برچسب: districts

  • As ethnic studies mandate withers, it’s clear state leaders misled districts

    As ethnic studies mandate withers, it’s clear state leaders misled districts


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Last week, the California Legislature let its widely heralded 2021 high school ethnic studies bill, AB 101, silently lapse after it and Gov. Gavin Newsom passed a 2025-26 state budget that did not appropriate funds for it. Without that funding, school districts will not be bound by AB 101’s Fall 2025 deadline to offer students an ethnic studies course. 

    Ethnic studies’ popularity has been built on a false narrative: that California requires high school students to pass an ethnic studies course to earn a diploma. What’s been omitted from this narrative is that shortly before AB 101’s passage the Legislature added a barely noticed but hugely consequential sentence to AB 101 — that the ethnic studies graduation requirement will become “operative only upon an appropriation of funds” in separate legislation.

    In other words, from its inception, AB 101 was, and remains, aspirational. 

    Upon learning this surprising news, Mountain View-Los Altos High School District Superintendent Eric Volta dubbed the state’s ruse “a hot mess” (view recording hour 3:37). “Everyone was moving in one direction until December,” he said, scrambling with limited resources to meet the state’s pressing deadline.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee estimated that an ethnic studies requirement would cost taxpayers a staggering $276 million a year — for a subject rife with controversy and concern.

    California’s decision not to trigger AB 101 was undoubtedly made easier given the turmoil wracking school districts that had already prepared this coursework, including Newsom’s alma mater, Tamalpais Union. Heated school board meetings extended into the night when ethnic studies landed on board agendas. Parents statewide were distraught to see their districts selecting “liberated” ethnic studies like in Tamalpais, centered on race-based resentment that seemed to encourage armed militancy.

    Attorney General Bonta, in a rare Legal Alert sent to all local superintendents and school board members, obliquely signaled the state’s hesitation to move forward. This public alarm and skittishness followed state leaders’ receipt of a detailed June 2023 policy paper from the non-partisan Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, cc’d to 3,000 school board superintendents and trustees, alerting them that the California Legislature did not appear to require ethnic studies after all. The Los Angeles Times and EdSource confirmed it, EdSource reporting that state officials agreed — “no money, no requirement to develop or offer classes.”

    The California Department of Education’s (CDE) years of silence on this funding caveat, pertaining to the first change in the state’s graduation requirements in decades, is not what local education leaders and taxpaying parents should expect from a state agency with a $300 million annual administrative budget and a duty to help districts operate their schools. 

    This silence was not just consequential for California’s 430 school districts with high schools. It became a recurring issue for the University of California’s Academic Senate and its governing bodies as they contemplated making passing an ethnic studies course a UC admissions requirement, grounded largely in the mistaken belief that the state requires high school students to enroll in it. The Academic Senate rejected that proposal in April after a letter signed by hundreds of UC faculty members pointed out its many flaws, including this faulty premise.

    It appears that CDE’s silence about this funding caveat was intentional. Believing for years that ethnic studies was mandated, school districts developed courses expecting the state to cover their expenses. Neither the CDE nor the State Board of Education advised school districts differently. In fact, CDE’s website states that students must take ethnic studies to graduate. The state board’s comment that ethnic studies is not required was in 2025, and directed only to the University of California’s Academic Senate

    Over one-quarter of California school districts with high schools now offer ethnic studies, 85% employing the controversial liberated ethnic studies framework according to my recent sampling. Liberated Ethnic Studies is political education, teaching students to view the world through the narrow lenses of skin color and oppression, often so they will try to change it with anti-Western activism.

    School districts just now learning about this reprieve are reversing course or pausing their ethnic studies work. In January, San Dieguito Union turned its new required 9th-grade Ethnic Studies English course into an elective, only to discover that student interest in the course was so low that it might not offer the class at all its high schools. This spring, Ramona Unified, Glendora Unified, Chino Valley Unified, and others paused their work mid-stream. Parents in San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Newsom’s Tamalpais Union are pressing their school boards to do the same.

    The lesson here for local school leaders: verify narratives before acting, including those advanced by California state education officials.

    •••

    Lauren Janov is a California lawyer, education policy analyst, and political strategist. She is a legal consultant for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, advised the University of California faculty team which opposed a proposed Ethnic Studies admissions requirement, and co-founded the Palo Alto Parent Alliance. The opinions expressed are her own.

    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

  • Inside the IT Engine Room: What School Districts Must Fix Before the Bell Rings

    Inside the IT Engine Room: What School Districts Must Fix Before the Bell Rings


    Inside the IT Engine Room: What School Districts Must Fix Before the Bell Rings

    Scott Rupp

    By Scott Rupp, editor, Education IT Reporter.

    There’s a myth that school buildings go quiet during summer. Walk the halls in July, and you’ll hear the click of keyboards, the hum of laptops updating en masse, and the buzz of tech teams scrambling to patch systems, reset devices, and prepare for the digital demands of another school year.

    For school district IT leaders, summer is less a break and more a deadline. It’s the one narrow window to assess, upgrade, secure, and strategize before the onslaught of helpdesk tickets, classroom rollouts, and surprise crises hit like a storm on the first day of school.

    As we look toward the 2025–2026 academic year, here’s what’s top of mind for these unsung heroes and why the work they do now may define how smoothly (or chaotically) the year ahead unfolds.

    The Cybersecurity Time Bomb

    In recent years, K–12 schools have become ransomware ground zero. Attackers aren’t guessing anymore—they know schools often run aging infrastructure, have limited security staff, and store goldmines of sensitive student data. And they’re exploiting that knowledge.

    Overworked IT directors are spending their summers asking hard questions: Have we patched every exposed system? Can we trust our third-party vendors? What happens if our SIS goes down the first week of school?

    Some districts are making real progress adopting Zero Trust models, running phishing simulations, building incident response plans—but for many, it still feels like putting duct tape on a submarine. Funding is thin, awareness is spotty, and the stakes have never been higher.

    The Chromebook Cliff

    Remember the great rush to 1:1 device programs during the pandemic? Well, those devices—millions of them—are aging out. Batteries are failing. Screens are cracked. Charging carts are breaking down.

    Summer is when IT departments try to get ahead of it all. They’re running diagnostics, triaging broken units, and scrambling to figure out how to replace entire fleets when budgets are stretched thin.

    For many, it’s a sobering realization: the quick fixes of 2020 are now long-term operational burdens. And unless they make smart decisions now standardizing device types, implementing MDM tools, tracking asset lifecycle—they’ll be trapped in a repair-and-replace cycle for years to come.

    The EdTech Hangover

    If you ever thought your school was using too many apps, you’re probably right. On average, districts use more than 1,400 digital tools each year. Many of them do the same things. Few of them talk to each other.

    Educators are overwhelmed. Students are confused. And IT departments? They’re spending hours troubleshooting login issues and fielding support calls for tools no one really needed in the first place.

    This summer, more districts are taking stock. They’re auditing usage, sunsetting underperforming tools, and trying to simplify the learning experience. It’s less about cutting costs (though that helps) and more about cutting the noise. Because when every tool claims to be “the future of learning,” it’s hard to know what’s actually helping.

