برچسب: drop

  • Legislative analyst projects bigger funding drop for schools, community colleges

    Legislative analyst projects bigger funding drop for schools, community colleges


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office is warning superintendents and school boards working on their next year’s budget that more storm clouds are on the fiscal horizon. 

    In a Feb. 15 report, the LAO forecast that further erosion of state revenues will likely reduce state funding for TK-12 by an additional $7.7 billion — $5.2 billion in 2023-24 and $2.7 billion in 2025-26. That would be on top of the $13.7 billion shaving that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in his proposed budget for the current budget cycle that he released just a month ago. 

    When he presented the proposed state budget in January, Newsom built in a small cost-of-living increase and vowed to preserve funding commitments for schools and community colleges, but the deteriorating revenue estimates may force him to reconsider that promise when he revises the budget in May. 

    The California Department of Finance, which disagrees with the LAO’s financial projections for this year and next, won’t revise its budget forecast until the May revision. However, its report on January revenues, also released in mid-February, confirmed that revenues were heading in the wrong direction. Receipts from the personal income tax, the largest source of state revenue, were down $5 billion — 25% — from the $20.4 billion that the state had forecast. For the full fiscal year that started July 1, total state revenues are down $5.9 billion from a forecast of $121.5 billion.  

    About 40% of the revenues to the state’s general fund is directed to schools and community colleges through a 4-decade-old formula, Proposition 98.

    The single biggest fiscal challenge facing Newsom and the Legislature is how to resolve a massive shortfall in Proposition 98 funding for 2022-23. Newsom and the Legislature were mostly in the dark when they passed that state budget based on a revenue estimate in June 2022. Because of storms and floods the previous winter, the U.S. Treasury delayed the tax filing date for 2022 from April 15 to Nov. 16. Thus, officials lacked reliable data, and it turned out they were way off. The shortfall for Proposition 98 was $12 billion. 

    Because school districts have already spent that money, Newsom is proposing to hold them and community colleges harmless without counting the overfunding as part of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. In a trailer bill that his administration released, he calls for a one-time $9 billion supplemental payment that, due to the unique, delayed tax deadline, would be paid from the general fund, not out of current or future funding for Proposition 98. It would be repaid over five years, starting in 2025-26. 

    Opposition of the Legislative Analysts’s Office

    The LAO is skeptical of the legality and wisdom of pushing off the solution for the 2022-23 deficit into the future; it’s recommending the Legislature reject the ideas and instead use the $9 billion cushion in the Proposition 98 reserve account to cover the shortfall. 

    “The Governor’s proposed funding maneuver is bad fiscal policy, sets a problematic precedent, and creates a binding obligation on the state that will worsen future deficits and require more difficult decisions,” it said in a report issued last week

    It recommends balancing the budget by cutting billions of uncommitted dollars for new programs, the largest of which is $2.8 billion for creating more community schools; eliminating the $1 billion cost-of-living adjustment for the Local Control Funding Formula; cutting $500 million for low-emissions school buses and reducing costs and restructuring other programs. One is the Expanded Learning and Opportunities Program, which provides free after-school activities for low-income students. 

    Newsom would use $5 billion of the Proposition 98 rainy-day fund to cover the budget shortfall this year and next while paying for the 1% cost-of-living adjustment next year. That would leave $4 billion in the reserve to cover at least part of a bigger deficit that the LAO is predicting.

    Lurking in the background is the option of deferrals — issuing IOUs for funding that would be repaid in subsequent years. That tactic was used extensively after the Great Recession when state revenues plunged. It requires that districts and charter schools borrow short-term to cover the delay in state funding.

    School advocates clearly prefer Newsom’s approach and are critical of the LAO’s recommendations, although they aren’t ready to suggest further cuts if revenues remain slow.

    “We don’t want to start negotiating with ourselves over which programs to cut, but need to be prepared for a challenging budget if revenues do not rebound in the second half of this fiscal year,” Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consultancy, wrote in a letter to his clients last week.

    Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, criticized the LAO and called on Newsom and legislators to protect their investments in schools. 

    “The LAO’s recommendations in response to the fiscal picture are potentially devastating to schools and especially students,” he said. “The programs that could be impacted are good for students, and we’ll be urging the Legislature and governor to do everything to protect California students.”





