برچسب: First

  • Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims About His First 100 Days

    Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims About His First 100 Days


    Glenn Kessler is the fact-checker for The Washington Post. During Trump’s first term, he documented over 30,000 lies. In this post, he reviews Trump’s statements about his first 100 days.

    He writes:

    President Donald Trump granted a lengthy interview to Time magazine in honor of completing his first 100 days of his second term today. As usual, the interview consisted of bluster and bombast, with hefty doses of B.S. Here’s a guide to the inaccuracies in 32 claims, in the order in which he made them.


    “You know, we’re resetting a table. We were losing $2 trillion a year on trade, and you can’t do that. I mean, at some point somebody has to come along and stop it, because it’s not sustainable.”


    Trump gets two things wrong here. First of all, the goods and services deficit was almost $920 billion in 2024, according to the Commerce Department. So he’s doubling the real number. Second, the United States is not “losing” money on trade deficits. After all these years, Trump still does not grasp this fundamental economic point. Yet he’s basing policy — and steering the United States into economic uncertain times — on this misunderstanding.

    “Many criminals — they emptied their prisons, many countries, almost every country, but not a complete emptying, but some countries a complete emptying of their prison system. But you look all over the world, and I’m not just talking about South America, we’re talking about all over the world. People have been led into our country that are very dangerous.”

    This is poppycock. Immigration experts know of no effort by other countries to empty their prisons and mental institutions. As someone who came to prominence in the late 1970s and early ’80s, Trump appears to be channeling Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s 1980 Mariel boatlift. About 125,000 Cubans were allowed to flee to the United States in 1,700 boats — but there was a backlash when it was discovered that hundreds of refugees had been released from jails and mental health facilities. But there’s no evidence this happened during the Biden administration. Yet again, Trump is basing policy on an invention.


    “We’re taking in billions of dollars of tariffs, by the way. And just to go back to the past, I took in hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs from China, and then when covid came, I couldn’t institute the full program, but I took in hundreds of billions, and we had no inflation.”

    This is false. Trump’s China tariffs in his first term took in only about $75 billion — not counting $28 billion in aid to farmers who lost their shirts when China stopped buying soybeans, pork and other products. Inflation averaged about 2 percent in Trump’s term, but was about 1.23 percent in 2020 because of the pandemic. According to Customs and Border Protection, as of April 19, the United States has taken in about $14 billion in tariffs under his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) declarations. But again, Trump has a fundamental misunderstanding. Countries do not pay tariffs; the burden falls mainly on American consumers.


    “Now, if you take a look, the price of groceries are down. The price of energy is down.”

    This is false. The consumer price index for at-home food items increased 0.49 percent from February, while retail gas prices are basically the same since Trump took office in January. The price of oil could drop if there’s a recession, as some economists predict.


    “It was all going through the roof. And we had the highest inflation we’ve ever had as a country, or very close to it. And I believe it was the highest ever. Somebody said it’s the highest in only 48 years. That’s a lot, too, but I believe we had the highest inflation we’ve ever had.”

    This is false. President Joe Biden did not have the highest inflation in U.S. history. Inflation spiked to 9 percent in mid-2022, a 40-year-high, but fell to about 3 percent for the last six months of his term. (For all of 2022, inflation was 6.5 percent.) Inflation was 12.5 percent in 1980, 13.3 percent in 1979 and 18.1 percent in 1946 — and many other years were higher than 6.5 percent.

    Higher prices for goods and services would have happened no matter who was elected president in 2020. Inflation initially spiked because of pandemic-related shocks — increased consumer demand as the pandemic eased and an inability to meet this demand because of supply-chain problems, as companies reduced production when consumers hunkered down during the pandemic. Indeed, inflation rose around the world — with many peer countries doing worse than the United States — because of pandemic-related shocks that rippled across the globe.

    “No wait, just so you understand: How can we sustain and how is it sustainable that our country lost almost $2 trillion on trade in Biden years?”


    Trump’s numbers are wrong. The trade deficit in the Biden years (2021-2024) was $3.5 trillion, but as we noted, no economist would call that a loss. For context, the trade deficit in Trump’s first term was $2.4 trillion — and it went up during his presidency.


    “If you look at, more importantly, the companies, the chip companies, the car companies, the Apple. $500 billion. Apple is investing $500 billion in building plants. They never invested in this country.”


    This is false. Shortly after Biden became president, Apple announced it would invest $430 billion over five years in the United States. In Trump’s first term, Apple announced a $350 billion investment over five years — which Trump repeatedly credited to his policies.


    “Look, that’s what China did to us. They charge us 100 percent. If you look at India — India charges 100-150 percent. If you look at Brazil, if you look at many, many countries, they charge — that’s how they survive. That’s how they got rich.”

    This is false. Before Trump became president the first time, China had minimal tariffs on U.S. products and about 8 percent on the rest of the world, and few products were subject to tariffs, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. When Trump imposed tariffs in 2018, China responded with tariffs of about 20 percent, affecting about half of exports. In his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs of 143 percent, and China has responded with 124 percent. China’s tariffs on goods from the rest of the world is now about 6 percent. As for India, its average applied tariff is about 17 percent, according to Office of U.S. Trade Representative, far less than what Trump claims.