    Wi-Fi Woes and Connectivity Gaps

    For most schools, Wi-Fi has become as critical as plumbing. And yet, network infrastructure often goes untouched for years, only getting attention when something breaks.

    Summer gives IT teams the chance to breathe and look at the bigger picture: Are access points where they need to be? Can the network handle a hallway full of AI-enabled learning apps? What about those students at home who still can’t get online?

    Upgrades to Wi-Fi 6, bandwidth increases, and expanded mesh networks are top of the to-do list. So is partnering with local ISPs to keep students connected off campus. Because in 2025, learning doesn’t stop at the school gate and neither should connectivity.

    Student Data, Privacy, and the Compliance Tightrope

    With each new app, platform, or analytics dashboard comes a fresh load of student data. Grades, attendance, behavior, even biometrics in some cases. And districts are under more pressure than ever to safeguard it all.

    IT leaders are spending these weeks re-reading vendor contracts, updating privacy policies, and working with legal teams to stay compliant with laws like FERPA and COPPA. They’re building guardrails—who can access what data, for how long, and under what conditions.

    It’s tedious work. But with parents increasingly tuned in to digital privacy—and regulators watching closely; it’s no longer optional. If schools want trust, they have to earn it, and transparency about data practices is where that starts.

    The AI Question No One Has Answered Yet

    Every superintendent is asking about AI. Should we use it in classrooms? Can it reduce administrative burden? How do we prevent cheating? What about bias? What about the data?

    Some districts are experimenting with mixed results. Others are standing back, watching carefully. What’s clear is that IT leaders need to be part of these conversations, not pulled in after the fact to clean up the mess.

    This summer, a few are drafting AI use policies, conducting risk assessments, and exploring partnerships with ethical AI vendors. It’s early days, but one thing’s certain: AI is coming to education whether we’re ready or not.

    The Human Challenge: Burnout and Brain Drain

    Technology isn’t the only thing under strain. The people managing it are, too.

    Districts are struggling to recruit and retain qualified IT staff. The work is hard, the pay often lags behind the private sector, and the burnout is real. One person managing thousands of devices, users, and tickets? It’s not sustainable.

    Forward-thinking districts are investing in automation, cross-training, and shared service models across regions. They’re advocating for better staffing ratios. Because even the best systems crumble without the people to maintain them.

    A Narrow Window for Real Change

    The clock is ticking. In a few short weeks, teachers will return. Students will log in. And any cracks in the system will widen under pressure.

    Summer isn’t just a time to fix what’s broken—it’s a chance to reset. To rethink what’s necessary, what’s working, and what no longer fits. For school district IT leaders, it’s not just about avoiding disaster. It’s about building infrastructure that supports every learner, teacher, and admin not just for this year, but for years to come.

    Because education is changing. And the technology behind it has to keep up.



    Source link

  • Districts need more options to ensure stability, continuity for students

    Districts need more options to ensure stability, continuity for students


    A teacher kicks off a lesson during an AP research class.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    As a former teacher and principal, and a current school board member, I am intimately familiar with the impact of the teacher shortage and consider it one of California’s most pressing and intractable problems. To address this multifaceted issue, schools need a wide array of options, including Assembly Bill 1224, pending state legislation that would increase continuity of instruction when teachers are out on leave and when a school struggles to fill a teacher vacancy.

    Authored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia and co-sponsored by the California Schools Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators, the California County Superintendents, and the California Association of School Business Officials, AB 1224 would allow substitute teachers to serve in a single classroom for up to 60 days, provided the school district or county office of education can demonstrate it made reasonable efforts to recruit a full-time teacher before retaining the substitute. Until every classroom has a qualified full-time teacher, let’s at least make sure every classroom has a consistent one.

    When the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated already dire teacher shortages, the state temporarily expanded the 30-day limit on substitute teaching to 60 days, a measure that was effective in responding to vacancies and extended absences. That statute expired in July 2024, but with upcoming Senate Education Committee amendments, AB 1224 would revive its provisions for another three years. Using the lessons learned from the successful trial run, the bill would extend the time a substitute can stay in a single assignment from 30 to 60 days in general education and from 20 to 60 days in special education.

    In a perfect world, every classroom would have a fully certificated teacher on the first day of class, the last day of class and every day between. As a lifelong educator, I know the value of having a full-time teacher share their learning and wisdom with students on a consistent basis. But there simply aren’t enough full-time teachers to go around. So, we must make policy and governance decisions that reflect the current reality while simultaneously working to build a better system that sets substitutes and students up for success. 

    Local educational agencies rely on substitutes, but current law forbids a substitute teacher from serving in the same classroom for more than 30 consecutive days. In cases where a school district or county office of education cannot identify a full-time teacher, such as a mid-year departure or one that occurs before the start of the school year, this can lead to a revolving door of substitute teachers that disrupts instruction and destabilizes the classroom environment. These impacts are felt most acutely in low-income and rural schools, and the burden falls disproportionately on English learners, minority students and students from families of modest means. Without AB 1224, students already cycle through different substitutes every few weeks, so the real debate isn’t about lowering standards, it’s about increasing stability.

    An insufficient pipeline of newly credentialed teachers and attrition from the profession means that the teacher shortage will persist. Thus, staffing schools — particularly in hard-to-fill areas like special education, math and science — will remain a daunting task. AB 1224 responds to that challenge by adding another tool to the toolbox that schools can use to fill gaps in their instructional workforce.

    Critics of AB 1224 claim it would diminish the push to recruit credentialed educators. Real world evidence shows the opposite. Examples abound of LEAs raising salaries, implementing incentive pay, offering signing bonuses, expanding mentorship programs, deploying advertising campaigns, hosting virtual and in-person job fairs, building staff housing for educators, and developing internal pipelines through teacher academies or programs for classified staff who want to transition to the teaching profession. Additional guardrails to preserve the primacy of full-time teachers include collective bargaining agreements governing the hiring process and a bill provision requiring that schools document their efforts to recruit full-time teachers.

     It’s disingenuous to suggest extending substitute assignments would undermine the search for long-term solutions to the teacher crisis. It’s also poor logic based on a false binary and an idealized labor market that doesn’t actually exist. This is not a choice between AB 1224 or full-time teacher recruitment; we can and must pursue both remedies. New federal and state programs targeting the teacher shortage are promising but take years, if not generations, to bear fruit when immediate relief is essential. Waiting for long-term pipelines to mature does nothing for students in classrooms today — AB 1224 provides the immediate help schools need to increase stability in the classroom.

    •••

    Bettye Lusk is president of the California School Boards Association. Lusk is a former teacher and principal in the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, where she currently serves on the Board of Education. 

    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

  • How local districts and universities responded to storms pounding Southern California

    How local districts and universities responded to storms pounding Southern California


    The San Joaquin River has swollen beyond its usual riverbanks thanks to record rainfall. Melting snowfall threatens to flood the city of Firebaugh and six of its seven schools.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    As severe weather conditions continue to pound the state, some school districts and university campuses throughout Southern California closed or made adjustments to instruction Monday — while others have opted to remain open.

