California enrolls a far lower percentage of English learners in bilingual education programs than other states, according to a report released in October from The Century Foundation.
The authors also found that California is investing less than other states in bilingual education. They recommend the state significantly expand investment in multilingual instruction, particularly dual-language immersion programs; prioritize enrollment in those programs for English learners; and invest more in recruiting and preparing bilingual teachers.
Prioritizing enrollment for English learners in bilingual and dual-language immersion programs is important, the authors stated, because research has shown these programs help English learners.
“New studies show every year that English learners, and especially young English learners, do best when they’re in some form of bilingual setting,” said Conor P. Williams, senior fellow at The Century Foundation and one of the authors of the report. “They do best at everything, they do best at maintaining their home language, of course, they do best at learning English over time, and they do best in academic subjects.”
The Century Foundation is a progressive public policy think tank based in New York City and Washington, D.C.
California has more English learners than any other state. About 40% of students in California schools are now or were once English learners; about half of them are learning English currently while the other half have now mastered the language.
Yet, only 16.4% of English learners in the state were enrolled in bilingual or dual-language immersion programs in 2019-20. That percentage is more than three times lower than the percentage of English learners enrolled in those programs in Wisconsin (55.9%) and more than two times lower than in Texas (36.7%), Illinois (35.9%) and New Jersey (33.4%).
Williams recognized that California is still rebuilding its efforts to expand bilingual instruction, after a voter-approved measure, Proposition 227, significantly limited it from 1997 to 2016. Still, he said, “The efforts to rebuild have not been significant.”
“California is not committing very significant resources for a state of its size,” Williams said. “The investment in new or expanded bilingual education programs is pretty modest. It’s $10 million in a one-time grants competition. Delaware puts in a couple million a year and has been doing it for the past 10 years. Utah spends $7 million a year on dual language.”
The report finds that the funding invested in expanding bilingual education lags far behind the state’s stated goals. “Global California 2030,” written in 2018, for example, recommended expanding the number of dual-language immersion programs to 1,600 and enrolling half of California’s K–12 students by 2030, making at least 75% of graduating students proficient in two or more languages by 2040. There are currently about 750 dual-immersion programs in California, according to the California Basic Educational Data System.
The report’s authors stated it is also crucial for California to expand bilingual education in transitional kindergarten classrooms, where English learners could benefit from it at a younger age. Transitional kindergarten is an extra year of school before kindergarten. The state is gradually expanding access to the grade each year until 2025, when all 4-year-olds will be eligible.
The new report recommended changing credential requirements for transitional kindergarten in order to recruit more preschool teachers, since many more preschool teachers speak Spanish and other languages, compared with K-12 teachers.
Anna Powell, senior research and policy associate at the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at UC Berkeley, said she and many other early education advocates agree that current preschool teachers face an “uphill battle” to become TK teachers.
According to CSCCE, an estimated 17,000 workers in preschool and child care programs have a bachelor’s degree, a teacher’s child development permit and at least six years of teaching experience in early childhood settings. However, Powell said the new credential proposed for pre-K to third grade would only allow work as a preschool teacher to be counted toward part of the required hours.
“Experienced educators would be required to go back to school and/or obtain additional qualifications first — likely while juggling a full-time teaching job,” Powell said. “Meanwhile, a public school teacher in a middle school could potentially teach TK without any new clinical hours or other time-consuming requirements, so long as they have taken 24 units of ECE or child development (or equivalent).”
“There is still time for California to right this wrong,” she added.
Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, an organization that advocates for English learners statewide, praised the report.
“Our state currently possesses an exemplary policy framework, but what’s lacking is a concrete, systemic plan, adequate, targeted funding for effective implementation and accountability for better educational opportunities and outcomes for English learners,” Hernandez said.
Hernandez said the California Department of Education should lead a coordinated, statewide effort to implement the English Learner Roadmap, a guide approved by the State Board of Education in 2017 for school districts to support English learners better.
One way to recruit more bilingual teachers both for TK and other grades would be to encourage high school graduates who were awarded the State Seal of Biliteracy to join teacher preparation programs, Hernandez said. To receive the State Seal of Biliteracy, graduates must show proficiency in both English and another language.
“A modest target of 5% from the over 400,000 candidates could significantly reduce the shortage,” Hernandez said. “The time for translating vision into action is now.”
Note: The research discussed in this article was supported by a grant from Sobrato Philanthropies. EdSource receives funding from many foundations, including Sobrato Philanthropies. EdSource maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage.
There’s a strong body of research that suggests arts education can boost everything from test scores to social-emotional learning, but when budgets get tight, the arts are often the first thing on the chopping block.
In California though, that’s about to change following the passage of Proposition 28, which guarantees a new annual funding stream for arts education equal to 1% of the state’s general fund. In 2023, that’s about $1 billion for schools to hire teachers in the arts and fund arts education initiatives.
Join EdSource reporter Karen D’Souza on Thursday, Dec. 14, at 12:30 p.m. for a Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) session. D’Souza will answer your questions about the rollout of Proposition 28 and how California’s groundbreaking arts education initiative compares with how states across the country fund and implement arts education programs. Click here to ask a question.
EdSource readers are encouraged to submit their questions during the online event.
An AMA, which stands for “Ask Me Anything” is a crowdsourced interview. The interviewee begins the process by starting a post describing who they are and what they do. Then commenters from across the internet leave questions and can vote on other questions according to which they would like to see answered.
The interviewee can go through and reply to the questions they find interesting and easily see those questions the internet is dying to have the answer to. Because the internet is asking the questions, they’re going to be a mix of serious and lighthearted, and interviewees will end up sharing all sorts of things you won’t find in a normal interview.
California’s way of funding schools, the Local Control Funding Formula, was not designed to be perfect. That’s because most legislation requires a series of compromises necessary to minimize opposition, maximize support and win the necessary votes for passage.
In LCFF’s case, one of those compromises, the creation of the Local Control Accountability Plan, or LCAP, could eventually doom the reform.
To understand why, it’s important to revisit the initial rationale for LCFF — replacing a complex, inequitable funding model with a simpler model that targeted grants based on student need and concentrated poverty.