    “We’re also, very importantly, because of that, because of the money we’re taking in, those companies are going to come back and they’re going to make their product here. They’re going to go back into North Carolina and start making furniture again.”


    This is dubious. North Carolina has a thriving furniture industry, but it increasingly relies on wood from countries such as Mexico — and exports to Canada. Trump’s tariffs will make raw materials more expensive and retaliatory tariffs will price U.S. products out of the market. Already this month, a North Carolina housewares company that supplies Walmart and Target said it would shut down and fire all its employees, in part because tariffs would make materials from Mexico and Asia too costly.


    “I’ve made 200 [trade] deals.”

    This is false. Trump declined to provide any details, and none have been announced. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday suggested one deal was close to being completed — but he said it needed approval from the country’s leaders. He declined to name the country.


    “You know, as an example, we have Korea. We pay billions of dollars for the military. Japan, billions for those and others. But that, I’m going to keep us a separate item, the paying of the military.”

    South Korea and Japan pay as well. Trump often suggests other countries take advantage of U.S. military might. But it’s a two-way street. “From 2016 through 2019, the Department of Defense spent roughly $20.9 billion in Japan and $13.4 billion in South Korea to pay military salaries, construct facilities, and perform maintenance,” the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2021. “The governments of Japan and South Korea also provided $12.6 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively, to support the U.S. presence.” The U.S. stations 80,000 troops in the region and the GAO “found that U.S. forces help strengthen alliances, promote a free and open Indo-Pacific region, provide quick response to emergencies, and are essential for U.S. national security.”
    “We have $7 trillion of new plants, factories and other things, investment coming into the United States. And if you look back at past presidents, nobody was anywhere near that. And this is in three months.”

    This is false. At the beginning of April, the White House produced a list of only $1.5 trillion — two-thirds of which came from Apple and an AI project called Stargate that was already under development before Trump took office. Since then, we’ve counted a series of announced investments (Nvidia, Roche, IBM, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson and so forth) that total perhaps another $1 trillion, though some may predate Trump and others are still vague. Announcements aren’t the same thing as actually breaking ground, so Trump may be counting his chickens before they hatch.
    “He’s [Chinese leader Xi Jinping] called. And I don’t think that’s a sign of weakness on his behalf.”
    The Chinese government denies this. “I would like to reiterate that China and the U.S. have not engaged in consultations or negotiations regarding tariff issues,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun on Monday.
    “I believe that they made him [Kilmar Abrego García] look like a saint, and then we found out about him. He wasn’t a saint. He was MS-13. He was a wife beater and he had a lot of things that were very bad, you know, very, very bad. When I first heard of the situation, I was not happy, and then I found out that he was a person who was an MS-13 member. And in fact, he had a tattooed right on his — I’m sure you saw that — he had it tattooed right on his knuckles: MS-13.”

    This is exaggerated. Kilmar Abrego García is a Maryland man who was in the country illegally but the administration admits he was wrongly deported to El Salvador — which led to a Supreme Court ruling that the White House must “facilitate” his return. The evidence that he was a member of violent Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) is slim; it is a claim made by the alleged confidential source, and neither the police officer who wrote the report nor the alleged source testified in court, under oath and subject to cross-examination. His wife filed a temporary protective order against him, alleging that he beat her repeatedly, but she did not pursue it and now says the marriage became stronger after counseling. Abrego García did not have MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles. Rather, Trump on social media displayed a photo that superimposed those letters on his knuckles, but there is no evidence the tattoos Abrego García has are related to gang membership.
    “Because I’ve watched in Portland and I watched in Seattle, and I’ve watched in Minneapolis, Minnesota and other places. People do heinous acts, far more serious than what took place on Jan. 6. And nothing happened to these people. Nothing.”
    This is false. Trump justifies his pardoning of Jan. 6, 2021, defendants with a falsehood. People were prosecuted in Seattle and Minneapolis for violence during the 2020 protests after the George Floyd killing, and Trump lauded federal authorities for killing a man suspected in a shooting in Portland.
    In Seattle, two people were killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED), a nonprofit. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter activist, died when a car rammed into the protests. Another person, 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr., was shot in an incident that ACLED said was tied to the broader unrest. (Another fatal shooting of a teen was not connected, ACLED concluded.) Dawit Kelete, 30, who drove into the protest on July 4, 2020, killing Taylor and seriously injuring another person, was sentenced to 78 months in jail. The judge said that while there was no evidence he hit the protesters intentionally, his conduct was “extremely reckless.”

    Mays died in the early morning of June 29, 2020, while driving a stolen Jeep in Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone, which protesters occupied for three weeks after police abandoned the area. No one has been charged in Mays’s death.
    In Minneapolis, one person was killed, according to ACLED. The Max It Pawn Shop was set on fire during protests on May 28, 2020, and then two months later, police discovered a charred body in the wreckage. Surveillance video showed Montez Terriel Lee, 26, pouring an accelerant around the pawn shop and lighting it on fire. Lee was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, the Justice Department said.
    In Portland, Aaron Danielson, an American supporter of a right-wing group, was shot on Aug. 29, 2020, by Michael Reinoehl, an activist who days later was shot and killed by a federal task force. Reinoehl had admitted the killing but claimed he acted in self-defense.
    “Nobody mentions the fact that the unselect committee of political scum, the unselect committee, horrible people, they destroyed all evidence, they burned it, they got rid of it, they destroyed it, and they deleted all evidence.”