    On Sunday, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in eight counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura. 

    “California: this is a serious storm with dangerous and potentially life-threatening impacts. Please pay attention to any emergency orders or alerts from local officials,” the governor said in a news release. “California is ready with a record number of emergency assets on the ground to respond to the impacts of this storm.”

    As a result, several Cal State campuses moved classes online Monday, including Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Long Beach, Cal State San Bernardino, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Dominguez Hills, Cal State Los Angeles and Cal State Northridge. 

    Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brownaid also announced that county schools will be closed Monday, including Santa Barbara Unified School District— which will announce any closures beyond Monday later today. 

    The Los Angeles Unified School District, however, announced they would keep the vast majority of their campuses open — with the exception of Vinedale College Preparatory Academy and the Topanga Elementary Charter School. 

    District maintenance teams were instructed to arrive at school sites at 5 a.m. Monday to assess their safety and accessibility, according to a district post on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sunday. The district also said in an X post it they would closely monitor campuses that are most likely to be asffected by the storm and that guidance from the city and county would determine any additional closures. 

    “We recognize the severity this storm can cause, especially in certain communities, and urge everyone to be careful and cautious,” read a district statement released at about 6:15 a.m. Monday. 

    “Please use your best judgment based on the conditions where you live and your ability to safely travel to your school/work location.” 

    LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho also said in a letter to staff and families on Sunday that district leaders “remain confident” in their ability to provide “the necessary instructional and operational support to students,” especially those who rely on their school-provided meals.

    A statement by SEIU Local 99, the union representing classified school employees, emphasized the importance of safe working conditions and constant communication with the district. 

    “Regardless of where you work, safety is the priority. Please give yourself extra time for your commute and use extreme caution. No one should lose pay due to the unsafe conditions created by the storm,” the statement read. 

    The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, however, has taken a split approach, with campuses in Santa Monica remaining open and those in Malibu closing

    Farther south, the San Diego County of Office of Education’s Project Rest has helped nearly 100 San Diego Unified School District families affected by the storms secure motel vouchers, CBS8 reported

    Kristy Drake, who works at the district’s Office of Children and Youth in Transition, told CBS8: “We are not going to leave any of our families outdoors or in their cars, so we are extending and hopeful that some more stable housing relief will show up very, very soon.” 





    Source link

  • Property-poor districts demand fairer funding for school facilities

    Property-poor districts demand fairer funding for school facilities


    Construction site at Murray Elementary in Dublin Unified in 2022.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    A public-interest law firm threatened Wednesday to sue Gov. Gavin Newsom and state officials unless they create a fairer system of subsidizing the costs of school facilities. That system must be as equitable as the Local Control Funding Formula, the decade-old formula for funding schools’ operating budgets, Public Advocates demanded in a lengthy letter.  

    At a news conference announcing their demand, Public Advocates and school board members, superintendents and parents with decrepit, inadequate and unhealthy school buildings charged that the state’s school facilities program discriminates against districts with low property values. Districts with high property values gobble up most of the state’s matching subsidies to modernize schools, while property-poor districts serving low-income families can’t afford local school bonds to qualify for state subsidies to build comparable facilities, they said.

    “It is our clear call to get this right,” said Gary Hardie, a school board member in Lynwood Unified in Los Angeles County. “We have not solved our facilities needs — not because we don’t fight each and every day for our young people, but we are up against policies that prevent us from doing the best we can do for our community.” 

    Hardie is one of four potential plaintiffs in a lawsuit. The others are Building Healthy Communities – Monterey County, Inland Congregations United for Change, and True North Organizing Network, which works with families across Tribal Lands and the broader North Coast region.

    In  1971, the California Supreme Court struck down the school funding system based on local property taxes as violating the constitutional right of students in low-wealth districts to have an equal education. In the letter to Newsom, Public Advocates argued the current system of funding school facilities is no better than the property-tax-based system that the court rejected in the Serrano v. Priest decision. 

    “Study after study has acknowledged the open secret here: Some districts get to build swimming pools and performing arts centers, while others suffer through leaky roofs and black mold,” said John Affeldt, Public Advocates’ managing attorney and director of education equity. Citing a 2022 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, he said that lower-wealth districts have received nearly 60% less state modernization funding than higher-wealth districts since 1998.

    “The discriminatory design of the state’s facility funding system is no accident,” he said. “It has been intentionally baked into the system, and its disparate results are wholly foreseeable.”

    Hardie, a native of Lynwood, called his city “culturally rich” but under-resourced as a result of federal redlining policies that divided Lynwood’s Black and brown communities with highways that lowered property values. 

    Lynwood Superintendent Gudiel Crosthwaite said that this week the district of 12,000 students “had about 40 classrooms that were leaking due to the rains, and last year it was a different 60 classrooms.”  While other districts are modernizing labs and performing arts theaters, he said Lynwood was forced to demolish the only major auditorium in the city because of the building’s condition. In the district, 99% of students are Black or Hispanic, and 94% are from low-income families.

    Going Deeper
    Credit: bike-R on flickr

    Read more EdSource coverage about school facilities funding, planning and construction. California school districts rely on state and local bonds and developer fees to fund facilities. As this funding has fluctuated over time, research has found significant disparities in their capacity to keep up facilities that adequately meet students’ needs.

    Public Advocates’ 21-page demand letter coincides with the start of negotiations between legislative leaders and the Newsom administration over the size and details of a school facilities bond for the November ballot. Two bills must be reconciled. Assembly Bill 247, by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, calls for a $14 billion TK-12 and community college state bond. Senate Bill 28, by Sen. Steven Glazer, D-Orinda, calls for a $15 billion bond that includes funding for UC and CSU.

    Neither bill, at this point, gives a funding breakdown. However, AB 247 includes a possible framework for reform, with a point system that favors low-wealth and low-family income districts with a slightly larger state subsidy. Affeldt, of Public Advocates, dismisses this as inadequate for failing to provide enough funding to address the stark disparities in the current system.

    There is little disagreement that a state school bond is needed. Money from the last state school bond, Proposition 51 (2016), with $7 billion in state support for K-12 and $2 billion for community colleges, has been allocated, and about $2 billion in state-approved projects are in the queue for the next round. There is also a demand to remove lead in school water and to shield schools from the impacts of climate change through better air filtration systems, flood protection and heat abatement.

    Under the state program, districts pass local bonds through property taxes, and the state matches the money through a state-funded bond issue paid off through state taxes. For new construction, the state splits the cost. For modernization projects — renovating facilities at least 25 years old and portables at least 20 years old — the district pays 40% and the state 60% of a project’s cost.

    Public Advocates is calling for addressing only the modernization program, not new construction. Affeldt said that the 60% guarantee for all districts, regardless of their ability to raise far more money than property-poor districts, provides substantially more modernization funds per pupil to higher-wealth districts.