The old funding model was managed from Sacramento and included popular grants for the arts and music, English learners, career and technical education and more. Large and/or politically connected districts, nonprofits and statewide groups would lobby sympathetic lawmakers for their own grants. Over time, this model grew increasingly complex, limiting local discretion over spending and stifling innovation. Despite these problems, it had remarkable political resiliency. Lawmakers were incentivized to protect existing grants and got political credit for creating new ones. Very few stakeholders were interested in changing this dynamic and risk losing their favorite grants and programs.
So, it wasn’t enough for the Brown administration to argue that LCFF was better because it was simpler, more equitable and gave districts more control over their money. They had to prove that it would fund many of the same programs as the existing model.
Most education advocacy groups believed that this could be achieved by requiring districts to use the grants generated by high-need students to fund services that addressed their needs. But education groups representing labor and management wanted complete financial flexibility. To avoid this requirement, the education establishment collaborated with a few legal advocacy groups to create the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), arguing that it would accurately document how they were spending money on programs and services.
The last decade has provided strong evidence that this decision was based on flawed assumptions, beginning with the presumption that school districts are the best recipients of funding for high-need students. While district bureaucracies are certainly closer to students than Sacramento policymakers, they aren’t as close as principals and teachers. Unlike schools, district leaders face powerful interest groups that lobby them for spending like higher salaries and districtwide programs. That’s why most targeted grants like federal Title I funding are sent to districts but then quickly distributed to high-poverty schools. Without similar requirements, it’s likely that billons in LCFF dollars that could have funded school-based services were spent on district-level costs such as salaries, benefits, pension obligations and more.
Second, policymakers assumed that districts would accurately document spending on services in the LCAP. But LCAPs were never formally connected to school district budgets, which include ongoing costs like salaries and benefits. In fact, the processes for developing LCAPs and budgets occur separately on different timelines. Almost every analysis of LCAPs has found that their financial and programmatic information cannot be verified and the documents themselves are largely incomprehensible.
Third, they believed that districts would focus on improving student outcomes without clear state-level goals and metrics to guide their decision-making. Instead of big, important goals — like grade-level math achievement — policymakers created a mishmash of state priority areas (many of which can’t be measured) and told districts to include them in their LCAPs. Predictably, most districts paid lip service to these priorities in their LCAPs and then wrote separate strategic plans. At this point, most district leaders probably can’t remember what the state priorities are. If everything is a priority, nothing is.
Finally, and most importantly, they assumed that all of this would improve outcomes for the most vulnerable students. Here, the evidence is limited, especially given the size of the funding increases. Given the persistently low academic performance of most high-poverty districts and the state’s sizable achievement gaps, today’s elected officials can fairly ask whether our state has seen a commensurate return on these massive education investments.
It’s no wonder that over the last several years, elements of the previous school finance regime have roared back. Elected officials who didn’t create LCFF and are suspicious of “local control” have created a whole new set of targeted grants like the governor’s community schools grant. Districts are now subject to far more onerous legalistic requirements for their LCAPs, which are intended to show that they’re using their funding for high-need students.
District leaders have bitterly complained about these shifts. On one level, they are right that the advocates and policymakers focused on the LCAP are just doubling down on a failed strategy. But they haven’t offered any alternative, other than “leave us alone.”
The danger for them is threefold. Increasing levels of scrutiny and regulation; ever more targeted grants that limit their discretion; and, as the years pass, the belief that local control has failed high-need students, requiring more aggressive state and county oversight. A few years from now, they could end up with the worst aspects of the old finance model and the new one.
There is another way.
A decade later, we have a lot of evidence on how to make the formula better. Perhaps a substantial portion of LCFF funding, such as concentration grants (for schools with more than 55% high-needs students) should flow directly to schools based on their poverty level, like Title I funds do. State leaders could establish a few measurable academic and social-emotional priorities that districts would address in strategic plans rather than LCAPs. Instead of a potpourri of grants that limit local discretion or new LCAP compliance requirements, lawmakers could create incentives, such as additional weighted funding for districts willing to create new programs such as language immersion schools. They could even establish financial rewards for districts based on student outcomes.
There are many possibilities, but for the Local Control Funding Formula to survive over the long term, it must always be able to answer a very basic question: What is it doing to improve the education of California’s highest-need students?
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.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order to develop a Master Plan on Career Education represents a critical step forward in helping Californians adapt to the projected radical transformations in the workforce. This could not have come at a more critical time. According to the World Economic Forum’s “The Future of Jobs Report 2023,” “almost a quarter of jobs (23%) are expected to change in the next five years.”
I applaud the governor’s goals, which include expanding career education pathways in K-12, ramping up dual-enrollment and work-based learning opportunities, and enhancing connections between secondary/post-secondary education and the business community.
But, while critical, these goals are insufficient to ensure that every K-12 student, regardless of ZIP code or life circumstance, will be afforded full career and life success opportunities.
To maximize success, the master plan must also incorporate strategies to dislodge the entrenched, bifurcated mindset that positions K-12 career education as isolated from and inferior to the prevailing K-12 academic curriculum. This can be achieved by implementing policies that mandate the inclusion of curriculum that uses the real-world application of knowledge and concepts found in careers as a context for academic learning in all K-12 grades and subject areas. In educational literature, this is referred to as contextualized teaching and learning.
Here’s what a career-contextualized learning component could look like:
An elementary grade math lesson would be enriched by connecting lessons on ratios and percentages to applications in diverse careers. For example:
Digital media (image size and resolution; video/animation frame speed; file transfer speed).
Architecture/constructiontechnology (material weight to strength ratio, linear and cubic measurements, roof pitch, stair rise to run ratios, construction cost price per square foot)
Data analytics (e-commerce: ratio of web page visits to link clicks; pro sports team performance: shots taken to field goals made; climate change: fossil fuel vs. alternative energy usage).
The master plan’s primary policy goal should be to expand educational equity, thereby promoting more equitable career opportunities.
Key strategies to achieve this goal include:
Expandingdifferentiated instruction — tailoring teaching to meet individual needs — to better support students with diverse learning modalities, including English learners and students from low socioeconomic circumstances.
