National University President Mark D. Milliron, right,,congratulates a graduating student at the university’s 2023 commencement.
Courtesy: National University
In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision to end race-conscious college admissions, the predicted impact has become a troubling reality. Many selective universities are reporting significant decreases in Black student enrollment this fall. This latest development continues a broader trend of declining Black postsecondary enrollment, which since 2010 has fallen at all U.S. colleges by nearly 30%.
These dire enrollment reports are emerging now as a growing number of states are eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and services — and just four years after a nationwide reckoning on racial injustice. Whether colleges have become even more exclusive or if Black students are turning away from higher education, the results are the same: Our nation’s colleges and universities are becoming less diverse — and yet another barrier has been erected on the road toward increasing the number of Americans able to go to and graduate from college.
Despite bleak national trend lines, the state of California has just enacted a creative policy solution that will shine a spotlight on institutions that excel in educating and serving Black students. Senate Bill 1348, also known as the “Designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Act,” creates a state-level designation (BSI) to recognize the state’s public and independent colleges and universities where at least 10% or 1,500 students are Black.
The BSI designation is not just about enrollment numbers. It requires institutions to commit to providing essential services and resources to foster Black students’ academic success and meet their basic needs. For this reason, this proposal is a sound and logical policy prescription for California, which has the country’s fifth-largest population of Black people. It’s also a legislative innovation that other state and national policymakers should consider as American higher education is struggling to close completion and equity gaps and college demographics continue to grow more diverse.
The BSI concept draws inspiration from the success of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) — postsecondary institutions established before 1965 with the principal mission of educating African or Black Americans. Today, the nation’s 107 HBCUs have an impressive track record. They have graduated 40% of the nation’s Black engineers, 50% of America’s black lawyers and 80% of Black judges. Perhaps more than any other institution in this country, HBCUs have helped create economic and social mobility for millions of Black Americans.
However, most HBCUs are at least 75 years old — the majority were established in the 19th century — and are rarely found outside the South. For newer colleges and universities outside the South that serve diverse populations, a BSI designation would strengthen institutions and communities in multiple ways. It would offer a state seal of approval to institutions that are committed to serving Black students and willing to hold themselves accountable for the results. It also would help policymakers identify colleges and universities to receive targeted financial support and other resources.
This shift is particularly relevant given the changing demographics of today’s college students. Nontraditional, working and military students are fast becoming the norm. A third of today’s undergraduates are 25 or older. A quarter of them are raising children. About 40% of full-time students — and three-quarters of part-time students — are working while they’re in school. Because so many students are older, working full-time or raising families, it’s essential that institutions adapt to this new reality by offering flexible schedules, stackable credentials and comprehensive support services.
The BSI designation could be a valuable tool for states beyond California. In states with substantial Black populations but few or no HBCUs (California has just one HBCU, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science), it could help increase college access, improve completion rates and build a more skilled and educated workforce to fuel economic growth.
California’s proposal to recognize Black-serving institutions is a necessary — and long overdue — step toward acknowledging their critical role in reversing the decline in Black student enrollment and increasing access to higher education for historically underserved communities. Just as HBCUs have broadened access to education, California’s Black-serving institutions bill will reward colleges and universities statewide that are doing the vital work of serving the underserved students our economy and society need.
By investing in institutions committed to supporting Black students and other underserved groups, states can help foster stronger, more inclusive colleges and universities. Ensuring that more Black learners are on track to access and complete higher education will help California and other states produce the talented and inclusive workforce they need to compete in today’s fast-changing economy.
•••
Mark D. Milliron, Ph.D,is president, National University, a nonprofit private university based in San Diego with campuses across California as well as online. Thomas Stewart, Ph.D, is executive vice president and co-chair of the Social Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Council, National University.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
In 1994, I was the press secretary for the U.S. Department of Education when Republicans took over Congress and threatened to shut us down. My then boss, Secretary Dick Riley, would joke in almost every speech he gave that each morning his wife would open the newspaper and say, “Hey! looks like they’re trying to fire you again!” He regularly talked about it because it quickly became clear to us that people deeply believed in the Education Department’s mission and that the threats against us were bad politics.
I was thinking of this when I watched Donald Trump’s 10-point plan for education. I was struck by its contradictory nature of wanting to dismantle federal involvement in schools, while simultaneously trying to dictate curriculum and impose ideological policies. The department was established in 1979 to ensure resources were being spent on our nation’s poorest children.
Now, three decades after my time at the department, the same battle is resurfacing with a new twist. At its heart, what Trump’s really proposing is a hollowing out of the department’s founding mission — not a true decentralization of power to states, but a reimagining of federal oversight as a tool for ideological control instead of a protection for our nation’s most vulnerable.
But here’s the paradox: Without a Department of Education and federal resources, there’s less leverage to enforce his ideological agenda. As a result, we may be in a bizarre quandary of having to choose between these two opposite visions. Given the choice between a Department of Education that no longer champions equity and no department at all, perhaps it’s time to consider the latter.
The plan, as I understand it, is to move higher ed funding (Pell Grants and student loans) and education research to other agencies while providing equity-driven K-12 federal funds as block grants to be spent however states want.
In California, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) ensures that schools serving students with the greatest needs — low-income students, English learners and foster youth — receive additional resources. With LCFF, we’ve built a system that both works and meets this moment (though we may also need to codify our clear commitment to special education). As someone who has spent decades in education policy, I don’t say this lightly — in fact, it breaks my heart. But this moment calls for different thinking. The U.S. Department of Education has been a force for good in countless lives. But it should not stand if it’s dictated by ideological agendas. Quality education for all children must remain our North Star in California, because when we center our most vulnerable students, we all succeed.