    The current facility program also includes a hardship program for small districts with so little assessed property that they can’t afford a school bond. However, the current qualifying criteria — a maximum of $5 million of assessed value — are strict and don’t account for the high construction costs in remote areas. AB 247 would raise the limit to $15 billion. 

    Between 1998 and 2016, the state provided $42 billion of the $166 billion that school districts raised for new construction and modernization, according to a report by Jeff Vincent, who co-directs the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley and has done extensive research into the school facility program and its disparities.

    Spokespersons for Newsom and Muratsuchi did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment.

    Long-standing complaints

    The issues raised by Public Advocates are not new.

    In 2016, then-Gov. Jerry Brown called for major changes in the facilities program, and opposed the measure when school districts and construction lobbies wouldn’t compromise. Brown wanted to concentrate state aid on low-income, low-property-wealth districts and end the first-come, first-served basis for allocating state matches, which he said favored wealthy and big districts, like Los Angeles Unified, with large facilities planners that can quickly apply. Voters passed the $9 billion Proposition 51 ($7 billion for K-12 schools and $2 billion for community colleges) anyway.

    In 2018, Vincent co-authored a study that documented the disparities among districts’ ability to raise money through local bonds. He found that districts with the most assessed property value raised more than triple the amount of bond revenue per student than districts with the least assessed value per student.

    With calls for reform escalating, Newsom took up the cause in negotiating a $15 million bond for the March 2020 ballot. The down-to-the-wire talks led to concessions. Instead of first-come, first-served, the bond issue set priorities for state funding. They started with districts facing critical health and safety issues, like mold in schools or seismic hazards, small districts facing financial hardship, schools needing lead abatement, and districts facing overcrowding.

    The agreement also established a ranking system that factored in school districts’ ability to fund construction, as measured by bonding capacity per student and the percentage of students who are low-income, fosters, homeless, and English learners — the same measure for extra state money under the Local Control Funding Formula. Based on their point total, districts could qualify for a bonus 1% to 5% of state funding above the 60% match for modernization and 50% match for new construction.

    The changes were not implemented after voters rejected the bond issue 47% to 53%. It was the first defeat of a statewide school bond in more than 40 years. Some attributed the loss to anxiety over Covid, whose infections were making the news; others blamed its unfortunate but coincidental title —Proposition 13 — and confusion with the 1978 tax-cutting initiative.

    In September 2020, after Newsom and school districts reached a deal on what would become Proposition 13, Vincent told EdSource, “State leaders took the much-needed first step in putting forth a new program and a new wealth-adjusted funding formula. However, providing poor districts with a few more percentage points of funding may not remedy the inequities we’ve seen. It will be important to watch things closely in coming years.”

    Public Advocates and the complainants say now is the time for the much-needed second step. 

    If negotiations fail, a lawsuit in the fall could complicate the chances of passage, if not derail, a bond measure in November. Knowing that, Affeldt said, “I hope that the serious threat of litigation and negative publicity that will come with that will make all of the players realize that we need a more aggressive overhaul of the system.”





    Source link

  • LAUSD’s 100 priority schools target district’s highest-need students

    LAUSD’s 100 priority schools target district’s highest-need students


    LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho interacting with a student.

    Credit: LAUSD

    This story has been updated to remove demographic data, which the CDE has reported may not be accurate.

    Shortly after Alberto Carvalho became superintendent of LAUSD two years ago, he created a 100-day plan and named the district’s top 100 priority schools. 

    At the time, neither Carvalho nor district staff publicly identified the schools. However, LAUSD has continuously maintained that the schools are some of the district’s lowest-performing campuses in all measures, and that they would serve as the focal point of various district initiatives, such as decisions on adding additional instructional days to help students recover from pandemic learning loss and the new policy precluding charter schools from sharing their campuses. 

    LAUSD’s 100 priority schools, which is being made public for the first time because EdSource sought it, were selected based on considerations about what schools had the greatest need to improve in areas such as attendance rates, performance on the state Smarter Balanced Assessment and interim assessments, rates of completion of college-required courses (known as A-G), and proportion of students who are English learners, a district spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource this month. 

    The district also ensures that the principals of these priority schools participate in special programs where they can identify and express their schools’ special needs in academics, facilities or human resources. 

    The principals then receive an immediate response from support personnel with the goal of rapidly accelerating student achievement, the district spokesperson said. 

    EdSource does not have accurate demographic data for the 100 Priority Schools or the district because California Department of Education’s DataQuest website has noted inaccurate reporting from LAUSD.

    Schools on the LAUSD priority list 

    1. 107th Street Elementary School
    2. 109th Street Elementary School
    3. 112th Street Elementary School
    4. 28th Street Elementary
    5. 42nd Street Elementary School
    6. 49th Street Elementary School
    7. 52nd Street Elementary School 
    8. 54th Street Elementary
    9. 59th Street Elementary
    10. 75th Street Elementary
    11. 93rd Street Elementary
    12. 95th Street Elementary
    13. Alta Loma Elementary School
    14. Dr Maya Angelou Community Senior High
    15. Aragon Avenue Elementary
    16. Audubon Middle School
    17. Bancroft Middle School
    18. Bethune Middle School
    19. Blythe Street Elementary School
    20. Tom Bradley Global Awareness Magnet
    21. Budlong Avenue Elementary School
    22. Bushnell Way Elementary School
    23. Camellia Avenue Elementary
    24. George Washington Carver Middle School
    25. Century Park Elementary School
    26. Cesar Chavez Elementary School
    27. Cimarron Avenue Elementary
    28. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School
    29. Coliseum Street Elementary
    30. Columbus Avenue Elementary
    31. Compton Ave Elementary School
    32. Contreras Learning Center-School of Social Justice
    33. Crenshaw High School STEMM Magnet
    34. Susan Miller Dorsey Senior High
    35. Charles Drew Middle School
    36. Mervyn M. Dymally High School
    37. Thomas Alva Edison Middle School 
    38. Lovelia P Flournoy Elementary
    39. John C. Fremont Senior High
    40. Gage Middle School
    41. Samuel Gompers Middle School
    42. Grape Street Elementary
    43. Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School
    44. Haddon Avenue Elementary
    45. Harmony Elementary School
    46. Harrison Street Elementary
    47. Bret Harte Preparatory Middle School
    48. Augustus F. Hawkins High School
    49. Hillcrest Drive Elementary
    50. Hillside Elementary
    1. Holmes Avenue Elementary
    2. Hooper Avenue Elementary
    3. Thomas Jefferson Senior High
    4. Dr James Edward Jones Primary Center
    5. Jordan High School
    6. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
    7. La Salle Avenue Elementary
    8. Gerald A. Lawson Academy of the Arts, Mathematics and Science
    9. Limerick Avenue Elementary
    10. Los Angeles Academy Middle School
    11. John W. Mack Elementary
    12. Charles Maclay Middle School
    13. Main Street Elementary
    14. Manhattan Place Elementary
    15. Mann UCLA Community School
    16. Manual Arts Senior High School
    17. Marina Del Rey Middle School
    18. Edwin Markham Middle School 
    19. McKinley Avenue Elementary
    20. Miramonte Elementary
    21. John Muir Middle School
    22. Murchison Street Elementary
    23. Napa Street Elementary
    24. Nevin Avenue Elementary
    25. Normandie Avenue Elementary
    26. Northridge Middle School
    27. Norwood Street Elementary School
    28. Barack Obama Global Preparation Academy
    29. Panorama High School
    30. Rosa Parks Learning Center
    31. Pio Pico Middle School
    32. Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte Elementary
    33. Leo Politi Elementary School
    34. Ramona Elementary
    35. Sally Ride Elementary: A SMArT Academy
    36. Carlos Santana Arts Academy
    37. Francisco Sepulveda Middle School
    38. Sheridan St Elementary School
    39. Hilda L Solis Learning Academy
    40. Southeast Middle School
    41. Trinity Street Elementary
    42. Valerio Street Elementary School
    43. Van Nuys Middle School
    44. George Washington Preparatory Senior High
    45. Lenicia B Weemes Elementary
    46. West Athens Elementary
    47. Western Avenue T.E.C.H. Magnet
    48. Charles White Elementary School
    49. Woodcrest Elementary
    50. YES Academy