Transcending geographic barriers by utilizing virtual technologies to connect classrooms with career professionals from diverse geographic regions.
Amplifying student engagement and self-efficacy by expanding student opportunities to envision a “future self” by meeting diverse career professionals through participation in activities such as internships, mentorships and virtual meetings.
Increasing participation in career pathways and dual enrollment programs by fostering an early interest in careers through the integration of curriculum in all K-12 grades and subject areas that utilize real-world career-based application of knowledge and concepts as a context for academic learning.
Increasing exposure to opportunities for college and career through strategic engagement with the higher education and business sectors in developing and deploying K-12 contextualized teaching and learning curriculum.
Cultivating skills identified by employers as a high priority through contextualized learning experiences that promote creativity, collaboration, communication and critical thinking.
The master plan must include strategies for planning and implementing a pilot study that involves creating, implementing and evaluating K-12 curriculum that utilizes real-world career-based application of knowledge and concepts as a context for academic learning. Collaborative teams with K-12, post-secondary and business community participants must lead this work. The pilot study must involve school test sites from geographically and economically diverse state regions. Insights derived from the pilot study will guide full statewide implementation.
For decades, our K-12 education system has been disconnected from the constantly evolving world of work. We are at a critical crossroads when we must advocate for transformational change to empower students with the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed for future life and career success.
•••
Brian F. Donnelly is the executive director of Learning Curved, a California nonprofit focused on creating opportunities for students to discover and explore emerging career paths.
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.
EdSource’s “Education Beat” podcast highlights stories from our reporters with voices of teachers, parents, and students, bringing listeners the personal stories behind the headlines.
Here are a few of our favorite podcast episodes from 2023. Take a listen:
Family reunited after four years separated by immigration policy
A Central Valley dad was finally able to return to the U.S., after almost four years separated from his family by a Trump-era immigration policy. His return allows his children to pursue their college dreams.
Bachelor’s degrees in prison promise incarcerated students a second chance
Inside the first women’s program at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, incarcerated women are working to rebuild their lives by pursuing these higher degrees.
How to teach English learners to read? Here’s how one school does it
EdSource reporter and Education Beat host Zaidee Stavely visits a school that’s had an uncommonly high degree of success with teaching English learners to read: Frank Sparkes Elementary, in Winton, about 10 miles from Merced, in California’s Central Valley.
A teacher removed, a play censored, and the chilling effect that followed
A high school drama teacher was removed from the classroom in Temecula Valley Unified, after a parent complained students were reading the Pulitzer-prize-winning play, “Angels in America,” about the AIDS epidemic in New York during the 1980s. It’s the latest in a series of efforts by newly elected conservative school board members to change curriculum in the district.
Schools are counting – and helping – more homeless students
When Ana Franquis’ family was evicted, they had nowhere to turn. Their local school district helped them out, with food, diapers, even hotel vouchers.
How a California professor once coded secrets in music
Saxophonist Merryl Goldberg traveled to the Soviet Union in 1985 to meet up with another group of musicians, The Phantom Orchestra, and bring back information, including the names of people who wanted to escape the Soviet Union.
To do this, Merryl made up a secret code, hidden in sheet music.
Want to know what high schoolers really think? Tune in to this radio station
At El Cerrito High School, in West Contra Costa Unified, students produce and host their own radio shows. Some DJ their own music shows, while others host talk radio programs, with topics ranging from political affairs to chess to dating advice. There’s even an old-time radio drama, based on original scripts from the 1950s.
How a teachers’ passion for space takes learning to new heights
Have you ever thought about launching into space? One West Contra Costa Unified science teacher has done more than think about it. He’s preparing to become an astronaut.
How a school lunch lady sparked better trauma response for schools
A school lunch lady’s response after the Oklahoma City bombing sparked a new understanding of how teachers and school staff can help students recover from traumatic events, from wildfires and floods to school shootings.
How dogs help bring kids to therapy at this Central Valley school district
In Selma Unified School District in the Central Valley, two therapy dogs are helping destigmatize mental health services. Jeter and Scout help identify students who need help, and they give students a soft, cuddly entry to therapy.
Like what you heard? Subscribe to Education Beat on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. And share with your friends!
The federal government has not fully funded special education in decades, leaving the bulk of the costs to school districts and the state.
Alison Yin/EdSource
When Erica Mazariegos heard that a shocking number of special education teaching positions remain vacant, she was not surprised. With over 27 years as a special educator, Mazariegos is dedicated and passionate, yet says “the stress of recent years has led me to question my ability to carry on. There will come a point when I must prioritize my health over my career.”
Like Erica, special education teachers throughout U.S. public schools have been vocal about their concerns regarding working conditions after the pandemic, particularly the shortage of resources and staff support. The attrition rates among special education teachers soared following Covid-19, and educators have endured heightened levels of job-related stress, prompting an increasing number of them to exit the profession.
This exodus has left schools grappling with severe teacher shortages. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 45% of schools reported unfilled positions in special education roles, with 78% citing difficulties in hiring special education staff for the current school year. The situation in California closely mirrors the national shortages, with the Learning Policy Institute describing the teacher shortage in California as a “five-alarm fire.”
The stress experienced by special educators is not only deeply ingrained in the inherent nature of their roles but also in the perceptions surrounding them. A key contributing factor is the idealization of special education teachers by schools, often portraying them as extraordinary individuals who are characterized as nurturing and self-sacrificing, willing to prioritize their students’ well-being over their own. It’s commonplace to hear general education teachers express sentiments like, “I could never do what you do.” This portrayal creates unrealistic expectations for special educators, adding to the systemic sources of stress, which include unequal resource allocation and a shortage of adequately trained support staff.
Padma Vajhala, an early-career special education teacher with two years of experience, highlights many stressors in her job, such as individualized education program meetings, conducting paperwork checks, navigating uncertainties about parental consent, encountering subtle racism in schools, and adhering to the core mission of special education — differentiated teaching for each student. But, she underscores that these stressors are overshadowed by the primary source of stress: daily management of challenging behavior exhibited by her students in class without enough staff support. She points out that her stress affects students by hindering effective instruction, classroom management and the modeling of social-emotional skills. Stressed teachers are more likely to react unpredictably and employ ineffective behavior management strategies.