    Source link

  • Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities

    Q&A: Big drop in enrollment of low-income undocumented students at California’s public universities


    People rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 as oral arguments are heard in the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to end the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The University of California brought the case to the court.

    Credit: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    The number of low-income undocumented students newly enrolled in the University of California and California State University plummeted 50% between 2016-17 and 2022-23, according to a study released this month.

    The study by William C. Kidder of the UCLA Civil Rights Project and Kevin R. Johnson of the UC Davis School of Law comes at a moment of heightened debate about policy proposals aimed at defraying the cost of college for undocumented students, who are not eligible for federal Pell Grants and often lack legal work permits. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed Assembly Bill 2586, which would have cleared the way for undocumented students to take on-campus jobs at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “Seeking declaratory relief in court — an option available to the University of California — would provide such clarity.”

    Johnson wrote in an email that Newsom’s veto of AB 2586, also called the Opportunity for All Act, “will make it more difficult for undocumented students to attend public universities in California.” 

    “I hope that the University of California and California State University systems will consider ways to help financially support undocumented students,” he wrote. “Scholarships, fee remissions, and the like must be considered if lawful employment, as would have been permitted by the Opportunity for All Act, is not possible.”

    Since 2012, the federal program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, has allowed certain undocumented immigrants to temporarily work legally in the U.S. and live without fear of immediate deportation, but the program has ceased processing new applicants due to legal challenges.

    “When we think that we’re seeing a decrease in enrollment in California, CSU and UC, with all the support provided by the university and by the legislature in terms of allowing undocumented students to pay resident fees, you have to imagine that in other states it’s much worse in terms of drop off in enrollment of undocumented students,” Johnson wrote.

    Johnson and Kidder’s study seeks to fill an important gap in California policymakers’ understanding of how undocumented student enrollment has changed over time. 

    The state’s colleges and universities historically have avoided collecting official data on undocumented students, mindful of those students’ vulnerable legal status. To solve that problem, Kidder and Johnson examined the number of students awarded a Cal Grant under the California Dream Act, a state financial aid program for which low-income undocumented students are eligible. The numbers likely represent a subset of all undocumented college students at Cal State and UC campuses, since they do not include students who applied for a Dream Act award but were not eligible or who were offered an award but didn’t accept it.

    Kidder and Johnson find that Dream Act awardees at CSU and UC appear to have peaked around the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.

    At CSU, they found that new and returning Dream Act awardees fell 30% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, outpacing an almost 7% decline in other Cal Grant awardees at CSU during the same period, as well as falling undergraduate enrollment within the university system.

    The story was similar at UC campuses, where Dream Act awardees dropped by roughly 31% between 2019-20 and 2022-23, a period in which other Cal Grant awardees only dipped 1%.

    Kidder and Johnson tie the decline in Dream Act awardees to the demise of the deferred action program. The Trump administration moved to rescind the program in 2017, and subsequent efforts to revive it have been stymied by court decisions that allow current DACA recipients to renew work permits but block new applicants. As a result, most current undergraduate college students are not eligible to apply for DACA and the youngest current DACA recipients are about 22 years old.

    That said, the study does not use the kind of granular data that would allow the researchers to test explicitly whether the rescission of DACA is causing the decline in Dream Act awardees. Previous research has found that the program boosted graduation rates among undocumented high school students and that harsher immigration enforcement correlated with lower academic achievement for undocumented K-12 students. Kidder and Johnson cite those studies — as well as the similar results they observed across UC and CSU — as pointing toward the likelihood that an external force is behind declining Dream Act awardees. 

    Supporters of AB 2586, the bill Newsom vetoed this weekend, argued that the UC system is not subject to a federal prohibition on hiring undocumented workers because it is part of the state of California. Johnson is among 29 scholars to sign a legal memo building that case, which was published by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Neither CSU nor UC took a formal position on the bill. But in a letter to lawmakers, the UC expressed concerns that hiring undocumented students could jeopardize “billions of dollars in existing federal contracts and grants.” The university system also said the bill could expose students, their families and UC employees to criminal or civil prosecution. In July, CSU officials similarly said the bill rested on an untested legal theory that could result in litigation against the system. 