    Enrollment numbers at LAUSD’s priority schools 

    LAUSD’s overall enrollment, excluding charter schools, is 533,495. Based on census day enrollment data from the 2022-23 academic year, 53,959 students attend the district’s priority schools. 

    Of the 100 priority schools, there are 12 high schools, 20 middle schools and 63 elementary schools. Two are listed as K-12 schools, while three are alternative schools of choice. 

    Chronic absenteeism rates 

    The schools sustained a chronic absenteeism rate of 38.2% in the 2022-23 academic year, meaning that 38.2% of students missed at least 10% of school. 

    LAUSD on the whole, however, sustained a 32.8% rate of chronic absenteeism. 

    Performance on state assessments 

    Just over 23% of students attending priority schools have met or exceeded English standards, while 16.12% have met or exceeded math standards. 

    By comparison, across the district, 41.17% of students met or exceeded state standards in English, according to Smarter Balanced test results, while 30.5% met or exceeded state standards in math. 

    High school graduation rates 

    During the 2022-23 academic year, LAUSD sustained a graduation rate of 90.4, while, on average, nearly 80.74% of students enrolled at Priority high schools graduated. 

    Rate of  A-G requirements completion 

    Across LAUSD, 43.8% of students in the 2022-23 academic year did not complete the A-G requirements and were thus ineligible for admission to the California State University and University of California systems. 

    At the priority schools, however, 69.18% graduates did not complete their A-G requirements. 

    Yuxuan Xie, EdSource data visualization specialist, contributed data analysis to this report.





    Source link

  • California, districts try to recruit and retain Black teachers; advocates say more should be done

    California, districts try to recruit and retain Black teachers; advocates say more should be done


    A middle school science teacher explains a lesson on climate change using a SMART board.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Recruiting and retaining Black teachers has taken on new urgency in recent years as California lawmakers try to ease the state’s teacher shortage. The state and individual school districts have launched initiatives to recruit teachers of color, but educators and advocates say more needs to be done.

    Hiring a diverse group of teachers helps all students, but the impact is particularly significant for students of color, who then score higher on tests and are more likely to graduate from college, according to the Learning Policy Institute. A recently released report also found that Black boys are less likely to be identified for special education when they have a Black teacher.

    BLACK TEACHERS: HOW TO RECRUIT THEM AND MAKE THEM STAY

    This is the third part of a special series on the recruitment and retention of Black teachers in California. The recruitment and hiring of Black educators has lagged, even as a teacher shortage has given the task new urgency.

    Our series looks at the obstacles that keep Black people from becoming teachers, and the bias and lack of support some face when they join the profession.

    In the last five years, state lawmakers have made earning a credential easier and more affordable, and have offered incentives for school staff to become teachers — all moves meant to ease the teacher shortage and help to diversify the educator workforce.

    Despite efforts by the state and school districts, the number of Black teachers doesn’t seem to be increasing. Black teachers say that to keep them in the classroom, teacher preparation must be more affordable, pay and benefits increased, and more done to ensure they are treated with respect, supported and given opportunities to lead.

    “Black educators specifically said that they felt like they were being pushed out of the state of California,” said Jalisa Evans, chief executive director of the Black Educator Advocates Network of a recent survey of Black teachers. “When we look at the future of Black educators for the state, it can go either way, because what Black educators are feeling right now is that they’re not welcome.”

    Task force offers recommendations

    State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond called diversifying the teacher workforce a priority and established the California Department of Education Educator Diversity Advisory Group in 2021. 

    The advisory group has made several recommendations, including beginning a public relations campaign and offering sustained funding to recruit and retain teachers of color, and providing guidance and accountability to school districts on the matter. The group also wants universities, community groups and school districts to enter into partnerships to build pathways for teachers of color.

    Since then, California has created a set of public service announcements and a video to help recruit teachers and has invested $10 million to help people of color to become school administrators, said Travis Bristol, chairman of the advisory group and an associate professor of education at UC Berkeley. Staff from county offices of education also have been meeting to share ideas on how they can support districts’ efforts to recruit and retain teachers of color, he said.

    The state also has invested more than $350 million over the past six years to fund teacher residency programs, and recently passed legislation to ensure residents are paid a minimum salary. Residents work alongside an experienced teacher-mentor for a year of clinical training while completing coursework in a university preparation program — a time commitment that often precludes them from taking a job.

    Legislators have also proposed a bill that would require that student teachers be paid. Completing the 600 hours of unpaid student teaching required by the state, while paying for tuition, books, supplies and living expenses, is a challenge for many Black teacher candidates.

    Black teacher candidates typically take on much more student debt than their white counterparts, in part, because of the large racial wealth gap in the United States. A 2019 study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that the median white family had $184,000 in family wealth (property and cash), while the median Latino family had $38,000 and the median Black family had $23,000.

    Lack of data makes it difficult to know what is working

    It’s difficult to know if state efforts are working. California hasn’t released any data on teacher demographics since the 2018-19 school year, although the data is submitted annually by school districts. The California Department of Education (CDE) did not provide updated data or interviews requested by EdSource for this story.

    The most recent data from CDE shows the number of Black teachers in California declined from 4.2% in 2009 to 3.9% during the 2018-19 school year. The National Center for Education Statistics data from the 2020-21 show that Black teachers made up 3.8% of the state educator workforce. 

    Having current data is a critical first step to understanding the problem and addressing it, said Mayra Lara, director of Southern California partnerships and engagement at The Education Trust-West, an education research and advocacy organization.

    “Let’s be clear: The California Department of Education needs to annually publish educator demographic and experience data,” Lara said. “It has failed to do so for the past four years. … Without this data, families, communities and decision-makers really are in the dark when it comes to the diversity of the educator workforce.” 

    LA Unified losing Black teachers despite efforts

    While most state programs focus on recruiting and retaining all teachers of color, some California school districts have initiatives focused solely on recruiting Black teachers.