    This is false. The House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol said some videos and sensitive evidence were not included in an archive to protect witnesses. But more than 100 depositions, transcripts and other documents are available online and open to inspection.
    “Well, I’ll tell ya, I certainly don’t mind having a tax increase, and the only reason I wouldn’t support it is because I saw Bush where they said, where he said ‘Read my lips’ and he lost an election. He would have lost it anyway, but he lost an election. He got beat up pretty good. I would be honored to pay more, but I don’t want to be in a position where we lose an election because I was generous, but me, as a rich person, would not mind paying and you know, we’re talking about very little.”
    This is dubious. First of all, President Barack Obama raised taxes on the wealthy, and Biden won in 2020 while promising to do it again; George H.W. Bush’s problem was he broke a promise not to raise taxes. Second, as documented by the New York Times, despite his wealth Trump has a long history of paying little or no taxes. “Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750,” the newspaper reported. “He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.”
    “I don’t think they’re going to cut $800 billion. They’re going to look at waste, fraud, and abuse.”

    This is false. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report that an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health-policy organization, says the only way to reduce congressional spending, as mandated by the House GOP budget resolution, would be to cut $880 billion from planned Medicaid spending over 10 years.

    Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office on April 23. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
    “Well, I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it [sign a bill banning congressional stock trading]. If they send that to me, I would do it.”
    This is false. There is no evidence the former House speaker used inside information while trading stocks — which would be a crime. Her office said she owns no stocks, and investments listed in her financial disclosure statement belong to her husband, Paul, a venture capitalist and property investor.
    “DOGE has been a very big success. We found hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars being given to politicians, single politicians based on the environment. It’s a scam. It’s illegal, in my opinion, so much of the stuff that we found, but I think DOGE has been a big success from that standpoint.”

    This is false. Even the Department of Government Efficiency website, which has been found to be riddled with errors and double-counting, lists $160 billion in savings. The overall impact is still unclear. Experts think the sharp cutbacks in enforcement at the IRS ordered by DOGE might result in lower revenue, wiping out any of the claimed budget savings.
    “Stacey Abrams got $2 billion on the environment. They had $100 in the account and she got $2 billion just before these people left — and had to do with something that she knows nothing about.”
    This is false. Abrams helped ensure Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia by registering more than 800,000 voters in the state — many of them people of color — so he has a particular animus toward the former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives. But she did not receive $2 billion. She was an adviser to a consortium of five major players in housing, climate and community investment that won $1.9 billion in grants for clean-energy projects. As for the “$100 in the account,” the nonprofit entity filed a form with the IRS in 2023 showing $100 in revenue — but the application process just started that year and grants were not awarded until 2024.
    “I had a great election. Won all seven swing states, won millions and millions of votes. Won millions of votes. They say it was the most consequential election in 129 years. I don’t know if that’s right, but it was certainly a big win, and that’s despite cheating that took place, by the way, because there was plenty of cheating that took place.”

    This needs context. Trump won 77.3 million votes, or 49.81 percent, compared with Vice President Kamala Harris’s 75 million votes, or 48.33 percent, for a difference of 1.48 percentage points. He did win the seven swing states — giving him a 312-226 victory in the electoral college — but the popular-vote margin was narrow, and he did not win a majority of the vote. His reference to 129 years is interesting. He’s referring to the 1896 victory of William McKinley, his political idol, but most historians would count other elections as more consequential. Oh, and there’s no evidence of “plenty of cheating.” That’s false too.
    “This war has been going on for three years. It’s a war that would have never happened if I was president. It’s Biden’s war. It’s not my war. I have nothing to do with it. I would have never had this war. This war would have never happened. Putin would have never done it. This war would have never happened … Oct. 7 would have never happened. Would have never happened.”
    This is fantasy. There is no evidence that the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine or the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel would not have happened if Trump had been president. In fact, before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “genius” and “very savvy” for advancing on Ukraine.
    “You got to say, that’s pretty savvy,” Trump said on a conservative talk radio show of Putin’s decision to declare certain breakaway regions in Ukraine as independent. “And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.” “This is genius,” Trump said. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”

    “Well, Crimea went to the Russians. It was handed to them by Barack Hussein Obama, and not by me. … Would it have been taken from me like it was taken from Obama? No, it wouldn’t have happened. Crimea, if I were president, it would not have been taken.”
    This is false. Obama did not hand Crimea to Russia; it was annexed by Putin in 2014 over Obama’s objections. Obama rallied European leaders to sanction Russia for grabbing it, even though Crimea had many Russian speakers and had historically been part of Russia. (In 1783, Catherine the Great achieved Russia’s longtime goal of having a warm-water port, Sevastopol, by seizing Crimea from the Ottoman Empire.)
    Crimea was populated mostly by Tatars until Russian dictator Joseph Stalin deported the whole population in 1944. According to the last official Ukrainian census, in 2001, 60 percent of Crimea’s population was Russian, 24 percent Ukrainian and 10 percent Tatar. Despite a majority-Russian population, Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed, though it was approved by a relatively narrow majority (54 percent) compared with other areas of Ukraine.
    “We lose $200 to $250 billion a year supporting Canada. … We’re taking care of their military. We’re taking care of every aspect of their lives.”