•••
Rick Miller is the CEO of CORE Districts, a collaboration of nine large California urban districts. He previously served as press secretary for the U.S. Department of Education and as deputy state superintendent at the California Department of Education.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Linda McMahon, former administrator of Small Business Administration, speaking during the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee.
Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of a close ally and the co-chair of his transition team indicates that education could be a major priority of his administration, even though it did not feature prominently in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The institute has issued a detailed education policy agenda that is likely to serve as a guide for McMahon, and the Trump administration in general, should she be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
For those reading the political tea leaves, it was notable that in nominating McMahon, Trump did not explicitly charge her with shutting down the U.S. Department of Education, and that the agenda of the America First Policy Institute does not call for it either. Instead, Trump called on her “to spearhead efforts to send education back to the states” an expansive and undefined charge, especially because by law education is already mostly a state and local function.
Regardless of the fate of the department, the contrast between President Joe Biden’s and Trump’s education agendas — and between McMahon and current Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona — could not be wider.
Cardona is a lifelong educator, becoming secretary after a career as a teacher, principal, district administrator, and state commissioner of education. McMahon spent most of her career building the WWE, founded with her husband, Vince McMahon.
Cardona’s net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine to be $1 million, most of it tied up in his principal residence, retirement savings, and a 529 college savings account for his children. By contrast, Forbes places McMahon and her husband’s net worth at $2.5 billion.
The only thing they seem to have in common is that they are both from Connecticut.
But even though McMahon has a slim resume regarding education, she is not entirely an education neophyte. She studied to become a French teacher in college. She has been a trustee of Sacred Heart College, a Catholic college in Fairfield, Connecticut, for years. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education in 2009, although she left after a year to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and again in 2012 — both times unsuccessfully.
McMahon is more of a traditional conservative Republican than several of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees. In some ways, she is more similar to Betsy DeVos, another billionaire, who was Trump’s first secretary of education. But unlike DeVos, she has had experience in government, as head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term.
In 2019, she left that post, not under a cloud or fleeing vitriol from Trump like many others in his administration, to head the America First PAC, which raised funds for Trump’s re-election bid in 2020.
On the explosive issue of “school choice,” publicly, at least, she has mostly called for expanding charter schools, rather than taxpayer-funded vouchers. “I am an advocate for choice through charter schools,” she declared in her 2010 campaign for Senate.
She also has some bipartisan instincts, even getting support from the Democratic senators she had previously runagainst, when they had to approve her nomination to head the Small Business Administration. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called her “a person of serious accomplishment and ability,” and Sen. Chris Murphy described her as a “talented and experienced businessperson.”
As SBA administrator, she drew high praise from some Democrats for increasing loans to women-owned businesses, and for making the agency more efficient, including from then-Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneur Committee.
Another sign of her bipartisan inclinations came in a September commentary in The Hill newspaper, when she argued for a radical revision of the Pell Grant, the main form of federal student financial aid.
While most Pell grants go to full-time students, McMahon argued that the grant should also be available to students enrolled in “high-quality, shorter-term, industry-aligned education programs that could lead to immediate employment in well-paying jobs.”
To that end, she endorsed a bill known as the Workforce Pell Act, sponsored by lawmakers usually on far opposite sides of the political aisle — Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., Bobby Scott, D-Va.
Arguably one of her key qualifications is that she and Trump have a positive relationship. Unlike many who served in his first administration and left reviled by their former boss, when she stepped down as SBA administrator, Trump praised her as a “superstar.” “Just so smooth,” he said. “She’s been one of our all-time favorites.”
But her most important credential may well be her role as chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute, which she helped start.
Its 150-person staff includes well-known Trump staffers like Kellyanne Conway and its executive director, Chad Wolf, the former secretary of homeland security. Pam Bondi, the head of the institute’s legal arm, was just nominated by Trump to be attorney general in place of Matt Gaetz, who withdrew his nomination.
Like Project 2025, the conservative blueprint issued by the Heritage Foundation, which Trump has disavowed and says he had no role in crafting, the America First Policy Institute has also drawn up a similar detailed policy framework, including one on education. Yet the institute has not done much to publicize its proposals, which Trump has reportedly appreciated.
The institute draws a sharp contrast between its “America First” polices and what it calls “America Last” policies championed by Democrats.
“America Last” policies, it argues, “prioritize radical ideologies and failing public schools.” These include promoting “transgenderism” and “radical ideologies over core subjects,” while fighting “school choice expansion,” and parent notification policies regarding curriculum and gender identification.
The institute calls for reinstating Trump’s 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic civic education” and removing critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion from what it alleges are requirements for federal grants.
And instead of supporting “leftist teachers unions” and teacher tenure, it advocates for “reduced union influence, and increasing flexibility in hiring and firing.”
For these and other reasons, it is to be expected that key education groups would oppose McMahon’s nomination.
“Rather than working to strengthen public schools, expand learning opportunities for students, and support educators, McMahon’s only mission is to eliminate the Department of Education and take away taxpayer dollars from public schools,” said President Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the U.S.
But for conservatives like Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, McMahon is an unknown quantity when it comes to education, and he made a pitch for approaching her nomination with an open mind. “I’m looking forward to learning more about her views and approach to the role in the weeks to come,” he said. “I’d avoid gross assumptions based on biography. Those seeking reflexive celebration or condemnation should look elsewhere. “
Controversy has already surfaced about her nomination. Media reports point to an October lawsuit in Maryland alleging McMahon and her husband failed to stop a prominent WWE ringside announcer in the 1980s and 1990s from sexually abusing 12- and 13-year-olds known as “ring boys” who were hired to do errands in preparation for wrestling matches.
What is still an open question is whether Trump will move to eliminate the Department of Education, or how aggressively he will do so. His administration may decide that it is more important to keep the department intact for any number of reasons, including transforming its influential Office of Civil Rights into a weapon to impose his education agenda onto states or schools.