    The state’s largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, passed the Black Student Excellence through Educator Diversity, Preparation and Retention resolution two years ago. It required district staff to develop a strategic plan to ensure schools have Black teachers, administrators and mental health workers, and to advocate for programs that offer pathways for Black people to become teachers. 

    When the resolution was passed, in February 2022, Los Angeles Unified had 1,889 Black teachers —  9% of its teacher workforce. The following school year, that number declined to 1,823 or 7.9% of district teachers. The number of Black teachers in the district has gone down each year since 2016. The district did not provide data for the current school year.

    Robert Whitman, director of the Educational Transformation Office at LA Unified, attributed the decrease, in part, to the difficulty attracting teachers to the district, primarily because of the area’s high cost of living.

    Those who are coming out of colleges now, in some cases, we find that they can make more money doing other things,” Whitman said. “And so, they may not necessarily see education as the most viable option.”

    The underrepresentation of people of color prompted the district to create its own in-house credentialing program, approved by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Whitman said. The program allows classified staff, such as substitute teachers, paraprofessionals, administrative assistants and bus drivers, to become credentialed teachers while earning a salary and benefits at their original jobs.

    Grow-your-own programs such as this, and the state’s Classified School Employee Credentialing program, and a soon-to-be launched apprenticeship program, are meant to diversify the educator workforce because school staff recruited from the community more closely match the demographics of the student body than traditionally trained and recruited teachers, according to research.

    Los Angeles Unified has other initiatives to increase the number of Black educators in the district, Whitman said, including working with universities and colleges to bring Black teachers, counselors and psychiatric social workers to their campuses. The district also has programs that help school workers earn a credential for free, and channels employees completing a bachelor’s degree toward the district’s teacher preparation program where they can begin teaching while earning their credential.

    All new teachers at Los Angeles Unified are supported by mentors and affinity groups, which have been well received by Black teachers, who credit them with inspiring and helping them to see themselves as leaders in the district, Whitman said.

    Oakland has more Black teachers than students

    Recruiting and retaining Black teachers is an important part of the Oakland Unified three-year strategic plan, said Sarah Glasband, director of recruitment and retention for the district. To achieve its goals, the district has launched several partnerships that make an apprenticeship program, and a residency program that includes a housing subsidy, possible. A partnership with the Black Teacher Project, a nonprofit advocacy organization, offers affinity groups, workshops and seminars to support the district’s Black teachers.

    The district also has a Classified School Employee Program funded by the state and a new high school program to train future teachers. District pathway programs have an average attrition rate of less than 10%, Glasband said.

    This year, 21.3% of the district’s K-12 teachers are Black, compared with 20.3% of their student population, according to district data. Oakland Unified had a retention rate of about 85% for Black teachers between 2019 and 2023.

    Better pay, a path to leadership will help teachers stay

    Black teachers interviewed by EdSource and researchers say that to keep them in the classroom, more needs to be done to make teacher preparation affordable, improve pay and benefits, and ensure they are treated with respect, supported and given opportunities to lead.

    The Black Educator Advocates Network  came up with five recommendations after surveying 128 former and current Black teachers in California about what it would take to keep them in the classroom:

    • Hire more Black educators and staff
    • Build an anti-racist, culturally responsive and inclusive school environment
    • Create safe spaces for Black educators and students to come together
    • Provide and require culturally responsive training for all staff
    • Recognize, provide leadership opportunities and include Black educators in decision making

    Teachers interviewed by EdSource said paying teachers more also would make it easier for them to stay.

    “I don’t want to say that it’s the pay that’s going to get more Black teachers,” Brooke Sims, a Stockton teacher, told EdSource. “But you get better pay, you get better health care.”

    The average teacher salary in the state is $88,508, with the average starting pay at $51,600, according to the 2023 National Education Association report, “State of Educator Pay in America.” California’s minimum living wage was $54,070 last year, according to the report.

    State efforts, such as an initiative that pays teachers $5,000 annually for five years after they earn National Board Certification, will help with pay parity across school districts, Bristol said. Teachers prove through assessments and a portfolio that they meet the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. To be eligible for the grant, teachers must work at least half of their time in a high-needs school. Teachers who qualify are also given $2,500 to cover the cost of certification.

    This incentive will help teachers continue their education and improve their practice, said Los Angeles teacher Petrina Miller. “It’s awesome,” she said.

    Teacher candidates must be actively recruited

    Many Black college students have not considered a teaching career because they have never had a Black teacher, said Preston Jackson, who teaches physical education at California Middle School in Sacramento. Those who consider a teaching career are often deterred by the cost of teacher preparation, taking required tests and unpaid student teaching.

    “In order to increase the number of Black teachers in schools, it has to become deliberate,” Jackson said. “You have to actively recruit and actively seek them out to bring them into the profession.”

    Since starting in 2005, Jackson has been one of only a handful of Black teachers at his school.

    “And for almost every single one of my kids, I’m the first Black teacher they’ve ever had,” said Jackson. “…  And for some of them, I’m the first one they’ve ever seen.” 

    Mentors are needed to help retain new teachers

    Mentor teachers are the key ingredient to helping new Black educators transition successfully into teaching, according to teachers interviewed by EdSource. Alicia Simba says she could have taken a job for $25,000 more annually in a Bay Area district with few Black teachers or students, but opted to take a lower salary to work in Oakland Unified.

    But like many young teachers, Simba knew she wanted mentors to help her navigate her first years in the classroom. She works alongside Black teachers in Oakland Unified who have more than 20 years of teaching experience. One of her mentor teachers shared her experience of teaching on the day that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Other teachers told her about teaching in the 1980s during the crack cocaine epidemic.

    “It really helps dispel some of the sort of narratives that I hear, which is that being a teacher is completely unsustainable,” Simba said. “Like, there’s no way that anyone could ever be a teacher long term, which are things that, you know, I’ve heard my friends say, and I’ve thought it myself.” 

    The most obvious way to retain Black teachers would be to make sure they are treated the same as non-Black teachers, said Brenda Walker, a Black teacher and president of the Associated Chino Teachers.

    “If you are a district administrator, site administrator, site or colleague, parent or student,  my bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and my special education credential are just as valuable and carry as much weight, and are as respected as any other educator,” she said.

    “However, it’s just as critical for all those groups to acknowledge and respect the unique cultural experience I bring to the table and acknowledge and respect that I’m a proud product of my ancestral history.”





    Source link

  • Interactive Map: Chronic absenteeism up in nearly a third of 930 California districts

    Interactive Map: Chronic absenteeism up in nearly a third of 930 California districts


    Nearly a third of the 930 districts statewide that reported data had a higher rate of chronic absenteeism in 2022-23 than the year before. Use this interactive map to explore rates of absenteeism by Unified and Elementary districts or High School districts and contrast rural, urban and suburban districts across California.

