practice work is really the necessary next step if any of that is to come to fruition.”





    Source link

  • Which districts are on California’s latest financial danger lists — and why

    Which districts are on California’s latest financial danger lists — and why


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    The article was updated on March 3 to clarify the period of the school year covered by the two interim financial reports and to include the status of West Contra Costa Unified.

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    Oakland, San Francisco and Hayward have joined four smaller districts on the five-alarm fire list of the state’s most financially stressed districts — those flirting with insolvency.

    They join 32 districts on a second, cautionary list where there’s smoke but no fiscal flames — yet. The second list, released last week, includes Sacramento Unified, several small rural districts where a small drop in enrollment can pose a financial threat, and two San Jose elementary districts, Alum Rock and Franklin-McKinley, which are closing multiple schools in the fall. Not on the list so far this year is West Contra Costa Unified, which is struggling to stay afloat and received a special “lack of going concern” designation the past three years.

    The 39 districts combined are more than last year and four times as many as in 2022-23, when state and federal revenues overflowed. Still, the updated total accounts for only about 4% of the state’s districts.

    Michael Fine, CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, a state agency whose job is to monitor districts’ finances to prevent insolvency, blamed the financial pressures on declining enrollments and the termination of record federal Covid aid for schools. 

    Both factors are forcing districts to make difficult choices that will affect students. Some districts are offering retirement buyouts and/or laying off teachers, counselors and other staff because staff salaries constitute about 80% of overall costs. Many districts on the list also bear the cost of vacillation — a failure to act sooner to cut costs before deficits mount, Fine said.    

    “From my standpoint as an advocate of best practice, there should be nobody on the list because the two predominant factors are predictable,” Fine said. “Why weren’t they dealing with these a year ago, two years ago, and three years ago?”

    Those questions are appropriate for Oakland Unified. Since pre-pandemic 2018-19, its enrollment has fallen 7% — by 2,608 students to 33,916. The district received a total of $280 million in emergency Covid relief in 2021 and 2022, but that expired on Sept. 30, 2024, as that aid did for all districts.

    With many of its elementary schools housing around 300 students, Oakland Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Tramell proposed plans to close small schools, potentially saving millions of dollars, and, in December, to merge 10 elementary schools into five. The school board rejected the plans. In 2023, following a seven-day strike, the district, aiming to reduce the exodus of teachers to better-paying area districts in a high-cost region, gave teachers a 10% raise and a $5,000 one-time bonus. All of those factors have led to a mammoth $95 million deficit out of a $960 million budget.

    “It didn’t feel like we had a deficit growing because we had all the one-time money,” Johnson-Trammell told The Oaklandside last week. “We have to continue to give raises. It’s not a crisis. We made investments, and we have to figure out a way to pay for it.”

    California’s early warning system

    Each year, between passing their annual budgets, all school districts must file two reports to FCMAT that summarize their current financial health and project ahead. Oakland and the other six most-distressed districts filed a “negative” status in their first interim report. This means they likely won’t be able to meet financial obligations, including payroll, in the current or next fiscal year. The 32 other districts filed a “qualified” status, meaning they’re on track to run out of money in the next two fiscal years.

    Districts self-certify their reports. They filed their first interim report on Dec. 15, covering the four months, through Oct. 31, since the July 1 fiscal year began. The second interim report, filed March 15, covers the year through Jan. 31, enabling districts to factor in revenue estimates from the governor’s initial budget, including the projected cost-of-living increase they rely on. March 15 is also the deadline for notifying employees if they could be laid off — key evidence of how districts are dealing with a potential revenue problem.

    How are negative-status districts responding?

    Oakland had certified as “qualified” for 14 straight reports before filing a negative status in the latest report. 

    “Oakland is not a surprise; it’s been struggling,” Fine said. “It hasn’t taken the necessary corrective action that it has needed. The district adopts lots of plans and lots of documents, but then carries few of those out.”