    This is false. In 2024, the deficit in trade in goods and services with Canada was about $45 billion. (Even so, a trade deficit is not a subsidy.) White House officials claim that Trump is also counting military expenditures allegedly spent on behalf of Canada, but when we did the math, the total never came close to $200 billion, let alone $250 billion.
    “There was no money for Hamas. There was no money for Hezbollah. There was no money. Iran was broke under Trump. … They had no money, and they told Hamas, we’re not giving you any money. When Biden came and he took off all the sanctions, he let China and everybody else buy all the oil, Iran developed $300 billion in cash over a four-year period. They started funding terror again, including Hamas. Hamas was out of business. Hezbollah was out of business. Iran had no money under me. I blame the Biden administration, because they allowed Iran to get back into the game without working a deal.”
    This is misleading. There is no evidence that Iran, which has suffered economically from sanctions over its nuclear program, sent billions of dollars to Hamas. Trump’s State Department calculated in 2020 that Iran sends Hamas and two other militant groups $100 million a year. So far, there is no report showing that the amount of funding from Iran to Hamas increased under Biden. Experts said that it would have been difficult for Trump, if he had been reelected in 2020, to maintain sanctions on Iran as they erode over time. In particular, China became adept at evading U.S. sanctions by arranging for many buyers of Iranian oil to be small, semi-independent refineries known as “teapots.” Such entities accounted for about one-fifth of China’s worldwide oil imports, according to Reuters.
    “I happen to like the [Saudi] people very much, and the Crown Prince and the King — I like all of them, but they’ve agreed to invest a trillion dollars in our economy. $1 trillion.”

    This is false. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said he pledged $600 billion after a call with Trump in January. We will see if this comes to fruition.

    In Trump’s first term, he grandly announced he had scored more than $350 billion of business deals during a trip to Saudi Arabia — which he later claimed would create more than 500,000 jobs. (This was his excuse for not punishing the kingdom for ordering the murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.) Not only were those job numbers wildly inflated, it turned out most of the jobs that would be created were in Saudi Arabia — not the United States.


    “They did nothing with the Abraham Accords. We had four countries in there, it was all set. We would have had it packed. Now we’re going to start it again. The Abraham Accords is a tremendous success, but Biden just sat with it.”

    This is false. Biden endorsed the Abraham Accords — the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries — and focused on bringing Saudi Arabia on board. But the process halted with the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. In fact, the attack may have been launched to thwart expansion of the Abraham Accords, which suggested normalization was possible with Israel’s neighbors while ignoring the grievances of Palestinians.

    “Tremendous antisemitism at every one of those rallies. Tremendous, and I agree with free speech, but not riots all over every college in America. Tremendous antisemitism going on in this country. … They can protest, but they can’t destroy the schools like they did with Columbia and others.”
    Trump’s words differ from his government’s actions. Numerous foreign students appear to have been targeted for deportation because of their opinions. For instance, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University PhD student, was detained last month by Homeland Security agents and sent to a detention center in Louisiana. She co-wrote an opinion article in the student newspaper criticizing the university response to protests over Gaza and urged that it respect resolutions passed by the university senate, including acknowledging “Palestinian genocide” and divesting from companies with ties to Israel. DHS has provided no evidence she participated in protests, let alone violent ones. Even a profile of her on the pro-Israel Canary Mission, which highlights the op-ed, does not make such a claim.
    (About our rating scale)
    Send us facts to check by filling out this form
    Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter
    The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles



    Source link

  • Berkeley, Oakland teens cast first votes in school board elections

    Berkeley, Oakland teens cast first votes in school board elections


    A poster at Oakland High School encourages 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the school board election. These posters are displayed throughout the campus.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    While the upcoming presidential election crowds voters’ minds, a new demographic will be casting their ballots for the first time this November. Both the cities of Berkeley and Oakland announced in August that 16 and 17-year-old constituents are now eligible to vote in local school board races.

    Berkeley voters approved Measure Y in 2016 by just over 70% of the vote. In Oakland, Measure QQ — which indicates similar youth voting stipulations as its Berkeley counterpart — was approved in 2020 with 68% of the vote.

    Years after the approval, continued community advocacy from organizations like Oakland Kids First has helped push the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to finalize a system to register 16- and 17-year-old voters.

    At a school board candidate forum on Oct. 22 hosted by Fremont High School and organized by Oakland Youth Vote, students, teachers, administrators, organizers and school board candidates from Oakland Unified School District gathered to register voters and learn more about the candidates running in local school board contests.

    Nearly all the school board candidates from districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 were present, and each was given a chance to introduce themselves and discuss their priorities and platforms within a time-limited format moderated by students from Fremont High School.

    After the student moderators and administrators gave introductions and explanations on registration, voting and the school board, the moderators emphasized the importance of voting in making student voices heard. They cited the efforts of community organizations like the Oakland Youth Commission and Californians for Justice in their success.

    Organizers and candidates spoke to students at the Oakland Youth Voting Forum on Oct. 22.
    Credit: Emily Hamill / EdSource

    “Your vote has the power to bring us closer to your vision and make your dream a reality,” said a student moderator. “This makes history, but it was only possible because we have been fighting for the last five years. We have earned this — it is a right.”