While it remains crucial to address such systemic causes of stress as lack of staff support in the classroom, schools must simultaneously implement programs dedicated to teaching self-care strategies and allocate resources to support these educators’ mental health and overall well-being. These initiatives should involve professional development programs that prioritize physical wellness, encompassing exercise, dietary choices, and sleep, to sustain energy levels and enhance emotional resilience.
Additionally, it is imperative to equip special educators with training in social-emotional learning skills. This training should cover the establishment of clear boundaries between their professional and personal lives, mindfulness practices, participation in yoga, and learning relaxation techniques. Acquiring these skills can significantly reduce stress levels among special educators while providing positive role models for students concurrently learning these skills in their classes.
Most importantly, special education teachers can create communities of practice informally with their colleagues based on shared interests, facilitating connections with colleagues, mentors, and therapists to seek guidance and share their experiences. Moreover, these communities of practice can leverage self-reflection practices to recognize and manage stressors effectively.
A notable approach is reflexive visual journaling, a creative process that intertwines written reflection with images, drawings, and other visual elements. This practice has demonstrated considerable effectiveness in early detection of burnout indicators, pinpointing triggers, and aiding individuals in navigating and coping with stress. Zachary McNiece, assistant professor of counselor education at San Jose State University, emphasizes the importance of visual journaling, stating, “In today’s post-Covid world, while teachers act as front-line mental health advocates, they can experience the after-effects of trauma their students have faced over the last few years; visual journaling creates a means for teachers to slow down, allow space for their feelings and reactions, and let go of the emotional residue of secondary trauma exposure, so they can improve their wellness and support their students.” These self-reflective practices can also be embedded into teacher preparation programs to support new special education teachers.
Preventing burnout in special education cannot be solely an individual responsibility; it requires collaboration from schools, districts and policymakers. Special educators are pivotal in fostering an inclusive and equitable education system.
It is essential that schools prioritize special educators’ well-being by supporting and implementing targeted self-care strategies to sustain their passion and dedication. This approach not only safeguards the mental and emotional health of educators but also enriches the educational experience for students with disabilities, ultimately contributing to the development of a stronger and more compassionate society.
●●●
Sudha Krishnan is an assistant professor at San Jose State University’s special education department, Lurie College of Education,and a Public Voice Fellow with the OpEd Project.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
And if you thought 2023 was a downer, just wait for …
“Hold on,” ever-wise Ms. Fensters interrupted. “Why would anyone read a New Year predictions column if you make them feel like jumping back in bed and pulling the covers over their head for the next 362 days?”
She’s right.
Let’s celebrate the dawn of the new year before wading into the swamp that will be 2024.
How’D you Do betting on 2023?
My predictions for 2023 were like my singing: off-key but not terrible.
I said third-grade English language test scores would plunge. They were stagnant.
I predicted strikes in a half-dozen districts: Teachers struck in LA, Oakland and Rohnert Park Cotati Unified, and settled within hours of hitting picket lines in San Francisco and Fresno.
I said that members of the new California College Corps, which pays college students to do community work, would become a legion of elementary school reading tutors. It was wise advice couched as a prediction, which Gov. Newsom ignored. (It’s still a good idea.)
If you kept your own scorecard, go here to compare your results. If not, grab a pencil and paper and bet your fensters for 2024. They’re redeemable with S&H Green Stamps at your local Mervyn’s.
Arts on the rise
School attendance will soar, and students will master the math of music in triads and quarter tones in districts like Manteca Unified in San Joaquin County, which will get about $3.8 million in new funding from Proposition 28. That’s the $1 billion ballot initiative, Arts and Music in Schools — Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act, that voters passed in 2022. Manteca, known for its quality bands and providing instruments to all who need them, will be better positioned than many districts. Most others will struggle to fill arts, dance and music jobs, at least initially.
Chances that arts will flourish in districts like 24,000-student Manteca Unified:
A note of caution: Under the terms of the new law, districts must use Proposition 28 to expand, not replace, existing arts funding. Eagle-eyed arts protectors will be watching how administrators move the Proposition 28 pea in the budget shells.
Chances that Create CA or other advocates will file a complaint with the California Department of Education against a district suspected of using Proposition 28 money to supplant, not supplement, its arts budget:
Now, brace yourselves for the dark side of the moon.
The state budget
Within days, Gov. Gavin Newsom will release his first pass at the 2024-25 budget, but Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek offered his gloomy forecast last month: a three-year projected state general fund deficit of $68 billion; between $16 billion and $18 billion would be in Proposition 98, the formula determining how much funding goes to TK-12 and community colleges.
Draining the state’s rainy-day fund for education and picking away at budgeted but unspent funding, perhaps for buying electric school buses and creating hundreds more community schools, could halve the problem. School lobbies will demand that legislators hold districts and community schools harmless and cut elsewhere in the state budget — to which UC President Michael Drake will reply, “You lookin’ at me?”
A likely compromise: Pay what the Legislature appropriated for 2023-24 but dust off a Great Recession strategy. Do what your boss does when he can’t make payroll but doesn’t want to lay you off: issue you IOUs. In edu-speak, they’re “deferrals” — and would involve pushing back state payments to districts scheduled for May and June 2024 into July, August or later in the next fiscal year. It’s not a painless tactic: Districts without cash on hand will have to borrow. And the money will have to be paid back, potentially eating into future levels of Proposition 98 funding.
Chances that the Legislature will impose billions in deferrals in the 2024-25 budget:
It gets worse
Schooldistricts have known the reckoning was coming. Called “the fiscal cliff,” it combines the expiration of billions in federal Covid relief, declining enrollment in nearly three-quarters of districts, and a leveling off from record state funding. What they hadn’t anticipated is a projected 1% cost of living increase, based on a federal formula that this year will disadvantage California; this compares with 8% in 2022-23 and 13% the year before that.
For districts like San Francisco Unified that negotiated sizable raises and over-hired with one-time funding, budget pressures will be intense to close underenrolled schools — never a popular decision — and lay off staff. Dozens of districts will suddenly find themselves on the state’s financial watch list.