    However, last week, Oakland’s school board passed a plan to eliminate 97 positions for teachers, administrators and noncertificated jobs, including tutors, case managers and attendance monitors. More ideas are on the table.

    Across the bay, San Francisco Unified has been in turmoil, reflected in the recall of two board members and the resignation of its last superintendent. It initially filed a negative financial status in 2023-24.  

    Last month, to resolve a $113 million deficit, equal to about 10% of the district’s budget, San Francisco’s board voted to approve preliminary layoff notices for 395 teachers, social workers and counselors, 164 teachers aides, and 278 administrators and other staff. Retirements and resignations will likely result in fewer layoffs.

    Hayward wasn’t on the state’s radar for financial troubles, Fine said, but a new superintendent and chief business officer “inherited some issues and did the right thing” by self-certifying negative. “They would be an example of a district that will most likely turn the corner,” he said.

    Most of the seven districts will work their way off the negative list, he said. Two that probably won’t are Plumas Unified and Weed Union Elementary, Fine said.

    “We’re very, very concerned about Plumas,” Fine said.  “They have already borrowed to a point they can’t pay back, and there has been some finessing of the data to make it look better than it is.” The only district in Plumas County, it has four schools, about 1,700 students and a $42 million budget.

    Weed Union is an unusual case. The one-school district with a $7.5 million budget is the first in a decade to operate without an approved budget, having been rejected by the Siskiyou County Office of Education and the California Department of Education. Its problem, said Fine, is that it is overextended on a facility upgrade, and the burden of paying for it will overwhelm the district’s operating budget.

    If insolvent, what then?

    A district that runs out of money will get a state loan but lose its autonomy, and a state-appointed trustee will oversee the district’s operations. The district will honor existing contracts, but the trustee will have veto power over new contracts and other decisions that the school board makes. The district will bear the cost of the state’s oversight and legal fees and interest on a 20-year loan. 

    “It gets worse before it gets better,” Fine said. “Receivership takes away local control.” In the 34 years since the Legislature created FCMAT and the oversight process, only eight districts have needed a bailout loan. The most recent is Inglewood Unified, which received $29 million in 2012. Oakland would be the first two-timer. It’s still 18 months away from paying off the $100 million it received in 2003 and 2006.

    Is this the most precarious year for districts?

    Far from it. In the second interim report in 2011-12, 176 districts filed a “qualified” status and a dozen were “negative” – together, about one in five districts. Amid plummeting state revenues in the wake of the Great Recession, the state cut $6 billion and delayed payments to K-12 districts. The average district had not set aside nearly enough money in reserve for a crisis. This year, the average district has set aside 22% of its operating budget in reserve, more than three times as much.

    The difference is “night and day,” said Fine. “During the Great Recession, the state made cuts to district revenues. Today, the issues are all local.”





    Source link

  • Amid deadly measles outbreak, California’s childhood vaccination rates are falling 

    Amid deadly measles outbreak, California’s childhood vaccination rates are falling 


    TOP TAKEAWAYS
    • Sixteen California counties have fallen below the herd immunity marker against measles, one of the world’s most contagious diseases, amid a sprawling outbreak.
    • A rise in vaccine skepticism stemming from pandemic discord, experts warn, may be driving the decline.
    • School nurses and doctors are often on the front lines of battle to explain the need to immunize against once-controlled diseases. 

    Before the pandemic, Lillian Lopez never questioned the safety of vaccines.  That’s why all her children are up to date on their immunizations. The Bakersfield mother of three used to be religious about getting her flu shot. She never missed a year. 

    No more. Lopez, 45, took offense at how Covid-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions were enforced. The experience gave her pause about the integrity of the entire public health apparatus. Now, she questions every shot.

    “I do have doubts, I don’t have the trust that I did in the past,” said Lopez, who also feels safer from infectious diseases in Kern County than in a more populous area. “I think it put fear in a lot of people. All this time, we’ve been trusting the CDC, the health organizations, but can we really trust them?”