    .errordiv padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; width:500px; #advanced_iframe_44 visibility:visible;opacity:1;vertical-align:top;.ai-info-bottom-iframe position: fixed; z-index: 10000; bottom:0; left: 0; margin: 0px; text-align: center; width: 100%; background-color: #ff9999; padding-left: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px; border-top: 1px solid #aaa a.ai-bold font-weight: bold;#ai-layer-div-advanced_iframe_44 p height:100%;margin:0;padding:0var ai_iframe_width_advanced_iframe_44 = 0;var ai_iframe_height_advanced_iframe_44 = 0;function aiReceiveMessageadvanced_iframe_44(event) aiProcessMessage(event,”advanced_iframe_44″, “true”);if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener(“message”, aiReceiveMessageadvanced_iframe_44); else if (el.attachEvent) el.attachEvent(“message”, aiReceiveMessageadvanced_iframe_44);var aiIsIe8=false;var aiOnloadScrollTop=”true”;var aiShowDebug=false;
    if (typeof aiReadyCallbacks === ‘undefined’)
    var aiReadyCallbacks = [];
    else if (!(aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array))
    var aiReadyCallbacks = [];
    function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) jQuery(“#”+id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”); function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) aiResizeIframeHeight(height,advanced_iframe_44); function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);var ifrm_advanced_iframe_44 = document.getElementById(“advanced_iframe_44”);var hiddenTabsDoneadvanced_iframe_44 = false;
    function resizeCallbackadvanced_iframe_44()

    Source: EdSource analysis of California Department of Education data



    Source link

  • California Department of Education urges school districts to resist Trump’s threats over transgender athletes

    California Department of Education urges school districts to resist Trump’s threats over transgender athletes


    Flanked by fourth-place winner Ellie McCuskey-Hay, left, and first-place winner Loren Webster, right, second-place winners AB Hernandez, center right, and Brooke White share the podium during a medal ceremony for the long jump at the California high school track and field championships in Clovis.

    Credit: AP Photo / Jae C. Hong

    Top Takeaways
    • California Department of Education vows to protect “all students’ access to participate in athletics in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity.” 
    • Sixteen-year-old transgender athlete AB Hernandez shared three medals with cisgender competitors under newly rejiggered rules at California’s track and field championships last weekend, sparking controversy.
    • The U.S. Department of Justice warned California schools they may be held in violation of civil rights protections for girls.

    The California Department of Education on Tuesday weighed in on the escalating controversy over transgender athletes in school sports, advising schools to hold the line in the wake of threats from the federal government. 

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday issued a letter warning California school districts they will face legal trouble if they don’t pledge to bar trans athletes from competition by June 9, citing civil rights concerns. The CDE countered Tuesday, advising schools to hold fast and let it respond to the Justice Department regarding matters of gender identity on behalf of the state.

    “Let’s be clear: sending a letter does not change the law,” said State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in a statement. “The DOJ’s letter to school districts does not announce any new federal law, and state law on this issue has remained unchanged since 2013. California state law protects all students’ access to participate in athletics in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity. We will continue to follow the law and ensure the safety of all our athletes.”

    Last weekend’s fracas over California’s track and field championships in Clovis has become a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s campaign to target transgender athletes in girls sports, a divisive hot-button issue that conservatives have pushed aggressively of late.

    President Donald Trump has threatened financial penalties for California public schools after a 16-year-old trans athlete, AB Hernandez, won three medals in last weekend’s California Interscholastic Federation State Track and Field Championships. Hernandez placed first in the high jump and triple jump and finished second in the long jump.

    In the wake of a key last-minute rule change, Hernandez shared the podium with her cisgender competitors. The hastily rejiggered rules allow girls to receive medals based on where they would have finished if a transgender athlete had not been allowed to compete. 

    This compromise did not mollify the president. 

    “Biological Male competed in California Girls State Finals, WINNING BIG, despite the fact that they were warned by me not to do so,” Trump wrote in a 12:56 a.m. ET post on June 2. “As Governor Gavin Newscum fully understands, large scale fines will be imposed!!!” he added, referring to Newsom.

    Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, argues that letting transgender athletes into girls sports competitions constitutes sex discrimination, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    “Scientific evidence shows that upsetting the historical status quo and forcing girls to compete against males would deprive them of athletic opportunities and benefits because of their sex,” Dhillon has said. “Therefore, you cannot implement a policy allowing males to compete alongside girls, because such a policy would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex.”

    The Civil Rights Division has also announced investigations into the University of Wyoming and Jefferson County Public Schools in Colorado for allegedly allowing males to live in intimate and communal spaces earmarked for females.

    Town leaders in Clovis, the largely conservative city in Central California that hosted the track and field championships, called it unfair to include a transgender athlete in girls sports, The Fresno Bee reported. Chino has also filed a lawsuit on the issue. 

    California is among 22 states with laws that allow transgender athletes to compete with girls. Amid the state’s nearly 6 million TK-12 public school students, experts say, the number of active transgender student-athletes is estimated to be in the single digits.

    Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender who has often jousted with Trump on social issues, shocked many on the left when he admitted that he felt allowing transgender athletes to compete against girls was “deeply unfair” during a recent interview with conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.

    While Newsom himself has not as yet weighed in on this specific controversy, Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor, has praised the new rules as “a reasonable, respectful way to navigate a complex issue without compromising competitive fairness — a model worth pursuing.”

    For her part, Hernandez, a junior at Southern California’s Jurupa Valley High, has been characterized as poised and unruffled amid the heated controversy. 

    “We could not be prouder of the way this brave student-athlete conducted herself on and off the track,” said Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, the state’s LGBTQ+ civil rights organization. 





    Source link

  • Public school choice exists in California, but few districts offer it

    Public school choice exists in California, but few districts offer it


    A Walnut Valley Unified kindergarten teacher shows her students a book during class.

    Credit: Walnut Valley Unified / Facebook

    An underused, little-known public school choice program allowing students to enroll in other districts that open their borders has been reauthorized six times in the past 30 years. Under a bill winding its way through the Legislature, it would become permanent, with revised rules.

    Under the District of Choice program, districts announce how many seats they make available to nonresident students by the fall of the preceding year, and parents must apply by Jan. 1. By statute, enrollment is open to any family that applies, without restrictions — and with a lottery if applications are oversubscribed. The program bans considering academic or athletic ability or, if an applicant is a student with special needs, the cost of educating a student. 

    “This bill is a crucial step towards creating a more inclusive and equitable public education system — one where all students have the opportunity to grow and thrive,” said Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, the author of Senate Bill 897.

    With enrollments dropping statewide — and projected to continue — districts could view District of Choice as a strategy to stem the decline and bolster revenue that new students would bring. But few districts have seized the option. At most, 50 districts out of nearly 1,000, mostly rural or suburban and small, have signed on.

    That number, in turn, has restricted the openings for families; fewer than 10,000 students annually have transferred through the program — about 0.2% of California’s students, according to an evaluation of the program by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in 2021.

    The list of districts for 2024-25 will be 44, the same as this year. That is down from 47 districts in 2021-22, when a total of 8,398 students transferred, according to the latest data available from the California Department of Education.