Chances that by the March 15 notification deadline, 15,000 teachers and 10,000 classified employees, many hired with expiring federal funding, will get pink slips (the final number of layoffs will be less):
Chances that the number of districts with a financial rating of negative or qualified by FCMAT, the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, will at least quintuple from a low of 13 districts in April 2023 to more than 65 in April 2024:
Chances that San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles will close underenrolled schools, notwithstanding common sense:
PODCAST
What’s in store for California education in 2024?
JANUARY 11, 2023
State facilities bond
The state has run out of money to subsidize the costs of new school construction and renovations; billions of dollars’ worth of districts’ projects are in the pipeline. Covid, last year’s floods and sweltering temperatures — signals of climate change — exposed the need for retrofits to meet 21st-century conditions. But the first-ever defeat of the last state bond proposal, in March 2020, proved school advocates shouldn’t take voters for granted. Was the $15 billion price tag too big? Should funding for CSU and UC be included? There will be lots of polling to answer those questions.
Chances that a school construction bond will be on the ballot in November:
Chances that it will pass:
Toil and trouble
The odds are five fensters that the fight over library books and the backlash against transgender protections in reddish districts will embroil voters statewide in 2024. Suppose school choice and religious conservatives succeed in passing the initiatives they’re aiming to place on the ballot. In that case, progressive California voters will awake with a fright on Nov. 6, wondering if they’re living in Kansas.
Proposed for November vote
Private school choice: Pushed by the coalition Californians for School Choice, the initiative would create voucher-like education savings accounts equal to the average Proposition 98 per student funding, initially $14,000, that families could use to send their kids to private schools, including religious schools currently prohibited by the state constitution from receiving public money. Home-schools with 10 or more students could form a private school for funding, too. State oversight would be minimal. Subsidies for families already paying for private schools would cost the state $6.3 billion to $10 billion per year by diverting money from Proposition 98, the Legislative Analyst estimates.
In 2002, voters rejected a voucher initiative 70% to 30%. Capitalizing on unhappiness with schooling during Covid-19, this initiative will do better, but defenders of public schools, starting with the CTA, will hugely outspend the proponents.
Because the initiative would amend the state constitution, organizers would need to collect 874,641 signatures.
Chances that the initiative will make the ballot:
Chances, if it does make the ballot, that it will lose while getting 40% of the vote:
School Transparency and Partnership Actaka Outing Trans Kids Act.Unable to get traction in the Legislature, the parent activist group Protect Kids California, co-founded by Roseville City Elementary School District board member Jonathan Zachreson, is canvassing for the 546,651 signatures required for the initiative. It would require schools to notify parents within three days if a student asks to be treated as a gender other than listed in official school records. This would include requesting a name change, a different gender pronoun, participation in an activity using a different gender, or changing clothes identifying as a different gender.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Protect Girls’ Sports and Spaces Act, also collecting 546,651 signatures, is the second of three related initiatives proposed by Protect Kids California. It would repeal the 2013 state law allowing students to participate in school activities and use school facilities consistent with their gender identity. Biologically born male students in grades seven and higher in public schools and colleges identifying as females would be banned from participating in female sports or using bathrooms and locker rooms assigned to females based on their birth gender.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act, aka Parental Control Unless We Say So Act. California, which has been a sanctuary for families seeking medical care for transgender youths, will join the nearly two dozen states that ban transgender care if this initiative, the third transgender-restriction initiative pushed by Protect Kids California, passes. It would ban health care providers from giving medical care to patients under 18 seeking to change their gender identity. It would prohibit that treatment even if parents consent or doctors recommend it for the minor’s mental or physical well-being.
Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:
Chances the initiative will be approved:
Eyes of the storm
Recall elections of school board members in two districts will serve as a gauge of whether activist conservative majorities represent a fringe minority or the will of the majority.
Longtime Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma and newly elected board member Madison Miner angered opponents by voting with two other conservatives to fire a respected superintendent on Jan. 5 during winter break without citing a cause. In October, the board became the sixth in the state to adopt a transgender notification policy.
Chances that Orange Unified voters will oust Ledesma in the March 5 vote:
A three-member majority in Temecula Valley Unified adopted a similar playbook this year, including firing its superintendent. A political action committee of voters appears to have turned in more than enough signatures to recall board President Joseph Komrosky, their primary target, but not enough to oust Jennifer Wiersma. In July, the board stirred the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom by rejecting a sixth-grade textbook that included a passage about gay activist Harvey Milk, whom Komrosky characterized as a pedophile. The third conservative, Danny Gonzalez, resigned in December to move out of state. In his last board meeting, he lashed out at opponents, including board member Stephen Schwartz, whom he accused of showing “vile contempt for Christians.” Schwartz is Jewish.
The outcome of the recall would be a measure of the power of the Evangelical 412 Church Temecula Valley and its pastor, Tim Thompson, who has been outspoken in defense of the board majority.
Chances that Temecula Valley voters will oust Komrosky later this year:
Etc.
California Personal Finance Education Act, aka “Why You Should Tear Up That 20th Credit Card Offer Act.” Pushed by Palo Alto entrepreneur Tim Ranzetta, who’s been proselytizing for teaching students personal finance through a nonprofit he co-founded, the initiative would require a semester of personal finance as a graduation requirement, starting with the graduating class of 2030. California would join about two dozen states with or phasing in the requirement.
Chances that it will make the ballot in November:
Chances that voters will approve it, despite some misgivings about mandating yet another graduation requirement:
Early literacy
In late December, a new alliance of advocates calling for the state to take a clearer and more resolute policy on early literacy published an early literacy policy brief with the expectation that it would lead to legislation in 2024. The California Early Literacy Coalition includes Decoding Dyslexia CA, 21st Century Alliance, Families in Schools, California Reading Coalition and the rejuvenated nonprofit EdVoice.
Among its positions, the coalition calls for:
Directing the California Department of Education to create a list of approved professional development courses grounded in the science of reading that districts and educators can select.
Requiring all teachers and reading coaches in elementary schools to complete training from the approved course list.
Providing help to schools and districts as they adopt the science of reading-aligned instructional materials.