    Against the backdrop of this rise in vaccine skepticism, California reported a drop in the rate of kindergartners immunized against measles last year, fueling fears that there may be a resurgence of the once-vanquished disease amid the deadly outbreak in West Texas. One of the world’s most infectious diseases, measles can be spread by breathing in air exhaled by someone else. While there have only been nine cases reported in California thus far, Texas is now the epicenter of a spiraling outbreak with 712 cases, including the first deaths linked to the disease in a decade. 

    “It’s tragic,” said Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF. “This is not a disease you want your child or you to get. This can be very dangerous. So, it is terribly important for us to combat vaccine skepticism right now.”

    While California’s childhood immunization rates are still high compared with the rest of the nation, 16 counties have fallen below the threshold for herd immunity against measles, according to the California Department of Public Health. Last year, 96.2% of California kindergartners and transitional kindergartners were vaccinated against measles in the 2023-24 school year, down from 96.5% the year before. Only 93.7% of kindergarten students were up to date on all their immunizations, down from 94.1% the year before.

    Holding the line on herd immunity is key to preventing the disease from sweeping through a community, experts say. This widespread protection also shields those who may not be able to get vaccinated for health reasons. This is key because while measles is most commonly associated with fever and rash, severe cases have been known to cause pneumonia and encephalitis. The disease can be lethal, killing about one to three people for every 1,000 infected.

    Amid that context, nearly two-thirds of counties reported immunization rates for all childhood diseases below 95%, the rule of thumb for herd immunity, according to the California Department of Public Health. 

    Working with parents who deeply mistrust the safety of routine immunizations has become one of the most challenging parts of running a school vaccination clinic.

    “Within this political landscape, there are some people who are hesitant,” said Susan Sivils, lead nurse for the Sacramento City Unified vaccination clinic. “Some worry that the vaccines are not safe. They don’t trust what’s in it, or they don’t trust where it was manufactured.”

    Many of the lowest immunization rates can be found in Northern California, largely clustered around the Sacramento area, but Southern California has hot spots as well. Less than 81% of kindergarten and transitional kindergarten (TK) students were inoculated against measles in El Dorado and Glenn counties. Sutter County posted the lowest vaccination rate for measles, at 75.8%. 

    Another key trend is that charter schools had lower vaccination rates than traditional public schools, 76.41% compared with 92.07%, for measles last year. While they require routine childhood shots, experts say charter schools operate under strict admission and disenrollment laws that can make it hard to enforce the rules.

    “These prohibitions make it very difficult for charter school staff to administer the vaccination mandate,” said Eric Premack, founder and CEO of the Charter Schools Development Center in Sacramento. 

    The bottom line is that consensus about vaccinations can no longer be taken for granted. To calm any fears, Sivils always hears parents out. While most are still comfortable with vaccines, one mother felt terrified that the shots would poison her child.

    “I try to meet parents where they are,” said Sivils. “They are fearful, they are worried, they are upset, but, at the heart of it, they are trying to protect their family and do what’s best for their child.”

    Declining trust in public health institutions has emerged as a watershed issue, experts say, as Covid-era controversies have sown seeds of doubt about the validity of science in general and vaccines in particular. 

    “The public health establishment during the pandemic said many things that didn’t turn out to be true,” as newly sworn-in National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, has put it. “A much larger set of people who never previously thought twice about vaccinating their children are now in a position where they say, ‘Look, I don’t trust you guys anymore.’”

    The cost of that inconsistency may be credibility now, Gandhi says, explaining why the anti-vaccine movement seems to be accelerating just as one of the nation’s most prominent vaccine skeptics, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., takes the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services. Families who learned to distrust guidance around the need for prolonged school closures and shuttered playgrounds, for instance, may now avoid vaccines altogether, often preferring home remedies. 

    “We had the most political response of any country, and that kind of political decision-making, as opposed to scientific decision-making, was noticed by the public,” said Gandhi, an expert in epidemics. “And then suddenly you don’t trust your public health official when they say the measles vaccine works, which by the way, it does.”