And it is possible that McMahon will continue to voice her praise for teachers, and for public schools, including charter schools. “We have a very good system of public and private schools,” she said in an interview a decade ago. “I’ve watched some masterful teachers who are innovative and who are reaching kids who are below grade level in many of the subjects. To see how they get turned around is heartwarming and astounding.”
A student in Oakland’s Skyline High School Education and Community Health Pathway sculpts a clay model of the endocrine system.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
It’s time to balance out our lopsided education system. Millions of parents and students have long struggled with our one-size-fits-all model, which primarily teaches to, tests for and celebrates students as theorists, not practitioners.
Our current system acts as a gatekeeper to the middle class by doling out opportunity based on grades and test scores in a traditional classroom setting, but rarely recognizes competencies and interests beyond standardized exams and essays.
Fifty years ago, students could opt into publicly funded trade schools and apprenticeships or enroll in practice-based classes like home economics and shop in traditional academic schools, which taught skills that led to well-paying jobs in carpentry, culinary arts and other trades. But over time, public funding for such programs dried up. The share of federal spending on vocational instruction as part of elementary and secondary education dropped from roughly 30% in 1970 to just 7.5% in 2022. Even as elementary and secondary education spending ballooned from $5.8 billion a year to $96 billion during this period, the vocational component grew only from $1.8 billion to $7.2 billion.
Most publicly funded instruction now happens at desks, with grading based on written exams, essays and problem sets rather than demonstrations and hands-on learning. Some students are more prepared than others to succeed in such a system, exacerbating existing inequalities.
Research by the Economic Policy Institute found that social class, as defined by parental income, education and job, is the leading predictor for a student’s school readiness: Kindergartners from the highest social class possess more theory-based skills and perform an entire standard deviation higher on math and reading tests than kindergartners from the lowest social class. The gaps are particularly high for Black and Hispanic students, who are more likely than white children to live in poverty. When some students inevitably falter, the system tells them they are failures and offers trade schools and technical colleges as second-tier alternatives they often must pay for themselves.
It didn’t have to be this way. The United States originally based its system on a German/Prussian model, which prioritized efficiency by tracking students into “academic” or “vocational” tracks at age 10. In that model, still in place in Germany today, students are expected to know what they want to do by adolescence, and many simply end up in the same track as their parents.
The United States, hoping to advance a true meritocracy, did not want a system that limited intergenerational mobility in this way, and over the 20th century we adopted a liberal arts approach that was supposed to prioritize economic and social mobility. But in a myopic attempt to get rid of tracking, we inadvertently eliminated vocational education and simply tracked all our students into the academic model. The result? The worst of both worlds for less traditional students who struggle in a sink-or-swim academic system.
Student outcomes now depend a lot on parents’ backgrounds, just like in Germany.
There is another possibility. Consider Finland, which in the 1970s switched from the German model to one that teaches a combination of academic and technical subjects until age 16, when students choose a track. The vocational path for students interested in highly -skilled trades includes carpentry and culinary arts, but it also offers applied sciences, health care, and social services, which in the United States would require attending traditional academic universities.
Finland’s vocational path is highly competitive and includes matriculation at rigorous polytechnic universities with high-level training in subjects like business, engineering and nursing and quality instructors with connections to actual companies — not an alternative education. With a system that celebrates the value of highly skilled thinkers and workers, Finland recently ranked first out of 143 countries on the World Happiness Report for the seventh consecutive year, and as of 2021, its income inequality is eighth lowest among 37 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the United States ranks 23 on the World Happiness Report, and its income inequality is down at 33, beating only Turkey, Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica).
Of course, the United States is not Finland, and we cannot simply adopt its system. (Though before you discount Finland because of its smaller or more homogeneous population, consider that its size and composition are comparable to many U.S. states, and much of U.S. education policy is decided at the state level.) What we can do is stop deciding who is educated, intelligent and successful based on only one type of student. Instead, we should recognize the value of all students, and offer more mainstream career and technical opportunities across K-12 education.
States and the federal government should fund more career and technical education, including apprenticeships, hands-on learning courses and training and recruitment for vocational teachers. They should work with employers, schools, training organizations and other groups to tie education to the workforce needs of their region.
Everyone should be given the opportunity to pursue a traditional academic education, but they should also be able to pursue an equally rigorous vocational one, equipped with public resources and support. Only then will the middle class truly be open to all.
•••
Eric Chung is a lawyer, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project. His work focuses on law and policy related to economic mobility and educational opportunity.
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.
As California emerges from a divisive national election, it is crucial to remain clear-eyed about the risks ahead while pursuing bold strategies to address them. There are many domains in which state and local leaders can still work to improve the lives of Californians, and education offers one of the clearest examples. Historically, education policy has been shaped at the state and local levels, and California has the tools to lead the nation by championing sensible, evidence-based policies that create better outcomes for children and families.
That work has never been more important. California’s education system faces four pressing challenges in the wake of COVID-19. Student achievement continues to lag behind other states, with performance gaps remaining unacceptably wide. Chronic absenteeism is also hindering recovery efforts, as many children and families remain disengaged from schools. Additionally, schools are falling short in equipping students with the skills needed for career readiness, real-world success, and active participation in a complex democracy. Meanwhile, brutal culture wars are consuming vital attention and resources from addressing these critical issues. Tackling these challenges head-on and developing targeted solutions is essential for driving meaningful progress.
Any improvement strategy must start with every teacher having high quality, comprehensive instructional materials and the training to use them effectively. One clear model for this kind of reform is the “science of reading” movement, which has been adopted by many states but not yet embraced by California.
One need not agree with every element of the science of reading to recognize that Mississippi’s suite of reforms pushed the state from nearly last in national rankings to above the national average. Their approach offers a model of a state that had a clear instructional point of view, supported that vision with a well-crafted policy, and saw impressive outcomes as a result. California would do well to embrace the idea that state policy can meaningfully shape teaching and learning when implemented with purpose and precision.