    Of those, 2,574 students — 31% of the total — transferred to a single district, Walnut Valley Unified, a 14,000-student district in the San Gabriel Valley. The district includes the cities of Walnut and Diamond Bar and abuts Pomona Unified. Newman, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, represents Walnut Valley; his predecessor, Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, also championed District of Choice and shepherded a previous five-year reauthorization.

    Together with five other districts receiving the most students — Oak Park Unified, Glendora Unified, West Covina Unified, Valley Lindo Elementary School District and Riverside Unified — the five received 82% of the students in the program statewide. Riverside, with 1,100 of its 42,000 students enrolled through District of Choice, is the only large district using the program.  

    Robert Taylor, Walnut Valley Unified’s superintendent, said the district had participated in the program for decades, in the belief that the district “should provide any child an opportunity regardless of special needs, socioeconomic status or street address. And that’s still today. We take every kid who wants to come.”

    Taylor cited the “diversity of well-rounded opportunities” that draw outsiders: Arts offerings in elementary schools, starting in kindergarten, include dance, theater and music and are taught by professionals in the arts, he said. There is a counselor in every elementary school, and counselors stay with the same students throughout high school and meet one-on-one with them during the summer. The graduation rate is 100%, he said.

    Responding to an allegation he hears, Taylor said, “No, we don’t cherry-pick students. We don’t want to, and it’s been against the law to.”  The 2017 reauthorization of the law requires that districts give low-income students priority for transfers, and SB 897 would add homeless and foster children as well. The 23% of low-income students from other districts enrolled at Walnut Unified are slightly less than the 25% overall in the district.

    Students from 30 districts have enrolled through District of Choice, Taylor said, and some parents drive from more than an hour away. One district that has not been sending additional students is its larger, less affluent neighbor, Pomona Unified, where 85% of its 22,000 students are from low-income families.

    Under an arcane rule, a district can cap the number of students it permits to leave for districts of choice at a cumulative 10% of its average daily attendance since it first joined the program — even if many students have long since graduated from high school. Pomona reached that limit a half-dozen years ago, after going to court to prove that Walnut Valley had already exceeded the target, said Superintendent Darren Knowles.  

    SB 897 would delete that clause and replace it with a new annual cap: 10% of a district’s current average daily attendance for districts with fewer than 50,000 students and 1% for districts with more than 50,000 students. Sending districts would also be exempt if county offices of education verified that a loss of students to the program would jeopardize their financial stability.

    Pomona Unified was the only opponent listed at a hearing last month in the Senate Education Committee, where the bill passed unanimously. Rowland Unified, a 13,000-student district to the west of Walnut Valley, has also complained about the financial impact of the transfer program. 

    Knowles said he doesn’t oppose the concept of school choice, if the distribution is equitable. But before reaching the cap, Walnut Valley drew disproportionately high numbers of white and Asian families from the wealthier neighborhoods in Diamond Bar that lie within Pomona Unified. The latter may be attracted to the two dual Chinese language immersion programs in Walnut Valley.

    Wealthier families are able to drive their kids to Walnut Valley; low-income Latino families with both parents working more than likely can’t, said Knowles.

    “The District of Choice does not create a good distribution for Pomona Unified,” Knowles said. “We need kids excelling as well as those struggling. Taking out the smartest kids in any district is not a good situation.”

    Pomona Unified already has closed six elementary schools due to declining enrollment, Knowles said. The new cap could “decimate us within five years,” Knowles said. “Give us time to recover, a reprieve.”

    Newman said that he is open to further accommodations for an adverse financial impact. “We don’t want well-intended legislation to have unintended consequences,” he told EdSource. 

    Who chooses?

    In its 2021 evaluation, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that District of Choice “allows students to access educational options that are not offered in their home districts,” including college prep courses, arts and music and foreign languages. Nearly all the students transferred to districts with higher test scores.

    Newly required oversight measures found no districts discriminating against interested students, and that the program appeared to increase racial balance for some districts and reduce it for others, the LAO said, “although the changes for most districts are small.” It found that statewide, fewer low-income students used the program, compared with other students in their home districts; however, the proportion of those students had risen over four years from 27% to 32%. Participation of Latino students, though also on the rise, was smaller than the Latino enrollment in their home districts — similar to Pomona and Walnut Valley.

    Among the last children to transfer from Pomona to Walnut Valley six years ago, right before the limit was reached, is Ethan Fermin. Then entering kindergarten, he is now in sixth grade at Suzanne Middle School. His sister, now in second grade, was admitted through an interdistrict transfer, a more restrictive permit process that requires both districts to approve the move. A family must make the case for the transfer or cite a hardship — in this case, the transportation challenges of having kids in two different districts.  Parents whose children are denied a transfer can appeal to the county board of education, which often reverses a decision.

    Ethan’s father, Billy, graduated from Pomona Unified schools; he was high school class president and active in many school activities, Fermin said. From his home, he can see the elementary school his kids would have attended — a two-minute walk from their house. Friends from high school are Pomona teachers. His kids would have attended his high school, Diamond Ranch High.

    Leaving the district wasn’t easy, he said, adding, “But it’s a different world from when I went to school.”  What caught his eye in Walnut Valley, he said, was a program in two elementary schools that leads to the International Baccalaureate, a rigorous high school program that stresses inquiry-based learning. He liked the early years’ focus on developing well-rounded, creative and open-minded learners and risk-takers. “Given the choice, it was night and day,” he said.

    Taylor said Walnut Valley doesn’t market its programs as District of Choice, and he doesn’t speak negatively about other districts. Fermin said the district is smart to use social media heavily to show off what’s happening in its schools, and banners go up at the start of the sign-up period.

    Possible reasons for so little participation

    Charter schools are by far the largest public school choice program in California. The more than 1,200 charter schools served 685,553 students in 2022-23 — 11.7% of statewide enrollment, compared with about 2% through interdistrict transfers and 0.02% through District of Choice.  

    The Legislature passed laws permitting charter schools in 1992 and the District of Choice a year later. Both were viewed as strategies to counter a school voucher initiative that would have provided public funding for private school tuition, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s analysis. Voters trounced the voucher initiative, which drew only 30% support in the 1993 vote.

    Why so few districts have participated in the program is a matter of conjecture. The five-year reauthorization periods raised the risk for districts and parents that their participation might be cut short. Ken Kapphahn, principal fiscal and policy analyst for the Legislative Analyst’s Office who did the evaluation, said some districts are able to receive as many interested transfer students as they want through the interdistrict permit process, under which they can set academic and behavior conditions.  

    Some districts would involve long drives to get to, while others assume they don’t have special offerings to lure lots of students, he said. And it’s his impression, he said, that many districts still don’t know the program exists; the California Department of Education does not promote it.  

    Newman said there is an entrepreneurial potential of the program that many superintendents haven’t recognized. The ability to draw students from nearby districts could inspire “a high level of innovation” that best serves students’ interests, he said. 

    Former President of the State Board of Education Mike Kirst, who said he supports making the program permanent, suggested another reason: It could be that district superintendents consider District of Choice a violation of an unwritten education commandment, Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s enrollment.

    “It’s a professional norm that you don’t try to ‘poach’ students from other districts,” he said.





    Source link