The state, under Newsom, supports the science of reading approach to reading and, in piecemeal fashion, is partially funding some of what the coalition advocates. The difference is that a comprehensive policy would mandate what the administration has only encouraged.
Chances that a prominent legislator will sponsor the bill and that it will be one of the most discussed non-budget bills of the session:
Passage likely will take more than a year of effort and perhaps await the election of a new governor and state superintendent of public instruction willing to challenge the reflexive defense of local control on this issue.
Chances that comprehensive legislation will be signed into law in 2024:
Extra challenges for charter schools
Along with challenges facing all school districts, the state’s 1,300 charter schools will face added pressures. Many are in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where enrollment declines for districts and charter schools are largest. Tensions between them could escalate if funding-desperate districts deny charters fair access to school facilities, as the school board majority of Los Angeles Unified voted to do last year.
A pre-pandemic reform law allowing school districts to factor in financial impact when deciding to grant a new charter school will thwart growth and expansion, and the 2024-25 resumption of the charter renewal process, using problematic post-pandemic performance measures, could compound charters’ troubles. The result: Some financially fragile charters will close; the weakest performers will be shut down.
Chances that the number of charter schools in California operating in fall 2024 will drop by at least 30 schools.
One area in which legislators, charters and districts should agree is new accountability requirements for non-classroom-based charter schools that offer virtual schools or hybrid models combining home-schooling and classrooms. They’ve become more popular with families and been more prone to scams. In the two most egregious cases, A3 and Inspire charter networks, self-serving operators double-billed, falsified attendance records, and funneled funding to shell operations, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars.
San Diego County prosecutors, who convicted A3’s executives in 2019, have expressed frustration that it has taken so long to enact remedies. Three separate task forces will present findings by June.
Chances that the Legislature will pass non-classroom-based accountability reforms this year:
Worth every penny?
EdSource reporter Diana Lambert calculated that pay for superintendents in some of the state’s districts had increased by 60% in the past decade; it’s a tough job, and these days, not too many appear to want it.
Including benefits, Christopher Hoffman of Elk Grove and Alberto Carvalho of Los Angeles Unified, respectively the state’s fifth-largest and the largest districts, earn over $500,000 per year. That’s hardly chump change, but then again, Dodger pitcher and hitter extraordinaire Shohei Ohtani signed a 10-year contract for $700 million, an average of $70 million per year.
Carvalho could argue he’s certainly worth at least 1% as much: $700,000. After all, he oversees a $20 billion budget. But with declining enrollment and layoffs likely, this is not the year to swing for the fences.
Chances Carvalho or any superintendent among the 10 largest districts will receive a 7% raise this year:
The anti-anti-tax initiatives
The Business Roundtable and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, carrying the torch of Proposition 13, have placed an initiative on the November ballot to make it harder to pass state tax increases. It would redefine a number of state-imposed fees as taxes, therefore requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to pass and require all future taxes or increases approved by the Legislature to go before the general electorate for approval. It also would nullify a recent state court ruling that school parcel taxes initiated by citizens, not by school boards, need only a majority of voters to pass — instead of the standard two-thirds.
In a shrewd counter-move to head it off, legislators, mostly Democrats, voted to place a competing constitutional amendment on the November ballot. It says that any initiative that raises the voter threshold for passing taxes would need the support of two-thirds of voters, not just a simple majority, to be enacted. It’s explicitly aimed at making it less likely the Business Roundtable initiative will pass.
Chances that voters will be as confused as I am by this chess match and wonder what will happen if they both pass:
Thanks for reading the column. One more toast to 2024!
Correction: An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma denigrated gay activist Harvey Milk. The comment was made by Joseph Komrosky, president of the Temecula Valley Unified board.
A teacher shows 12th grade students how to construct a small animal house.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
Ina Gutierrez lives for the opera. She has a master’s degree in classical voice as well as a decade of singing and performance under her belt.
She tapped into that lifelong passion to teach music and choir to fourth and fifth graders for two years in Kern County using emergency credentials, and she loved every minute of it but had to stop teaching once that credential ran out.
She now often works as an adjunct professor at CSU Bakersfield, where she teaches “Music in the Classroom,” a class that shows teachers how to share music with children. Gutierrez feels frustrated that she is qualified to show teachers how to teach but can’t teach actual students. She attempted to get a Career Technical Education credential for music but was told she couldn’t use it for elementary school teaching. That broke her heart.
“I would love to be teaching children music,” said Gutierrez, a 38-year-old mother of two who lives in Bakersfield. “Art is so important for children to experience, especially music. It is unique because it simultaneously builds independence and community. In a world where children are playing less outside and addicted to screens, having music in schools shouldn’t be a luxury. It’s vital in building a more compassionate, caring and happy society.”
While many arts education advocates are championing the use of the CTE credential as the state struggles to attract new staff to teach the arts in the wake of Proposition 28, the state’s historic arts mandate, there’s a big hitch for those who want to teach elementary students. It was originally designed for use at the secondary level because it is employment-oriented.
Basically, unless the class has a clear career-based element, like a fifth grade broadcasting class, candidates like Gutierrez might get rejected. Many districts will only greenlight CTE holders to teach middle school, junior high and high school. That’s why some arts education advocates are pushing for reform.
“The CTC language, unfortunately, is from the Eisenhower era when boys took shop, girls took home economics and nobody thought about ‘jobs’ or ‘careers’ until spring of their senior year in high school,” says Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “In today’s world, all of this is career-related, and it starts in elementary school.”
Given the state’s teacher shortage and the heightened need for art educators in light of Proposition 28, some are losing patience with the bureaucratic hoops aspiring arts teachers must jump through.
“It is frustrating to see good, qualified individuals being rejected from teaching due to complex bureaucracy,” said Gutierrez’s husband, Greg, who comes from a long line of teachers. “In order for California to fix the teacher shortage, this problem needs to be addressed. We need a process that is easy for potential teachers to work through.”
Bob Woods-LaDue, Gutierrez’s brother-in-law, has hit the same obstacle. He was told he had to get his music class reclassified as a technical class to be eligible to use the CTE credential.
“I can’t help but wonder how many teachers are in an uphill battle that don’t know how to advocate for themselves in the credentialing process, and getting different answers from different people,” Greg said. “It doesn’t seem like an encouraging environment based on his experience thus far and my wife’s similar experience.”