However, students cannot learn if they are not at school in the first place. Chronic absenteeism in California more than doubled after the pandemic, rising from 10% to 24% in the 2022-23 school year, affecting over 1.4 million students. It’s a pervasive issue that cuts across all types of schools and students. While the causes of this crisis are not fully understood, several ideas merit policy responses.
Access to school-based mental health services remains inadequate and disproportionately limited for students of color and those from low-income families. Districts must collaborate across systems to expand these services and ensure they reach those most in need. Additionally, the school violence and bullying epidemic causes parents to question whether sending a child to school is safe. Therefore, efforts should be made to eradicate violence and bullying on school campuses.
The goal is not to simply get students to school, but to ensure that their determination to stay translates to strong job opportunities and overall well-being — whether they enroll in college or go directly into the workforce. For districts, paving the way begins well before high school.
Encouraging progress is being made in the region to expand student access to high-wage, high-interest careers. Public-private partnerships can help districts better equip students with well-paying jobs by developing career pathways in fields like technology and healthcare, progressing from foundational skills to advanced competencies. District administrators can join forces with local colleges to build cross-sector strategies to better prepare students for college success. These efforts should include paid internships in high-demand professions, such as health care, allied health professions, high technology, or green technology. Notably, several organizations (UniteLA,Growing Inland Achievement) and others are already driving this important work in Southern California, providing a model for other regions to follow.
To gain traction on these meaningful issues, advocates, parents, and policymakers must lower the temperature around divisive “culture war” issues that are currently sucking up too much of the air in the room. Where there are areas of sharp moral disagreement, we must demand civil discussion and respect differing viewpoints. California’s public schools must remain spaces where all parents feel comfortable sending their children. While debates about the goals of education are inevitable — and even vital to a healthy democratic process — allowing school boards and education leaders to be overtaken by partisan, nationalized politics only hinders progress. By focusing efforts on the pressing challenges, we all recognize we can move forward and create solutions to improve our children’s lives.
We don’t yet know what the national election portends for California’s schools, and some federal actions could escalate with serious potential consequences for the state’s students and families. In times of uncertainty, it is prudent to focus on local education improvements rooted in strong evidence. By prioritizing proven strategies that advance long-term goals, California can continue to strengthen student learning across the region’s schools and colleges, regardless of broader political shifts.
•••
Patricia Burch is a professor of education at USC Rossier School of Education and faculty co-director of the USC Education Policy Hub.
Morgan Polikoff is a professor of education at USC Rossier School of Education and faculty co-director of the USC EdPolicy Hub.
Jon Fullerton is a research professor and executive director of the USC EdPolicy Hub.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
California needs to mandate bilingual education in districts with significant numbers of English learners and invest much more to support districts to offer it, according to a new report released Thursday.
The authors said California is far behind other states in enrolling students in bilingual programs, despite having published documents like the English Learner Roadmap and Global California 2030, that lay out a vision for significantly expanding bilingual education in the state.
“It’s particularly significant because of the loud promises the state has made on behalf of bilingual education,” said Conor P. Williams, senior fellow at The Century Foundation and one of the authors of the report. “When it comes down to actual resources devoted, they’ve come so far short.”
The authors of the report recommend three main actions for California state leaders to take: Expand bilingual education programs with more funding and requirements for districts to offer them; prioritize enrollment of English learners in bilingual programs; and invest more in bilingual teacher preparation programs.
In order to expand bilingual education programs, the authors said California should follow the lead of Texas and pass legislation that requires districts to offer bilingual education if they have at least 20 students in any grade level that speak the same home language. In addition, they recommend the state provide districts more funding for every student enrolled in a bilingual program.
The authors said this “carrot and stick” approach in Texas has helped the state enroll a much higher percentage (36.7%) of English learners in bilingual programs. In contrast, California has enrolled only 16.4 % of English learners in bilingual programs.
The report cites research that shows bilingual education improves academic achievement, progress in learning English, retention of home language, high school graduation and college attendance, in addition to other benefits.
“Bilingual education should not be a partisan issue, because of the vast and wide-reaching benefits of it,” said Ilana Umansky, associate professor of education at the University of Oregon and one of the authors of the report. “It’s very telling that a state like Texas mandates bilingual education in a lot of circumstances and incentivizes bilingual education and has twice the enrollment of English learners in bilingual education as California.”
In addition to expanding the number of bilingual programs, the authors also called on state and district leaders to make sure there are spaces set aside in bilingual programs for English learners, that they are located in neighborhoods where English learners live or that they can easily reach by transportation.
“It’s critical to prioritize English learners, because it’s English-learner-classified students that most need and benefit from bilingual programs,” Umansky said.
Umansky said many dual-language immersion programs are often located in neighborhoods where most families speak English, because English-speaking parents are often the loudest advocates pushing for them. And she said some districts outright bar recent immigrant students from enrolling in bilingual programs, incorrectly assuming they are not beneficial for them.
Finally, the report’s authors are recommending the state also invest more in bilingual teacher preparation programs and in making such programs more affordable for students. They pointed out that after voters passed Proposition 227 in 1998, limiting bilingual education in California, many bilingual teacher preparation programs were closed.
“Prop 227 had such a devastating effect on traditional bilingual teacher programs, we have got to invest in them. They have to be bigger, they have to be stronger, and we have to have support for the programs and support for the students,” Umansky said.
Proposition 227 was overturned in 2016, when voters passed a separate measure, Proposition 58.
“California has put its foot down about saying, ‘We believe in multilingualism, we’re going to get students to be multilingual,’” Umansky said. “Now is the moment to really start putting money and efforts behind those intentions.”