    EdSource recently spoke with Kidder and Johnson to discuss their forthcoming article in the Journal of College & University Law. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    What do we understand about the impact that DACA had on undocumented high school students, and what has happened since the Trump administration began challenging the Obama-era program?

    Johnson: The data that we were able to put together shows that, basically, the dismantling of DACA —-the refusal to accept new applications – is having an impact that one might expect. While DACA created some kind of stability, initially, in high school students and boosted college enrollments, its dismantling has had the effect of reducing undocumented enrollment and destabilizing students and, the way I’d put it, it’s making them wonder whether they have a future in this country. …

    It’s a wake-up call in all kinds of ways for colleges and universities to claim that they want to be open, be more accessible.

    What did you find when you looked at how many students at Cal State and University of California campuses received California Dream Act grants in recent years?

    Kidder: New California Dream Act awardees, both freshmen and students, had declined by half between 2017 and 2023, which is just a remarkable drop. … I was a little surprised at the scale of the decline, just given the situation in California and how it’s different from Texas or Florida or some other states where there’s greater opposition and hostility to supporting undocumented students.

    Do you see the same pattern of decline in awards among California residents who are citizens and who received Cal Grants during this period?

    Kidder: We tried to adopt what social scientists call a “difference in difference” methodology. That’s where you study the rate of change over time with one group compared to a matched comparison group. 

    So, we looked at low-income students who are not undocumented, primarily U.S. citizen residents of California — who are going to the same high schools; the same age group; similar, but not exactly the same, income levels; very similar academic profiles in terms of high school GPAs, etc. We did that to confirm that there weren’t other systemic effects on the California budget and economy that might be unaccounted for outside factors. 

    What we found is that other Cal Grant students, both within UC and within CSU, were flat at the same time that both the undocumented students at UC and CSU had this 50% decline. So it did shore up our inference that there was something uniquely challenging in the current environment for undocumented college students.

    You write that back in the 2016-17 school year, 56% of new Dream Act students attended a UC or Cal State campus, while the remainder attended a California Community College campus. By the 2022-23 school year, that dynamic had flipped: 40% of those Dream Act students attended UC and Cal State, and the rest attended community college. What do you make of that shift?

    Kidder: We did include in the data that we are capturing not just new freshmen, but also new entering transfer students. It is of concern that somehow, in recent years … it’s not translating into those (community college) students still having higher education access to a university education through the transfer pathway. There’s a blockage there, and that was clear in the data. 

    From a public policy level, that’s troubling, given that these are students, many of whom have been living in California since age 5 or age 8, and the California taxpayers and the system of California laws has invested in their future. For those students to be blocked in their pathway lowers their future life chances. 

    State university officials can’t control what happens with DACA. If educators at UC and Cal State are concerned about losing undocumented students, what could they do to encourage those students to enroll and help them to stay enrolled?

    Johnson: I think one of the assumptions in the question is that there’s limited possibilities for what the university could do. It was the University of California that brought the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court stopping the rescission of DACA, and that was a controversial move in some quarters. But I do think the university– legally, politically and otherwise — is a powerful advocate for students, and can and has, at various times, pushed for reform and change. 

    I think that the university, if they’re really committed to undocumented students, can support things like the Opportunity for All Act, which has been basically briefed and set on their desk, showing that it might be legal for the University of California to allow its students, all students, to be employed by the University of California. …

    I think that the university could also think about, “How do we create more scholarships and funding for undocumented students?” If we’re really designing, or we really want to have, a university that serves all, shouldn’t we commit ourselves to enrolling all students who we admit and making it possible for them to attend? 

    Then the question is, how you raise money, how you distribute that money, how you create scholarships. The University of California often takes great pride in bringing in large chunks of money for research projects and, for example, spends years talking about and invests mounds of money in Aggie Square in Sacramento for research. … Why not work to create more funding for all students, including undocumented students? Why not think carefully about your tuition increases at various points in time, and what impacts it has on the people that you say you want to enroll in the university?

    I want to talk to you about AB 2586. The first Cal State board of trustees meeting I attended was in July, and there was some discussion about this bill. The trustees were asking staff to brief them on what they think of this bill. The gist was, ‘We see this as risky. We see this as potentially putting us on a collision course with the federal government, where we would open ourselves up to litigation. What do you think about that approach?