    Forum presenters highlighted what they considered the most important issues to Oakland students — access to health and wellness, community-centered schools, and essential life skills — all of which outlined concerns from over 1,400 student survey forms gathered from across the district. 

    The remainder of the forum consisted of the student moderators asking the candidates questions about how they plan to represent student concerns for equitable resource distribution, holistic mental health and wellness checks, school safety and budget deficits.

    Oakland Tech senior Ariana Astorga Vega and sophomore Amina Tongun, both members of the All City Council, or the ACC, attended the forum and emphasized the importance of students using their newfound voting rights, which are limited to the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD board races. The ACC is made up of 11 peer-elected high school students to represent student concerns to OUSD.

    “Even though I can’t vote yet because I have not turned 16, I’m here as a part of the ACC to support the local youth vote,” Tongun said. “I feel like it’s really special because we get to vote as young people and our voices are being heard. That’s one of the main reasons that I joined the ACC, because I really believe in advocating for young people and helping their voices be heard.” 

    Vega echoed Tongun’s opinion about the new voting rights, and her appreciation for being able to be “a part of that change.” 

    The two have also been involved in the ACC’s efforts to encourage youth voting, including streamlining social media posts about it and putting up fliers reading “Breaking News: 16-17 year-olds can now vote!” across district’s schools. 

    Although they have run into obstacles, like student disinterest due to not knowing how to vote and what the implications are, Vega and Tongun hope their community’s continued efforts to raise awareness and education will motivate their peers to take action.

    Maya Rapier, an organizer with Oakland Kids First, who also attended the forum, has been committed to the purpose. By helping distribute voter registration forms, spread awareness about the forum, and even implement a new voting curriculum into OUSD schools, Rapier said the organization has helped the district register over 1,000 student voters.

    “I genuinely feel like Oakland is such a beautiful place with such a beautiful community of voters who deserve so much, but there’s a history here of students being underserved and under-resourced,” Rapier said. “Students know their own experiences best, so for them to be able to be in the schools real-time, notice an issue, take that to the representative, and know that they have the power to bring attention to it, means a lot.”

    Rapier added, “I’m a former student of OUSD, and I’m really inspired by the students here and the work that they’ve been doing.”

    Fremont High School Principal Nidya Baez echoed these sentiments, expressing that her student body “feels responsible” for representing families and community members who cannot vote. She has worked to help “eliminate (obstacles like) the fear factor” by partnering with local coalitions to organize class presentations, lunchtime tabling and events like the candidate forum. 

    At Berkeley High School (BHS), students, with faculty help, have spearheaded youth voter registration and education. On Oct. 8, students from the BHS Civic Leaders Club organized a school board candidate forum with assistance from John Villavicencio, the director of student activities. The students invited the candidates to speak at the high school and allowed time for students to ask questions. 

    Villavicencio added that other BHS student organizations have led efforts in encouraging students to register to vote and done the groundwork by taking mail-in voter registration forms to classrooms. He also noted efforts from Josh Daniels, a former member of both the Oakland and Berkeley unified school district boards, who organized a weekly Zoom call between student leaders, student organizations and nonprofits in support of the youth vote to discuss efforts in their respective school districts. 

    During one weekly meeting, Oakland Youth Vote shared a curriculum members had put together detailing what the school board does, introducing the OUSD school board, emphasizing the importance of youth voting and assisting in registering students to vote. 

    After hearing about the curriculum Oakland Youth Vote created, Villavicencio encouraged Berkeley to create something similar. BHS teacher librarian Allyson Bogie offered to help, and created a shortened two-day curriculum tailored to Berkeley Unified. After review from the superintendent’s office, student leaders, teachers and administrators, the curriculum was shared with teachers who could use it in their classrooms. 

    “I wanted to make sure any teachers who wanted a tool to talk about youth voting, and getting kids registered, and the history of it, had something really easy to use,” Bogie said. “I believe it’s important for kids to vote, and I want to support the teachers, and that’s part of my role as a librarian.”

    According to Villavicencio, there have been several hurdles to overcome in convincing students to register, and to understand why this opportunity is special. Some students did not know their own Social Security numbers, complicating the registration process, while others have never heard of the school board or don’t know what the school board does, making it difficult to teach students about the impact of their vote.

    Villavicencio said they could “easily reach 1,000 pre-registration” out of about 1,800 potential BHS students who could register to vote. As of Oct. 22, 491 students were registered, leaving him “slightly disappointed,” he said. 

    “(Some students) are very passionate about activism and also engaging in the community,” Villavicencio said, but the overall sentiment is “lukewarm.” Bogie noted that she doesn’t think students view it negatively but has noticed a lot of students who also “aren’t that interested.” 

    Looking forward, Bogie hopes to see “continuing student momentum” for future elections. 

    “It’s commendable, what’s being done,” Villavicencio said. “And it’s crazy to say that there could be a lot more done.” 

    Emily Hamill is a third-year student at UC Berkeley double-majoring in comparative literature and media studies and minoring in journalism. Kelcie Lee is a second-year student at UC Berkeley majoring in history and sociology. Both are members of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.

    California Student Journalism Corps member Jo Moon, a junior at UC Berkeley studying political economy, gender and women’s studies and Korean, contributed to this story.