    Indeed, some measles patients in Texas have shown signs of vitamin A toxicity. Notably, Kennedy had championed vitamin A to prevent measles, before reversing course to endorse the MMR vaccine, but overuse of the vitamin may have health consequences, such as abnormal liver function, and experts say there is no evidence it can protect against measles. 

    However, there is a grain of truth to the vitamin A advice, Gandhi notes. In the past, vitamin A deficiency did lead to more severe cases of measles, but today most people get a sufficient dose in their diet. 

    “You have to address that kernel of truth,” said Gandhi. “You have to say what happened with vitamin A historically, but now there’s no way we’re going to vitamin A our way out of this measles outbreak in West Texas.” 

    Sarginoor Kaur, 7, gets the COVID-19 vaccine from nurse Chelsea Meyer at Arleta High School in November 2021.
    Credit: Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times / Polaris

    Sivils agrees that hearing people out is key. Citing evidence rarely seems to work at her clinic, but building a sense of trust often does. 

    “You have to respect people as parents, respect them as individuals,” said Sivils. “I make sure they know that I wouldn’t be doing this job if I didn’t believe I was helping people, but, at the end of the day, I allow parents to make their choice.”

    Some families don’t approve of vaccines but get them anyway, so that their children can attend school, she says. Some spread the shots out over extra visits for fear of overloading their child’s immune system. Some research the ingredients in a vaccine before agreeing to it. Others decide to forgo vaccinations entirely and homeschool their children instead. 

    “You can’t railroad people,” she said. “I don’t try to persuade them. I just lay out all the options and let them make a decision.”

    In Kern County, the measles immunization rate among kindergartners was almost 91%, below the herd immunity marker. 

    Lopez, for one, has no qualms about long-established vaccines such as measles, but she believes that people should always have the right to choose. She feels that right was trampled during the pandemic, and the affront still stings. 

    “When the vaccines were really being forced and people’s livelihoods were being threatened, I don’t agree with that,” said Lopez. “To me, that’s unethical, it’s an abuse of power.”

    Given the ease of transmission with measles, which lingers in the air, some education experts worry what may happen to classrooms, where children often huddle together in tight spaces, should vaccination rates continue to fall. Whooping cough cases are also spiking now. Two infants in Louisiana are among the recent deaths caused by the resurgence of that disease.

    “Our top job is to keep children safe,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers. “The disruptions to child care, which would need to close temporarily every time a measles case occurred, would cause chaos for families and their employers.”

    Deep partisan divides, experts warn, are leading families to extreme responses that may have extreme consequences. 

    “Our politics have become so divisive,” said Moore, “that what was once largely accepted as common sense — vaccination against deadly, infectious diseases — is now used to divide and conquer, with little children, once again, being the biggest losers.”





    Source link

  • Los Angeles’s climate crisis offers a blueprint for California’s schools

    Los Angeles’s climate crisis offers a blueprint for California’s schools


    Freestyle Academy in Mountain View, California uses energy-efficient lighting, water-saving fixtures, solar panels, and eco-friendly materials. Native plants are also incorporated into the outdoor environments.

    Credit: Tim Maloney, Technical Imagery Studios and Quattrocchi Kwok Architects

    Top Takeaways
    • Climate disasters already impacting schools will continue to worsen.
    • LAUSD is investing in fire-resistant building materials, schoolyard greening projects, and modern heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
    • California needs a state master plan for climate-resilient schools.

    When Los Angeles teachers welcomed students back to school in January, they couldn’t have imagined what lay ahead. Within days, climate-fueled wildfires would tear through Altadena, Pasadena and the Palisades, destroying or damaging twelve schools and disrupting education for more than 600,000 students across the region.

    Unfortunately, in the years to come, the climate disasters that are already impacting our schools will worsen. In California, our leaders have the power to chart our own path to healthier, more climate-resilient school buildings — with or without federal support.