Samuel Abrams has deep experience in the study of education privatization; for many years, he directed an institute on that subject at Teachers College, Columbia University. He is now working with the International Partnership for the Study of Educational Privatization.
He is also affiliated with the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he published a new report on the problems with education savings accounts (aka, vouchers).
Read the report.
Here is his executive summary:
Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) were first enacted in Arizona in 2011 as a particularly deregulated way to offer vouchers for specific students, particularly those with disabilities. As opposed to conventional private school tuition vouchers, ESAs could be used to cover tuition plus a range of other educational services. Soon thereafter, four additional states substantially replicated this new form of funding. But in 2022, Arizona and West Virginia took ESAs to another level, constructing them as universal vouchers, with all students eligible to participate, without regard to family income, prior public school attendance, or student disability. ESAs in these states could be used to cover either tuition at minimally regulated private schools or pods (mini schools with children of likeminded parents); or costs associated with homeschooling, from books and online curricula to field trips and ancillary goods and services deemed essential. Nine states have since followed suit and more appear poised to do the same. These ESAs constitute a dramatic elevation of educational outsourcing, at once fulfilling Milton Friedman’s long-argued libertarian vision for vouchers and comport-ing with the Trump administration’s commitment to downsize government and let the market fill the void.
Because of the unregulated nature of ESAs, accountability issues quickly emerged regarding both spending and pedagogy. Proper monitoring of spending by parents dispersed throughout a given state, for so many different types of goods and services, has swamped the capacity of state offices. The same holds regarding accountability for the quality of instruction in private schools, pods, and homeschools now supported with taxpayer money.
Meanwhile, because ESAs and other voucher programs tend to serve families who have already opted for private schools or homeschooling, two fiscal outcomes have become apparent. First, the programs create a new entitlement burden for taxpayers; rather than merely shifting an existing subsidy from public to private schools, the programs obligate taxpayers to support new groups of students. Second, the new subsidies have incentivized private schools to bump up tuition, on the grounds that families now have extra money to pay the higher tuition.
In addition, ESAs impact public schools. These schools suffer when substantial funding follows students who use ESAs for homeschooling or attendance at private schools or pods. The stubbornness of fixed costs for core operations for public schools often necessitates cuts to staff, from teachers to nurses, and resources, from microscopes to musical instruments. The impact on rural public schools and thus rural civic life may be greatest. Charter schools and conventional vouchers have played little role in rural America, as filling seats in charter or private schools in sparsely populated parts of the country represents a steep challenge. But with ESAs, students may leave public schools for pods or homeschooling. If enough students leave some small rural schools, those schools will have to consolidate with schools in neighboring towns, meaning significant travel for students and the forfeiture of much community life.
As with conventional vouchers, ESAs can lead to inequities and discrimination in student admissions and retention. Few protections exist in private schools, particularly religious schools, against discrimination based on disabilities, religion, or sexual orientation. Participating schools have also been documented to push out low-achieving students, thus adding to the problem of concentrating these students in default neighborhood public schools. For faculty and most staff, participating religious schools also generally afford no protection from dismissal on the grounds of religious affiliation or sexual orientation.
.***************
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Given the damage Education Savings Accounts can do, the following measures are recommended:
State Departments of Education
• Implement stricter oversight of what goods and services may be purchased with ESA funds.
• Strengthen state capacity to monitor ESA-related purchases.
• Require publication of all participating schools, their graduation rates, and their availability to students with disabilities.
State Lawmakers
• Most importantly, legislators should repeal existing programs.
• If ESAs cannot be repealed in states where they have already taken hold:
o Oppose any expansion of these programs to include new groups or cohorts.
o Pass legislation that imposes clear budget and spending limits on ESA programs to rein in cost overruns that have become common with these programs.o Require stricter oversight of what goods and services can be purchased with ESA funds and strengthen state capacity to monitor ESA-related purchases.
o Mandate periodic audits of curriculum and instructional practices in ESA-receiving schools.
o Require ESA-receiving schools to hire certified teachers.
o Require ESA-receiving schools to conduct the same annual academic assessments that public schools are required to administer.
o Require ESA-receiving schools to abide by existing federal and state civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, especially related to students with disabilities and LGBTQ+ students and faculty.
o Require that any effort to create a new ESA program be subject to open public hearings and, if feasible, public referenda.
Local Government Officials
• In states where ESAs exist, document the effects these programs have on students, families, and local public schools.
• In these same states, seek legislation to alleviate negative effects.
• Engage in awareness-raising efforts, such as informing local constituents of the po-
tential harms of ESAs, especially in rural communities, and adopting resolutions opposing ESAs.
EdSource’s “Education Beat” podcast gets to the heart of California schools by highlighting stories from our reporters with voices of teachers, parents and students.
Here are 10 of our favorite podcast episodes from 2024. Take a listen:
50 years later: How Lau v. Nichols changed education for English learners
In the 1974case Lau v. Nichols, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that schools must take steps to make sure students who do not speak fluent English can understand what is being taught in their classrooms, whether through additional instruction in English as a second language or bilingual education. Here’s the story of how this case began and how it changed education, from the perspective of a teacher:
How can we get more Black teachers in the classroom?
A growing body of research shows that having a Black teacher increases students’ scores on math and reading tests and increases the chance that they will graduate from college. California has been trying to recruit and retain Black teachers for years, but they’re still under-represented. Hear from a Black teacher about what’s keeping her peers from getting to and staying in the classroom:
How can California teach more adults to read in English?
Almost one-third of adults in California can do little more than fill out a basic form or read a very simple piece of writing in English. Many of them are immigrants. Experts say programs aimed at addressing poor literacy reach only a fraction of adults who need help. One way to reach them is to bring classes directly to the workplace. This episode highlights the story of one janitor:
Student journalists on the front lines of protest coverage
As a wave of protests on university campuses called for a ceasefire in Gaza and for universities to divest from companies with military ties to Israel, student journalists emerged as crucial sources of information. Increasingly, student journalists are doing this work under the threat of arrest and violence.