Beutner, for one, is pushing to have the system streamlined so that there are fewer roadblocks for teachers who are dedicated to bringing the arts into elementary classrooms as well as secondary ones.
“Change is hard, but it has to happen,” he said. “California schools will need to hire about 15,000 additional arts teachers to fully implement Prop. 28. Half of the teachers will be needed in elementary schools. There are nowhere near enough traditionally credentialed arts teachers to fill that need.”
Some experts warn that teaching elementary requires a different skill set than secondary. That’s one drawback in widening CTE credential usage, they say.
“I am not sure about broadening it,” said Eric Engdahl, professor emeritus at CSU East Bay and past president of the California Council on Teacher Education. “While it could be a stopgap to fill the arts teaching shortage, are the people teaching it with substantial industry experience appropriate to be teaching at an elementary level given the developmental differences in learning?”
Some working artists may need to bone up on educational best practices before entering the classroom, and Buetner suggests professional development be provided.
“A concern some may have is whether a CTE teacher, even with their content mastery, is ready to be in a classroom with third graders,” Beutner said. “A sensible approach would be to build in some guardrails, maybe a CTE teacher in elementary needs to work alongside a grade level teacher for a semester while participating in a certain set of CTE professional development courses.”
For many, teaching the arts is a dream gig, a way to enrich lives as well as stimulate higher levels of critical thinking in a generation hard hit by pandemic-related learning loss.
“Music is an amazing way to bring that joy to students, invite creativity to the classroom and build connections between students as well as teacher to student,” said Gutierrez. “It is in an environment like this that students can and will learn better. I love music for music’s sake, but music is a great tool to incorporate in teaching language arts, math, science and history.”
While the CTE program has long been associated with trades and vocations such as auto repair, plumbing, and culinary arts, it can also be a viable pathway to becoming an arts educator. Other routes include being a traditionally credentialed arts teacher or a classified staff member, although that role commands lower pay.
One of the key CTE pathways lets artists with considerable experience in their field, from dance and digital arts to jazz, use that expertise in the classroom. They must have three years of work experience directly related to each industry sector named on the credential and meet other administrative requirements.
“The CTE credential allows people who have 1,000 hours of experience in the field to come into teaching, bring all that experience, that wisdom that they’ve got,” said Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the California State Board of Education, during a recent arts ed conference at UCLA. “We hope many, many artists will come in and secure the credential.”
One big upside to the CTE credential is that, unlike teaching artists who need a credentialed teacher to remain in the classroom while they teach, CTE teachers can fly solo. That frees the classroom teacher up, creating time to work one-on-one with students, email parents back and meet with colleagues.
“When CTE teachers are teaching a course, then the regular classroom teacher can be doing other things,” said Darling-Hammond. “Our staff are stretched very thin. So we want to use this as a win-win for students and for staff in all of our schools.”
The greater accessibility of the CTE route, its fewer barriers to entry, may also invite a more diverse range of teachers than more traditional pathways, experts say.
“Let’s roll up our sleeves and bring the CTE standards into the 21st century,” said Beutner. “The alternative is millions of students in elementary schools across California will not have the chance to participate in arts and music.”
Preschool children learn to express themselves through painting.
Credit: Courtesy of Daniel Mendoza
Amid a national reckoning over learning loss and chronic absenteeism deepened by the pandemic, arts education may be one of the keys to boosting children’s engagement in school, research suggests. Like sports, the arts can spark the kind of excitement that makes students, and their families, look forward to coming to school.
Devotees of the arts have long argued that art transforms us, but in recent years, neuroscience has shown just how beneficial arts education can be for children. Music, for instance, can buttress the architecture of the growing brain. Theater classes teach empathy, history and literacy all by putting on a show. Creativity, storytelling and the spirit of play ignite learning, effortlessly building the memory and concentration that academic rigor demands.
Low-income children often see the biggest gains. That’s why making arts education accessible to all is the thrust of Proposition 28, the state’s historic arts mandate, which voters approved in 2022. Spearheaded by former Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner, the initiative began doling out money to schools last year.
However, the groundbreaking program has run into several significant hurdles during its rollout, including a deep teacher shortage, widespread confusion about spending rules and pointed disagreements about how to interpret the law. Arts advocates are scrutinizing district arts budgets, and some are pushing for a state audit of the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has been accused of misspending funds in an ongoing lawsuit filed by families and Beutner.
What do students learn from the arts?
The lessons of arts education are vast, from creativity to cognitive boosts. That’s why it has always been part of a classical education. From the arts, children learn focus, discipline and teamwork in addition to how to sharpen their own sense of voice and ingenuity, vital skills in a future likely dominated by artificial intelligence (AI). Originality is essentially a human gift, one that machines can only imitate.
While each school has been tapped to choose the kind of arts education that best suits its community, the California Department of Education (CDE) is leading the implementation of the initiative. CDE has provided guidance in FAQs and webinars to help districts navigate the rules. Questions can be emailed to Prop28@cde.ca.gov.
How much money do schools get?
Funding, which gets funneled through the district, is variable depending on the size of the school and the number of Title 1, low-income students there. The money is ongoing, and school districts have up to three years to spend each allocation. Disbursements began to land in February 2024.
What is the money supposed to pay for?
Arts disciplines are broadly defined, from dance to digital arts, and schools are encouraged to tailor the program to the shifting needs of students over time. However, most of the funding is intended to pay for arts teachers. In general, at least 80% of the funds are for school staffers, certified or classified employees, to provide arts education. Up to 20% is for arts education support, including training, supplies, materials and arts partnerships. No more than 1% of total funds may go to administrative costs.
Is there a waiver from the spending rules?
The CDE may provide a waiver to school districts for “good cause” if the 80/20 rule cannot be followed. Waiver requests must include a problem statement, framing the waiver as a proposed solution to the problem. Reasons for a waiver may include a need to purchase costly supplies or equipment, such as buying musical instruments for an orchestra, or the need to contract with an arts partner due to an inability to hire qualified staff. Thus far, 2.4% of school districts have requested a waiver for 2024-25 spending, according to the CDE, down from 8.2% for 2023-24.