    The LA fires provide a stark reminder of how unprepared many of California’s schools are for climate change. Beyond lacking fire-resistant building materials that could have mitigated damage, schools also lack necessities: cooling systems for heat waves and air filtration systems for smoke. Lack of cooling is a statewide challenge — between 15% and 20% of California’s K-12 public schools have no functioning air conditioning at all, and another 10% need major repairs to or replacement of their heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

    But out of this crisis, solutions are emerging. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), our nation’s second-biggest school district, is turning crisis into opportunity. Instead of simply rebuilding damaged schools, the district is creating a blueprint for climate resilience that should inspire educational leaders across California.

    The district is investing in fire-resistant building materials, schoolyard greening projects, and modern HVAC systems to combat increasingly frequent heat waves and filter wildfire smoke and pollutants. While some initiatives were already underway prior to the fires, new investments will be supported by the district’s $9 billion bond that Los Angeles voters approved in November and Proposition 2, the state school infrastructure bond also approved by voters last year. For the first time, the Legislature explicitly allowed districts to use this funding to create safer outdoor learning environments, strengthen vulnerable infrastructure, and advance state energy goals.

    LAUSD’s progress is encouraging, but California can’t afford to wait for a district-by-district approach to climate resilience. California needs immediate statewide action to protect all students. Two key steps are essential:

    First, we need better state planning and coordination. California currently spends billions annually on school infrastructure, but much of this funding isn’t aligned with climate resilience, indoor air quality, or emissions reduction goals. By allocating $10 million to the California Department of Education to build local capacity and provide regional support through county offices of education, we will build necessary support systems to assist school districts in planning for climate-resilient campuses.

    California has already wasted precious time. For two years, we’ve worked with the Legislature on a proposal for a state master plan for climate-resilient schools, only to face Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto twice over cost concerns, despite strong bipartisan support and a moderate cost of $10 million. This delay puts our children’s safety at risk. This year, we must finally get it done.

    Second, districts need comprehensive facilities master plans that address indoor air quality, climate resilience, and cost-effective electrification. Students need a California where every school district is armed with a detailed blueprint for creating climate-resilient facilities, and has the support and funding they need to implement these plans. Implementation guidelines for Proposition 2 are being developed now and should include guidance for school districts to develop these plans with climate readiness at the core. State leaders could also prioritize and leverage Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds administered by the California Air Resources Board, a program that collects money from the state’s cap-and-trade initiative to invest in projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to support much-needed HVAC upgrades and nudge districts to choose modern electric technologies.

    A previous generation of state leaders made sure schools could keep our children safe in an earthquake — it’s time to do the same for the threats posed by extreme heat and weather. No school district should be investing state or local dollars in their facilities without considering current and long-term local climate impacts.

    •••

    Jonathan Klein is the CEO and co-founder of UndauntedK12, a national nonprofit working to ensure that every student has the opportunity to attend a safe, healthy and resilient school.
    Andra Yeghoian is the chief innovation officer of Ten Strands, a San Francisco-based nonprofit whose mission is to build and strengthen the partnerships and strategies that bring environmental literacy to all California’s students.

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





    Source link

  • How to improve California’s school funding formula

    How to improve California’s school funding formula


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • The Local Control Funding Formula must be more responsive to enrollment trends to ensure funds serve the high-needs students for whom they are targeted, rather than filling gaps in the district budget.
    • Policymakers must create incentives for districts to improve coordination and merging of services for students with multiple needs.
    • In making adjustments to the formula, policymakers must avoid introducing too many new, disparate factors that can further burden school systems.

    California has an opportunity to ensure that its school funding formula fully delivers on its goals to improve student outcomes, especially for those who need the most support. The key to success will be accounting for shifts in enrollment and creating incentives for districts to blend student programs.

    The 2013 Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, represented a dramatic shift from a complicated morass of centralized funding requirements that often resulted in large variations in per-pupil funds delivered in and across districts.

    Under LCFF, higher overall student outcomes have resulted, thanks to localized decision-making and additional funding to ensure that high-needs students also have the opportunity to succeed in schools. However, progress to close achievement gaps — a central intention of the funding formula — remains slow.