    Johnson: I think it’s a cowardly approach. It’d be like the university saying “We’re not going to weigh in on the civil rights movement because it’s controversial politically, and it’s risky to do so, and we’re not going to move forward because we’re afraid of getting sued.” 

    It’s funny, but (former UC President) Janet Napolitano could have taken the same position, saying “We’re not going to challenge the rescission of DACA, don’t want to alienate the federal government, which gives a large amount of money to the University of California. We’re just going to sit on our hands and let these DACA recipients be poorly treated.” …

    I’m an attorney. I was dean of the (UC Davis School of Law) for 16 years. Attorneys are always going to tell you there are risks. There are also risks driving to the grocery store, but we still go to the store. So I don’t buy that risk assessment argument, and I think that this is the time for universities that are truly committed to these issues to show their commitment to these issues.

    Why should CSU and why should the UC prioritize helping undocumented students to get a college degree?

    Kidder: Both my data analysis as well as my personal experience as a university administrator working with lots of undocumented students confirms my conviction that this is a very talented pool of young people in California. If their hopes and dreams are allowed to flourish in California, it benefits all Californians, and I mean that both in an economic sense and in a larger democratic sense.





    Source link

  • Santa Ana to drop contested ethnic studies courses to settle closely watched lawsuit

    Santa Ana to drop contested ethnic studies courses to settle closely watched lawsuit


    Diane Diederich for iStock

    To avoid further embarrassing and expensive litigation, Santa Ana Unified has agreed to terminate three staff-created high school ethnic studies courses starting next fall and to start again from scratch. Next time, according to a settlement released Thursday, the district will comply with the state’s open meeting law it sought to evade and to seek public input, including Jewish advocacy organizations that brought the lawsuit and signed the settlement with the district.

    The 13-page agreement ends a lawsuit that the American Jewish Committee and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed in September 2023. The lawsuit asked the board to reject ethnic studies courses that it had approved in violation of the Brown Act, the open-meetings law. The lawsuit also claimed that the courses included sections on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that were biased against Jews and Israel.

    The deal followed a hearing in Orange County Superior Court in December and two months of negotiations.

    “We hope this is a cautionary tale to all the districts in California and anyone else who’s hoping to infuse ethnic studies with antisemitism, especially if they’re doing it in secret,” said Marci Miller, director of legal investigations for the Brandeis Center, Thursday. Miller said that the terms of the settlement should act as a deterrent for other districts.

    The agreement also could help other districts avoid similar conflicts. It spells out the procedure for “meaningful, substantive input from members of the public.”  There will be at least one public meeting no sooner than seven days before a school board considers an ethnic studies course;  representatives of community groups will be invited to offer their comments. The district will prominently publish drafts of course outlines on its website at least a week before the meeting.

    The Brandeis Center has also filed related state or federal discrimination complaints against Berkeley Unified, Fremont High School and Santa Clara Unified. A separate nonprofit law firm, the Deborah Project, has filed antisemitism lawsuits against a San Jose charter school and another Bay Area district, Sequoia Union High School District.

    In a statement that Santa Ana Unified provided Friday, district Superintendent Jerry Almendarez cleared up “some misperceptions” that led to the filing of the lawsuit.

    “At no time has the district supported the teaching of instructional content to students that reflects adversely on any group on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin as alleged in the lawsuit,” Almendarez’s statement said. “The settlement of this lawsuit affirms that principle and resolves any misunderstanding that may have occurred.”

    Board President Hector Bustos signed the agreement for the district.

    The lawsuit focused on the work of the school board’s ethnic studies steering committee, which was led by two board members, Carolyn Torres, a seventh-grade teacher and longtime ethnic studies advocate; and Rigo Rodriguez, an associate professor in the Department of Chicana/o and Latina/o Studies at CSU Long Beach. He lost his re-election bid in November.

    The lawsuit said the committee members “consisted of a narrow and insular group of individuals who were ‘handpicked’ to promote a ‘very pro-ethnic studies’ vision, without any ‘naysayers.’”  

    Damaging court documents

    The district adopted three ethnic studies courses grounded in Liberated Ethnic Studies, a doctrine that stresses that the forces of white supremacy and capitalism are continuing to oppress minorities. It has made the conflict in Israel, which it characterizes as an oppressor state and a modern example of  “white settler colonialism,”  a central element in its curriculum.