Can you pay for existing arts programs with the new money?
No. Prop. 28 money must “supplement” and not “supplant” funding for arts education. For example, if you spent $1 million on arts education in the 2022-23 school year, you were expected to spend $1 million plus your Prop. 28 money in the 2023-24 school year (the first year Prop. 28 funds were available).
However, allegations of supplanting funds have arisen across the state as arts teachers watch new Prop. 28 funds being used to pay for existing programs. There are also disagreements on whether the litmus test on spending applies to districts as a whole or school by school.
What are the main issues in the Los Angeles Unified lawsuit?
The core issue is paying for old programs with new money. Beutner, the author of the law, maintains that each individual school should offer more arts than before, while Los Angeles Unified officials have argued that spending is measured at the district level. Student plaintiffs and Beutner have filed a lawsuit against LAUSD, alleging misuse of funds. State education officials have avoided taking sides in the matter, but CDE auditing rules suggest that compliance is determined at the district level. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, has called for a state audit of LAUSD’s use of Prop. 28 funds.
What are the biggest challenges facing Prop. 28?
The challenges of this rollout are myriad. Thorny issues include finding staff amid a teacher shortage, interpreting complicated rules and finding the time and space to hold extra classes. Schools without a Visual and Performing Arts coordinator often struggle with planning, experts say, and many have put off spending the money due to a lack of clarity on the spending rules and a lack of knowledge about the arts in general. While many school districts have reported they did not use the funds in the first year of Prop. 28 funding, according to some estimates, the window to tap into the funds is three years. Next year will be crunch time on assessing how comprehensively California schools are able to expand arts education.
What should parents know?
Ask your principal how the Prop. 28 money is being spent and share your ideas on what artistic disciplines would best fit your community. Remember that arts education is a very broad landscape, from dance to digital arts. If there has been no increased access to arts education, that could be a red flag.
Are adults shaped by childhood exposure to arts education?
Early music training may impart a lifelong neuroplasticity that helps keep the brain sharp even as it ages. A 65-year-old musician has the neural activity of a 25-year-old non-musician, experts say. A 65-year-old who played music as a child but hasn’t touched an instrument in ages has neural responses faster than a peer who never played music.
In 2008, when I served as a deputy superintendent at the California Department of Education, two district superintendents approached me with a simple ask: permission to innovate.
They had a plan to partner on student improvement and needed clarity — not funding or new mandates, just flexibility to act.
They submitted a waiver request, believing state law blocked their approach. Three months later, the department’s legal review found they didn’t need a waiver after all. It turned out they had the authority to do everything they wanted to do.
That sounds like a win, but it’s the opposite. If it takes a team of state experts three months to determine what’s allowed, how are district leaders and classroom teachers supposed to navigate this system in real time?
Since then, California’s Education Code has only grown. It now exceeds 3,000 pages. What was once rigid has become nearly impenetrable, and the weight of that complexity falls squarely on educators and students. When every decision is shaped by compliance, teachers have less space to use their professional judgment or respond to student needs. School leaders spend countless hours managing regulatory requirements instead of building responsive, student-centered programs. We need a system that trusts educators to lead.
This isn’t just an administrative issue. It’s a design flaw. Years and years of well-meaning regulations that may have made sense at the time, many of which I played a role in creating, have created a patchwork of incoherence, too often equating oversight with accountability. As Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson write in their book “Abundance,” government “needs to justify itself not through the rules it follows but through the outcomes it delivers.” Jennifer Pahlka drives the point home in her “Recoding America”: We’ve become better at writing rules than achieving outcomes.
And still, outcomes lag. California has one of the most complex education codes in the country, but that complexity hasn’t translated into better results. Interestingly, the states with the largest education codes aren’t the ones with the strongest student outcomes. Take Massachusetts. It consistently outperforms California on national benchmarks, yet it operates without a formal education code, relying instead on a set of general laws and streamlined regulations.
Meanwhile, California’s code still includes Cold War-era relics like a ban on teaching communism “with the intent to indoctrinate” (§51530) and mandates around toilet paper stock in restrooms (§35292.5) and requirements that school plans include strategies for providing shade (§35294.6). These aren’t metaphors — they’re actual statutes. In trying to regulate everything, we’ve built a system that too often enables nothing.
This isn’t just about outdated rules — it’s about outdated infrastructure and governance. Over the last several decades, as California took on a greater role in funding and overseeing schools, it never fully built the governance system needed to support that shift. Instead of redesigning, we layered. To provide support for districts, we created the California Department of Education (CDE), then county offices, and then the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE). Each was created to fill a gap the last one couldn’t. None were really designed to work together. And now, we’re stuck with a 1950s-era structure trying to serve 21st century needs.
There’s a way forward. In the 1990s, while I was working in the Clinton administration, Congress faced a similar problem: Everyone agreed the U.S. had too many outdated military bases, but no member of Congress would vote to close their own. The solution was the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) — an independent, time-limited body created by Congress that recommended a package of closures back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. It worked. BRAC cut 21% of domestic bases, streamlined operations and is widely regarded as a major success.
California should create an Education Code Review Commission modeled on the BRAC approach. A diverse group of educators, parents, students, and experts would review the full code, incorporate best practices from research and other states, and recommend a new governance structure and streamlined replacement. The Legislature would retain authority but vote on the whole package rather than amending it piece by piece.
This isn’t about trimming at the margins. It’s a reset. One that gives educators clarity, restores professional trust, and builds a framework for student success. Governance is about choices. In trying to solve every societal problem — many of them important — California’s Education Code has lost sight of its core purpose: helping schools teach and students learn.
This is a call for coherence — not to abandon standards and accountability. Teachers and students deserve a system that encourages bold, thoughtful leadership — and California should deliver.
•••
Rick Miller is a partner with Capitol Impact, a consulting firm that partners with educational institutions, governments and other entities to achieve meaningful impact in the social sector. He served as a deputy state superintendent at the California Department of Education from 2002-2010 and as the press secretary at the U.S. Department of Education from 1993-1998.
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.
The first sentence was updated to correct the year mentioned. It was 2008, not 2015.