    Last year, the California State Assembly held a series of LCFF panels with researchers and educators from across the state. Though divergent views were expressed, multiple experts recommended improving the distribution of supplemental grant funds to the highest-needs students and factoring in geographic cost differences — points underscored by WestEd’s evidence-based review of the funding system.    

    However, two significant dynamics, which we have frequently seen, received little airtime during the hearing. They may hold clues for further optimizing the use of taxpayer dollars.

    First, funding formula updates must meaningfully account for future enrollment declines that could cause changes in the proportions of high-needs students to be served as well as the mix of funding available to school systems.

    California’s public schools have lost a substantial number of students, and forecasts project further declines ranging from half a million to nearly 1 million students by 2032-33.

    Because many students leaving California public schools — often due to the high cost of living — are English learners, economically disadvantaged and white students, the total and mix of available revenues for school systems is changing, and changing differently by region.

    The math is clear: As each student leaves, so does a fraction of the base revenue available to the school system to cover foundational expenses, including teachers, secretaries, utilities and the like. Meanwhile, concentrations of high-needs students, like English learners and students requiring special education services, continue to rise where they are left in greater proportions than their peers, requiring more resources per student to provide equitable opportunities and access.      

    Reducing expenses for school systems proportional to revenue loss is difficult. School systems often make small, marginal changes that don’t lower expenditures to meet available revenues. This may undercut more meaningful, necessary steps — whole system re-evaluation of resource investments that match student need to the skills and expertise of educators. As a result, resources that should be dedicated to additional supports for students may instead get redirected to support basic school costs. This could leave high-needs students out in the cold instead of achieving the state’s intention to equitably allocate funds.

    To avoid this, policymakers must ensure that any future LCFF adjustments include triggers that reconcile the base, supplemental and concentration grants to ensure proper alignment with enrollment and shifts in student need. School systems will also need guidance and support to analyze, design and manage these larger shifts. The formula for special education should be re-evaluated, given that funds are tied to overall student enrollment and not students with individualized education plans (IEPs).

    Second, following any further LCFF adjustments, school systems will need policy, regulatory and funding incentives to seamlessly blend student programs like special education and English learner programs where such services are needed for the same multidimensional students.    

    Eighty-five percent of English learners are economically disadvantaged, as are 67.5% of students with disabilities. California’s high population of students with multiple needs requires additional support to successfully navigate school.

    When supports are smartly combined — such as when English learner development support is integrated into a general education classroom — the result is the simultaneous delivery of good instruction and scaffolding for English learners in all general education classrooms. Directing funding to support one identified student need or a specific program sends a message to local school systems about where to direct resources. However, it can go too far. Unchecked, the system begins to look more like what we set out to get away from in the first place: layers of “categorical” programs funded with money that could only be spent in very restricted ways.

    Policymakers must write policy that incentivizes and supports local educators to build programs that work together to address the multiple needs of students simultaneously. This includes reevaluating existing education funding to reduce its complexity, which would then allow local school systems to achieve coherent programs that seamlessly support the needs of the array of students being served on school campuses — from learning and instruction to collaborating with other agencies to provide supports such as food, health care and more.

    Panelists at the Assembly hearing also noted the need to account for missing factors like geographic cost and economies of scale. While these factors are meaningful adjustments to account for school systems’ costs, introducing too many new, disparate factors can further burden school systems when they are required to track how each of those funding streams is being used. In fact, the governor just signed a bill to conduct a comprehensive review of the overwhelming amount of district reporting already required. Accountability and transparency are important, but too much will limit school systems’ ability to wisely blend and braid funding sources to construct coherent programs that support a wide range of student needs.

    The Local Control Funding Formula has already helped California make significant headway to improve public education. By paying attention to changes in the student population and meaningfully accounting for them in funding and policy, the state will be better poised to deliver on its promise to close achievement gaps.

    •••

    Jason Willis is with the strategic resource allocation and systems planning team at WestEd, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research, development, and service agency that works to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults.

    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