How puppets can help kids learn to make believe
When teachers noticed that children in Oakland preschool and kindergarten classrooms were not engaging in imaginative play or interacting with each other as much after the pandemic, staff at Children’s Fairyland, a local theme park, turned to an old favorite — puppets.
School district is sued over broken windows, mold, overheating classrooms and missing teachers
The West Contra Costa Unified School District promised back in 2019 that Stege Elementary School would get a complete redesign and remodel, to attract more students and more experienced teachers and turn around low test scores, high suspension rates and chronic absenteeism. But now, a group of teachers, staff and parents are suing the district, alleging that it failed to address severely poor building conditions and teacher vacancies. What happened?
Should cellphones be banned from all California schools?
This year, state lawmakers passed a bill to require public schools to restrict student cellphone use. A parent shares how she’s seen cellphones affect student interaction and increase bullying, and what she thinks about the efforts to restrict them:
Music education sets up low-income youth for success
Rigoberto Sánchez-Mejía has been taking music lessons with Harmony Project, a nonprofit music education organization in Los Angeles, for 12 years, since he was 5 years old. He credits them with putting him on a path to college and giving him a tool to calm down when life is too stressful.
What is California doing — or not doing — about lead in school drinking water?
Oakland Unified School District began this school year with some unsettling news: The drinking water in the district’s schools had dangerously high levels of lead. But lead testing hasn’t been required in California schools for the last five years. That means Oakland Unified is unusual among California school districts in that it knows that there’s a lead problem at all.
16- and 17-year-olds make history by voting in school board elections in two California cities
This November, 16- and 17-year-olds in two California cities, Berkeley and Oakland, were able to vote in school board elections. A high school junior reflects on the significance of this moment and the importance of civic engagement for teenagers:
New California state laws will protect the privacy of LGBTQ+ students, ensure that the history of Native Americans is accurately taught and make it more difficult to discriminate against people of color based on their hairstyles.
These and other new pieces of legislation will be in effect when students return to campuses after winter break.
Schools can’t require parental notification
Assembly Bill 1955, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July, forbids California school boards from passing resolutions that require school staff, including teachers, to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender.
The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, also protects school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.
The legislation was created in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex.
“Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety and dignity of transgender, nonbinary and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, author of the bill, in a media release. “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family.”
Opponents of the bill, including Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside,indicated that the issue will be settled in court.
Accurate Native American history
Building a Spanish mission — out of Popsicle sticks or sugar cubes — was once a common assignment for fourth-grade students in California. The state curriculum framework adopted in 2016 says this “offensive” assignment doesn’t help students understand this era, particularly the experiences of Indigenous Californians subject to forced labor and deadly diseases from Spanish colonizers.
But supporters of a new law that goes into effect on Jan. 1 say that there are still grave concerns that the history of California Native Americans — including enslavement, starvation, illness and violence — is still misleading or completely absent from the curriculum.
AB 1821, authored by Assemblymember James Ramos, D-San Bernardino, aims to address this. When California next updates its history-social science curriculum — on or after Jan. 1 — it asks that the Instruction Quality Commission consult with California tribes to develop a curriculum including the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization and the Gold Rush eras.
“The mission era of Spanish occupation was one of the most devastating and sensitive periods in the history of California’s native peoples and the lasting impact of that period is lost in the current curriculum,” according to a statement from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, one of the supporters of the legislation.
Teaching about desegregation in California
Another law that also goes into effect this year also requires the state to update its history-social science curriculum. AB 1805 requires that the landmark case Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County be incorporated into the history social-science curriculum updated on or after Jan. 1.
The case, brought in 1945, challenged four districts in Orange County that segregated students. The plaintiffs in the case were Mexican-American parents whose children were refused admission to local public schools. The case led to California becoming the first state to ban public school segregation — and it set a precedent for Brown v. Board of Education, which banned racial segregation in public schools.
The Mendez case is referenced in the history-social science curriculum that was last adopted in 2016 for fourth- and 11th-grade students, as well as the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, as an example of inter-ethnic bridge-building.
The Westminster School District wrote a statement in support of the law to ensure that the case is “properly recognized and rightfully incorporated into the state’s education curriculum.”
Protecting against hair discrimination
Assembly Bill 1815 makes it more difficult to discriminate against people of color, including students, based on their hairstyle. Although this type of discrimination is already prohibited by the CROWN Act, it has not extended to amateur and club sports.
The new legislation also clarifies language in the California Code, eliminating the requirement that a trait be “historically” associated with a race, as opposed to culturally, in order to be protected.
“(This bill) addresses an often-overlooked form of racial discrimination that affects our youth — bias based on hair texture and protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks, and twists,” stated a letter of support from the ACLU. “By extending anti-discrimination protections within amateur sports organizations, this bill acknowledges and seeks to dismantle the deep-rooted prejudices that impact children and adolescents of color in their sports activities and beyond.”
Protection for child content creators
Newsom signed two pieces of legislation in September that offer additional protection to children who star in or create online content.
The new laws expand state laws that were meant to protect child performers. Senate Bill 764 and Assembly Bill 1880 require that at least 15% of the money earned by children who create, post or share online content, including vloggers, podcasters, social media influencers and streamers, be put in a trust they can access when they reach adulthood.
“A lot has changed since Hollywood’s early days, but here in California, our laser focus on protecting kids from exploitation remains the same,” Newsom said in a statement. “In old Hollywood, child actors were exploited. In 2024, it’s now child influencers. Today, that modern exploitation ends through two new laws to protect young influencers on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and other social media platforms.”