    Source link

  • First forecast for 2025-26 school funding: More money with a twist

    First forecast for 2025-26 school funding: More money with a twist


    After years of preparation inside and outside the state Capitol (shown), California has launched a website that gathers all sorts of education and career data in a single, searchable place.

    Credit: Kirby Lee / AP

    Higher revenues than Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators predicted will likely produce a modest increase in funding in 2025-26 for TK-12 schools and community colleges, the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected on Wednesday. 

    The growth in revenues will also pay down a big portion of the state’s debt to education, with enough to sock away money into a rainy day fund for education that was depleted by the Legislature last year. But at the same time, a rarely invoked constitutional provision would deny schools and community colleges billions in funding that they would otherwise get, the LAO said. 

    The LAO’s annual state budget forecast is the first hint of how much funding schools and community colleges can expect when Newsom releases his budget in early January. How to spend the new funding amid pressure from competing interest groups — always a challenge — will be up to Newsom and the Legislature.

    The LAO is projecting only a $1.5 billion increase (1.3%) for 2025-26 above the $115.3 billion approved in June for 2024-25 for Proposition 98, the quarter-century-old voter-approved formula that determines the minimum amount that must go to schools and community colleges. It comprises 40% of the state’s annual general fund.

    But combined with an additional $3.7 billion freed up from expiring one-time costs and Proposition 98 adjustments, schools and community colleges can anticipate a 2.46% cost-of-living-adjustment for programs like the Local Control Funding Formula, the primary source of spending for TK-12. That will leave $2.8 billion in new, uncommitted spending. (The LAO suggests using a piece of that to wipe off $400 million in “deferrals,” late payments to schools that will be carried over from year to year unless paid off.)

    Even though California’s economy has been slowing and the unemployment rate is higher, the 2024-25 Proposition 98 level is projected to be $118.3 billion, $3 billion more than the Legislature set in June; however, none of the increase will go to the pockets of school districts and community colleges. All of it, by statute, will be deposited into the Proposition 98 reserve account unless the Legislature overrides the law.

    “I think that’s the element of our forecast that will surprise school groups the most,” said Ken Kapphahn, principal fiscal and policy analyst for the LAO. “I think many people do understand revenue is up in 2024-25. What isn’t as well understood is that the increase is going into the reserve and not available for them.”

    “Building reserves is a good use of one-time funding,” he said. “We just saw how valuable those reserves can be when we went through $9.5 billion from the reserve. That was a big reason why the state didn’t have to cut ongoing school programs last year. In some ways, making a deposit makes sense right now; it’s an opportunity to rebuild that reserve.”

    A big increase in tax receipts from capital gains income, which governs when and how much is deposited into the rainy-day fund, is the source of the money, the LAO said. Much of it is from stock options and reflects the wealth gap between well-compensated high-tech employees and other workers.  

    There’s also expected to be enough money by the end of 2024-25 to pay off nearly two-thirds of the $8 billion debt to schools and community colleges in 2022-23, caused by a revenue shortfall resulting from a short Covid-19 recession.

    The Proposition 98 debt to schools is called a “maintenance factor.” Repaying it becomes the top state priority once more revenue becomes available — to the extent of capturing 95 cents of every new dollar in the general fund.  The LAO projects that the maintenance factor will be lowered $4.8 billion this year, leaving $3.3 billion unpaid.

    Proposition 98 is a stunningly complex formula, and the higher 2024-25 funding level will add a new twist. Usually, the Proposition 98 level from one year becomes the base funding level for the next year. But the increase in 2024-25 is expected to be big enough to trigger a rarely used “spike” protection, limiting the increase in 2025-26; without that restriction, Proposition 98 would be $4.1 billion higher than LAO’s forecast. 

    The rationale behind its adoption is to create stability in the non-Proposition 98 side of the general fund. Education advocates view it differently, as a way to fund schools at the minimum constitutionally required level — and no more.

    “The maintenance factor payment increases Prop. 98 on an ongoing basis. On the other hand, the state is making the spike protection adjustment to slow the growth in Prop. 98,” said Kapphahn. “Both of those different formulas are part of the constitution, and they happen to be working in opposite ways.”

    The “spike” clause has been triggered several times before during years of unusual growth in Proposition 98. What would be different this time is that 2025-26 funding of $116.8 billion would be $1.5 billion less than LAO’s projection for 2024-25.

    TK-12 revenue is tied to student attendance, which has been declining in most districts. Attendance statewide fell by nearly 550,000 (9.3%) from 2019-20 to 2021-22 during the height of the Covid pandemic, and has recovered gradually. The LAO expects overall attendance to increase slightly by 12,000 students (0.2%) in 2024-25 and 26,000 (0.5%) in 2025-26 due to the expansion of transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds. The LAO projects attendance will drop each of the three years after that by about 60,000 students primarily because of a smaller school-age population due to lower births.





    Source link

  • Trump Celebrated His First 100 Days by Attacking Biden

    Trump Celebrated His First 100 Days by Attacking Biden


    Multiple polls show that Trump has the worst ratings of any President in decades at this point in his term. But he doesn’t believe the polls unless they affirm his claims. While polls show that the public is opposed to his tariffs, economic uncertainty, and continued inflation, he continues to claim great success and to attack Joe Biden. One big change: he switched referencing “the late, great Hannnibal Lecter” and now refers to “the late, great Al Capone.”