    Promoted by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium as an alternative to the mainstream state-adopted ethnic studies curriculum framework, the liberated approach has been adopted by more than two dozen school districts in California.

    Emails, documents, text messages, and chats obtained by attorneys during the discovery process revealed Santa Ana steering committee members’ biases. In a summary of the remarks submitted to the court, one unnamed member referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist [Z]ionists” to whom the district should not “cave.” Additionally, in a chat, the same employee referred to the lone Jewish member of the steering committee as a “colonized Jewish mind,” as well as a “pretender,” a “f—— baby,” and as “stupid” because of the person’s reservations about some of the committee’s work.

    In an online chat, the Jewish member summarized what he heard as members were preparing to meet with the Jewish Federation: “Jews greatly benefit from White privilege and so have it better,” and “We don’t need to give both sides. We only support the oppressed, and the Jews are the oppressors.”

    According to the lawsuit, the federation had asked to contribute its perspective to the committee. Instead, the committee worked “under the radar” to avoid public scrutiny. When deciding when to present two proposed ethnic studies courses to the board, two senior district officials in text messages suggested scheduling it on a Jewish holiday so that Jews would not attend.

    “We may need to use Passover to get all new courses approved,” one suggested.  The other official responded, “That’s actually a good strategy.” 

    In March 2023, the steering committee submitted the proposed World Geography and World Histories ethnic studies courses to the school board. There was no discussion, public comment or presentation by the select committee. The plaintiffs’ memorandum said the agenda item consisted of “merely reading the titles of the courses. The entire ‘presentation’ was over in less than 30 seconds.”

    The school board approved the courses at a subsequent meeting, again without discussion. Jewish residents learned about the courses’ content only after their adoption, the lawsuit claimed.

    “There is reason to require that meetings have to be open to the public,” Miller said. “When nobody is watching, people will be left to their own prejudices.”’

    Details of the settlement

    Other points in the agreement include:

    Santa Ana’s previous steering committee and subcommittee that created the ethnic studies courses will be abolished.

    The superintendent, not the school board, will appoint members to future committees considering an ethnic studies course; board members will not be involved in that work until the final approval process.

    The district will recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial issue; as such, any classroom instruction or curriculum will comply with the district’s own policy on dealing with controversial issues. Many districts have adopted a similar document consistent with state law. Among the provisions:

    • The issue provides opportunities for critical thinking, for developing tolerance, and for understanding conflicting points of view
    • All sides of the issue are given a proper hearing using established facts and primary evidence.
    • Teachers do not use their positions to press their own bias
    • The discussion does not reflect adversely on anyone because of their race, sex, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, handicap or occupation.

    To create the ethnic studies courses, Santa Ana hired the Xicanx Institute for Teaching and Organizing (XITO); its leader, Sean Arce, is a team member of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. According to records, the district contracted $300,663 for its services, plus $79,200 for another Liberated ethnic studies contractor. Under the agreement, the district will stop using XITO’s services and any individuals associated with it.

    Arce did not respond to a request for comment.

    Under the agreement, Ethnic Studies World Geography; Ethnic Studies World Histories; and Ethnic Studies Honors: Perspectives, Identities and Social Justice courses can continue for the rest of 2024-25 under the condition that materials and instruction with claims like “the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor” will not be taught — unless done so in a way that complies with the controversial issues policy. A glossary by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Coalition will be stripped from the courses.

    The district may have time to create new courses. A 2021 state law would require that school districts offer a semesterlong ethnic studies course starting in fall 2025 and that students must take it to graduate as of 2030-31. However, Assembly Bill 101 requires funding to become a mandate, and the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have not provided money so far. Last month, Newsom did not include ethnic studies funding in his proposed 2025-25 state budget.

    The district will also reimburse $43,091 in plaintiff lawyers’ direct costs, like filing expenses. But the agreement did not cover attorney fees, which would easily have been so much more than the direct costs, at a time when the district faces laying off up to 300 employees.  The law firm Covington and Burling, doing pro bono work, and the Anti-Defamation League were co-counsels on the case,

    Miller said that was a deliberate choice in the negotiations. “Money was not the main goal of the lawyers,” she said. “Making systemic change was.” 





    Source link