Children line up to drink water from a fountain inside Cuyama Elementary School in Santa Barbara County.
Credit: Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP Photo
It’s that time again when I line up my predictions for the year only to see events conspire to knock them down like bowling pins.
As you recall, I lay down my wager in fensters. You can, too, on a scale of 1 fenster — no way it’ll happen — to 5 – it’s bird-brain obvious (at least to you). Fensters are a cryptocurrency redeemable only in Russian rubles; currently trading at about 110 per U.S. dollar. Predict right, and you’ll be rich in no time!
2025 will be rife with conflict; you know that. It will start Jan. 20, when President Donald Trump will announce that POTUS 47 v. California will be the main attraction on his UFC fight card. Trump’s tag team of both a Republican Congress, though barely a majority, and a conservative Supreme Court will be formidable.
Since it’s often difficult to know from day to day whether Trump’s acts are grounded in personal vendettas or conservative principles, that will complicate predictions. Insiders also say his decisions change based on the last person he speaks with. Safe to say it won’t be me.
With that caution, grab your spreadsheet.
Trump’s agenda
Mass deportations could turn hundreds of thousands of kids’ lives upside down, and massive shifts in education policies could jeopardize billions of dollars in federal funding for low-income kids.
Public reaction will determine whether Trump deports tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants with criminal records or indiscriminately sends back millions of people, as he implied. Most Americans found Trump’s policy early in his first term of separating children from parent border crossers abhorrent. Scenes on social media of ICE agents’ midnight raids, leaving kids without a working parent and potentially homeless, could have the same effect. And Central Valley farmers dependent on immigrants to harvest crops will warn Trump of financial disaster; other factories dependent on immigrants to do jobs other Americans don’t want will, too.
Trump will rely on shock and awe instead: swift raids of meat-packing plants and of visible sites targeting immigrant neighborhoods in California’s sanctuary cities — to send a message: You’re not welcome here.
And it will work, as measured by fear among children, violations of habeas corpus (laws pertaining to detention and imprisonment), and, in the end, declines in illegal crossings at the border, a trend that already started, under widespread pressure, in the final year of the Biden presidency.
The likelihood that Trump’s deportations will number closer to 100,000 than a million
The likelihood that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will open immigrant detention centers, one each in Northern California and Southern California
The likelihood that chronic absence rates in California school districts with large undocumented immigrant populations will soar to higher than 40%
The likelihood that the number of California high school seniors in those same districts who will not fill out the federal application for college financial aid known as FAFSA because of worry about outing an undocumented parent will increase significantly
The likelihood that the Trump administration will challenge the 1981 Supreme Court decision that children present in the United States have a right to attend public school, regardless of their immigration status and that of their parents
Eliminating the U.S. Department of Education
One of the late President Jimmy Carter’s accomplishments was the creation of the Department of Education. Forty-five years later, Trump wants to dissolve it and divide responsibilities among other federal bureaucracies: Title I funding for children in poverty to the Department of Health and Human Services; federal student loans and Pell grants to the Department of Treasury. That would take congressional approval, and past efforts over the years to eliminate it — a popular Republican idea — never came close to passing.
The likelihood that Trump could get majorities in Congress to eliminate the department
With or without a department, Trump could make radical changes that could impact billions of federal education dollars for California. He could turn Title I’s $18.8 billion funding for low-income children into a block grant and let states decide how to spend it. California, which had spats with the Obama administration over how to mesh state and federal funding, might welcome that. But poor kids in other states will be at the whim of governors and legislators who won’t be held accountable.
The likelihood Trump will cut 10% to 20% from Title I funding but leave funding for special education, the Individual Disabilities Education Act, traditionally an area of bipartisan agreement, intact
The likelihood Trump will call cuts in money for Title I and the Department of Education bureaucracy a down payment for a federal K-12 voucher program
Mini-fight over state budget
Later this week, Gov. Newsom will release his 2025-26 budget. If the Legislative Aalyst’s Office was right in its revenue projections, there will be a small cost-of-living adjustment for education programs and at least $3 billion for new spending — petty change compared with Newsom’s big initiatives for community schools and after-school programs when money flowed.
A piece of it could go toward improving math. It’s been ignored for too long.
California students perform abysmally in math: Only 31% were proficient on state tests in 2024, compared with 47% in English language arts — nothing to brag about either. In the last National Assessment of Educational Progress results, California fourth graders’ scores were behind 30 other states.
The State Board of Education approved new, ambitious math standards, amid much controversy, two years ago. The state has not jump-started statewide training for them since. But the board will adopt a new list of approved curriculum materials this summer, signaling it’s time to get rolling.
The likelihood that Newsom will include hundreds of millions of dollars for buying textbooks, training math coaches and encouraging collaboration time among teachers.
Ethnic studies tensions
Conflicts over ethnic studies, which have been simmering since the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 101 in 2021 requiring high schools to teach it will come to a head this year.
At the center of the controversy is the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium and affiliated groups pushing an alternative version of the ethnic studies framework that the State Board of Education approved in 2021. The state framework, a guide, not a mandated curriculum, places ethnic studies in the context of an evolving American story, with a focus on struggles, progress and cultural influences of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans.
The liberated version stresses the ongoing repression of those groups through a critique of white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism, plus, for good measure, instruction in anti-Zionism and Palestinian liberation. UC and CSU ethnic studies faculty members have led efforts to promote it, with substantial consulting contracts with several dozen districts.
AB 101’s mandate for teaching ethnic studies, starting in the fall of 2025 and requiring it for a high school diploma in 2029-30, is contingent on state funding. And that hasn’t happened, according to the Department of Finance. Meanwhile, the Legislative Jewish Caucus will reintroduce legislation to require more public disclosure before districts adopt an ethnic studies curriculum. In his Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism, Newsom promised to work with the caucus to strengthen AB 101 to “ensure all ethnic studies courses are free from bias, bigotry, and discriminatory content.”