    In other words, he’s the same old Trump: boasting, lying, and insulting his enemies.

    Dana Milbank watched his 100-day celebration of the “new golden age” and reported back:

    President Donald Trump, at his Michigan rally on Tuesday night marking 100 days in office, gave a shout-out to his traveling groupies from the campaign trail. There was “my friend, Blacks for Trump,” the guy in the brick-patterned suit he identified as “Mr. Wall,” the group of “beautiful women” from North Carolina and the “Front Row Joes.”

    “I miss you guys,” he said. “I miss the campaign.”
    I believe him.

    After 100 days on the job, Trump has found the hard work of governing to be less pleasant. His tariffs have destabilized markets and brought historic levels of pessimism to American businesses and consumers. His policies have alienated allies and emboldened Russia and China. He has the lowest approval rating that any president in generations has experienced at this stage of his presidency.

    Those were simpler times, when he could make up nonsense claims about how Joe Biden, “the worst president in history,” had turned the United States into a “failing nation” and a “third-world country” — and could present an alternative in which Trump would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours, spread peace across the planet and make a booming U.S. economy the envy of the world.

    So what did Trump do to mark his 100th day in office? He renewed his campaign against Biden.
    “What’s better, Crooked Joe or Sleepy Joe?” he asked his supporters in Michigan. “Ready? A poll!”

    Having ascertained from the crowd that they preferred the moniker “Crooked Joe,” Trump revived a favorite campaign story about his retired former opponent. “He goes to the beach, right? And he could fall asleep … drooling out of the side of his mouth. And he’d be sleeping within 10 minutes.” The story went on in disjointed fashion: “Carrying the aluminum chair, you know, the kind that’s meant for old people and children to carry? It weighs like about four ounces. And he couldn’t get his feet out of the sand … He’d be in a bathing suit. Somebody convinced him that he looks great in a bathing suit.” [Imagine Trump in a bathing suit!]

    Trump invoked Biden’s name 21 times on Tuesday night, not counting an additional nine references to “Sleepy Joe” and “Crooked Joe,” a transcript shows. This is on top of various and sundry disparaging references to the “last administration” or simply “this group” or “that guy.” By comparison, Trump made just two mentions of the economy in an hour and a half, and seven of inflation — and even these were often employed to describe “Biden’s inflation disaster” and the like.

    Here was a president with so little to say about his own achievements that he dwelled on the imagined failures of another man: “Sleepy Joe, the worst president in history … Biden had no control … Joe Biden was down 35 points. The debate was not a good one for him … Whoever operated the autopen was the real president.”

    On some level, Trump must have known it wouldn’t really work to blame Biden for his problems. Recounting a conversation with an appointee about the price of eggs, Trump said the price would have to come down, because “nobody is going to believe me when you get out there that it’s Sleepy Joe Biden’s fault.”

    And yet that’s just what Trump spent the night doing. For 100 days, he has run the country with authoritarian sweep, unconstrained by Congress (with its subservient GOP majority) or by concern for what is legal or constitutional. If things aren’t going well, he has nobody to blame but himself.

    Yet he looked everywhere for villains to take the fall. He mocked “Kamala, Kamala, Kamala” and “lunatic” Bernie Sanders “going around with AOC.” He blamed “fake polls” put out by the “crooked people” in the media. He cited the “totally crazy” backbenchers who want to impeach him and imagined that “the radical Democrat Party is racing to the defense of some of the most violent savages on the face of the Earth.”

    He recited his grievances as if the months and years had never passed: Democrats “tried to cheat” in 2024. They “tried to jail your president.” He was “under investigation more than the late, great Alphonse Capone.” To his familiar list of persecutors, he added a few new entrants: “grandstander” Republicans,” the Federal Reserve and “communist radical left judges.”

    Even so, he insisted that he presided over “the most successful first 100 days of any administration in the history of our country, and that’s according to many, many people.” By “many people” he apparently meant “Stephen Miller,” for the presidential aide joined Trump on the stage and shouted at the crowd that Trump is “the greatest president in American history!”

    Trump regaled his audience with phony achievements in lieu of actual ones. The cost of eggs is down 87 percent. We now have a trade surplus. His actual approval rating is “in the 60s or 70s.” Americans say the country is headed in the right direction for “the first time ever.” His tariffs are acts of “genius.”

    The crowd cheered for his inventions. They cheered for Elon Musk and Pete Hegseth. They cheered for a video showing migrants, deported without due process, being humiliated at an El Salvador prison. They cheered him for pardoning the “political prisoners” who attacked the Capitol. They cheered when a junior aide joined him on stage and asked, “Trump 2028, anybody?”

    The rally began, as during the campaign, with the song “God Bless the USA” and ended by doing his Trump dance to “YMCA.” Supporters waved placards proclaiming a new “Golden Age.”
    And yet, the magic was gone. The pool traveling with Trump’s motorcade found relatively few supporters lining the motorcade route. When Trump called a supporter onstage for a lengthy tribute ending with the words “President Trump, I love you,” a girl on the stage behind Trump yawned. Attendees started trickling out of the arena 30 minutes into his speech and continued doing so over the next hour.