Some scenarios:
The likelihood Newsom will press for amendments to AB 101 as a requirement for funding the AB 101 mandate
The likelihood that Newsom and the Legislature fund the AB 101 mandate, at least to keep it on schedule, for now
The likelihood the Jewish Caucus-led bill to strengthen transparency and AB 101’s anti-bias protections will pass with Newsom’s support
Amending the funding formula
Revising the Local Control Funding Formula, which parcels out 80% of state funding for TK-12, may get some juice this year — if not to actually amend the 12-year-old law, then at least to formally study the idea.
At an Assembly hearing last fall, the state’s leading education researchers and education advocates agreed that the landmark finance reform remains fundamentally sound, and the heart of the formula — steering more money to low-income, foster, and homeless students, as well as English learners — should be kept. However, with performance gaps stubbornly high between low-income and non-low-income students and among racial and ethnic groups, researchers also suggested significant changes to the law. The challenge is that some ideas are in conflict, and some could be expensive.
In his budgets, Gov. Gavin Newsom has directed more money to the most impoverished, low-performing schools. However, some school groups want to focus more money on raising the formula’s base funding for all students. Others want to focus attention on districts in the middle, with 35% to 55% low-income and English learners, who get less aid per student than in districts like Oakland, with higher concentrations of eligible students.
The outcome will affect how much money your school district gets, so keep an eye on what’s happening.
The likelihood that the funding formula will be amended this year
The likelihood there will be a two-year study with intent to pass legislation next year
What about tutoring?
At his preview Monday on the 2025-26 state budget, Newsom barely mentioned education. But a one-word reference to “tutoring” woke me up.
In my 2023 predictions column, I wagered three fensters that Newsom would expand a promising effort for state-driven and funded early-grades tutoring in a big way. Last year, looking back, I wrote, “It was wise advice couched as a prediction, which Gov. Newsom ignored. (It’s still a good idea.)”
So it is. Newsom created the structure for tutoring at scale when he created California College Corps. It recruits 10,000 college students and pays them $10,000 toward their college expenses in exchange for 450 community public service hours. Newsom, in setting it up, made tutoring an option. What he didn’t do is make it a priority and ask school districts, which received $6.3 billion in learning recovery money over multiple years, to make intensive, small-group “high-dosage” tutoring their priority, too. Other states, like Tennessee, have, and Maryland this year became the latest.
The likelihood that Newsom will include high-dosage tutoring in math and reading for early grades, in partnership with tutoring nonprofits, school districts, and university teacher credentialing programs
TK for all (who choose)
Starting this fall, any child who turns 4 by Sept. 1 can attend publicly funded transitional kindergarten in California. The date will mark the successful end of a four-year transition period and a $2.4 billion state investment.
“Done,” said Newsom pointing to the word stamped on a slide during a preview of the budget on Monday.
Well, not quite.
The hope of TK, the year between preschool and kindergarten, is to prepare young children for school through play and learning, thus preventing an opportunity gap from developing in a year of peak brain growth. For school districts, adding this 14th year of school offers the only hope for a source of revenue when enrollment in all grades in many districts is declining.
But in its first and initial years of full operation, TK will likely be under-enrolled statewide. There are a number of reasons. By design, the Newsom administration and Legislature are offering multiple options for parents of 4-year-olds. There are transitional kindergarten, state-funded preschools, private preschools, and state-funded vouchers for several care options, plus federal Head Start.
The state has provided financial incentives for providers to shift to serving 2- and 3-year-olds, but it will take time. The state had assumed that transitional kindergarten would draw parents attracted to classes taught by credentialed teachers in a neighborhood elementary school. Some parents prefer their preschool with an adult-child ratio of 8-to-1, instead of 12-to-1 in transitional kindergarten (a credentialed teacher and an aide in a class of up to 24) and a preschool teacher who speaks Spanish or another native language, said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley, who has been researching transitional kindergarten in California.
And many elementary schools don’t have the bigger classrooms to accommodate TK and kindergarten, or they can’t find enough credentialed teachers and aides to staff them.
In coming years, transitional kindergarten enrollment will reach closer to serving all 4-year-olds, an estimated 400,000 next year.
For now, the likelihood that transitional kindergarten will serve more than 60% of a target population
Keep on your radar
Equity in funding: Voters approved a $10 billion state construction bond, providing critical matching funding to districts that passed local bonds. But despite small fixes in Proposition 2, the first-come, first-served system favors school districts with the highest property values — whether commercial downtowns or expensive homes. The higher tax burden for low-wealth districts is why some schools are pristine and fancy, while those in neighboring districts are antiquated and decrepit. The nonprofit law firm Public Advocates threatened to file a lawsuit last fall, and hasn’t said whether it will follow through. But it would be a landmark case.
In the 1971 landmark decision in Serrano v. Priest, the California Supreme Court ruled that a school funding system tied to local property taxes violated students’ constitutional rights. Challenging the state’s reliance on districts’ disparate local property wealth to fund school facilities could be the equivalent.
Rethinking high school: Anaheim Union High School Districtis among the districts thinking about how the high school day could be more relevant to students’ personal and career aspirations. Anaheim Union is exploring how an expanded block schedule, team teaching, interdisciplinary courses, artificial intelligence, online learning, and job apprenticeships could transform learning.
The six-period day, education code rules in instructional minutes, and seat time may be obstacles to change and perpetuate mindsets. For now, discussions have been more conceptual than specific. The State Board of Education has a broad power to grant waivers from the state education code; State Board President Linda Darling-Hammond said the board is open to considering them. This may be the year a district or group of districts take up her offer.
Thanks for reading the column. One more toast to 2025!