    Perhaps they had come seeking reassurance about their present troubles — only to hear from a man mired stubbornly in the past.



    Source link

  • Literacy bill compromise gains support of a former foe and passes first hurdle

    Literacy bill compromise gains support of a former foe and passes first hurdle


    An elementary student reads on his own in class.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    KEY Takeaways
    • The California Teachers Association testifies in support of the compromise.
    • Co-author: Reaching a deal was by far her hardest challenge as a legislator.
    • Up against a deadline, an Assembly committee endorses a bill they haven’t actually read.

    A new bill that could reshape early reading instruction quickly passed its first test in the Legislature on Wednesday, with a major opponent doing an about-face and publicly announcing support.

    Members of the Assembly Education Committee unanimously passed Assembly Bill 1454 after a short hearing. The compromise legislation that Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas helped create, after months of stalemate, won over the California Teachers Association (CTA).

    “Reasonable people can disagree on reasonable things, but we also can show the world how you can disagree and come together,” said Patricia Rucker, a lobbyist for the CTA and former member of the State School Board. “We’re committed to continuing the work on this bill to keep the bill moving forward.”

    Advocates of a comprehensive statewide approach to early literacy say the bill would fill in significant gaps in what has been missing under the state’s current policy of local control over instructional decisions.

    The main elements are:

    • The California Department of Education would select teacher training programs in reading instruction for TK-3 that are aligned with “evidence-based practices.”
    • The State Board of Education will designate appropriate TK-8 textbooks for reading instruction, also based on evidence-based practices and aligned to the state English language arts framework and English language development framework for English learners. School districts would have to choose among those or seek a waiver from the state board.
    • The Commission on Teacher Credentialing would update school administrator standards to include training for principals and district administrators on supporting effective literacy instruction.

    Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, the author of a previous bill that stalled and is now co-authoring AB 1454, said at the hearing that negotiating the compromise “by far, has been the hardest thing that I have ever done in nine years as a legislator.”

    “Sometimes I was ready to walk away,” she said, “but for the coalition (of supporters), parents, family members, and of course, our speaker, for finally sitting us down and saying, ‘Get it done. Get it done.’ ”

    Several Education Committee members said they appreciated the effort.

    “You can find people who are struggling readers in every community,” said Darshana Patel, D-San Diego. “To know that you are focused on making sure the very fundamental, foundational skill of learning to read is available for every single child is so meaningful and important.”

    The language of AB 1454 and its implementation over the next several years will determine its effectiveness. Members of the Assembly Education Committee, however, relied on a staff analysis of the bill, not the bill itself. It has yet to be released, because the intense talks that led to the deal continued into this week, leaving not enough time for the Legislative Counsel to vet the wording before the final hearing for new bills.

    When published within the next few days, the new wording will replace a spot bill, about heating and cooling, that is there now.

    AB 1454 contains many key elements of AB 1121, a contested bill, authored by Alvardo and co-sponsored by advocacy nonprofits EdVoice and Families In Schools,  Decoding Dyslexia CA and the California NAACP. First introduced last year and reintroduced this year, it stalled because of disagreement with CTA and English learner advocacy groups over how much research-based training should emphasize foundational skills, starting with phonics in TK to Grade 2 and progressing to learning vocabulary, oral skills, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Together, they are known as structured literacy or “the science of reading.”

    English learner advocates, including Californians Together, argue that a rigid application of structured literacy would ignore the needs of English learners and attention to bilingual language learners.

    Under AB 1454, reading instruction training would be optional, not mandatory, although districts must provide state-approved courses to be reimbursed by the state. The bill’s language will also call attention to the needs of English learners, and the California Department of Education will consult with a range of language-acquisition experts, including English learner organizations, when choosing the programs.

    The bill will skirt fights over semantics by avoiding references to structured literacy and the science of reading. However, the bill is expected to require aligning training to existing statutory requirements for reading instruction, which specify foundational skills.

    Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, drew an optimistic analogy to the state effort to require universal screening for potential reading challenges. CTA and English learner advocacy groups initially opposed that initiative, but later supported the effort, after extensive negotiations and agreement on an advisory committee of experts. “This fall, 1.2 million kids, kindergarten, first and second grade will be screened for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia,” he said.

    Tracking progress with data

    Tuck said that under the bill, the state will begin collecting data for the first time on how many teachers complete the training, and which training programs, textbooks and materials districts choose. “And then collectively, we can all say, OK, these districts are making real progress. They had consistency. They used similar programs and they trained a lot of teachers. Maybe these districts aren’t making as much progress.”

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, an English learner growing up, said the issue will be not just how widespread the training is, but whether it’s appropriately used. “At the end of the day, it’s what is happening with the students who are the ones who are struggling,” he said, adding that he appreciated the bill’s attention to biliteracy.

    “This is a one-size-fits-all approach,” he said, adding that progress is happening in small reading cohorts with one-on-one literacy coaching. “How we track that would be helpful.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom included $250 million in his initial 2025-26 state budget he proposed in January, but since then the financial outlook has darkened; money for new programs is expected to be scarce. However, Rivas as Assembly speaker; Alvarez, as chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance; and Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, a co-author of AB 1454 and chair of the Assembly Education Committee, are well-positioned to see the bill passed and funded. Newsom, who has funded several early literacy initiatives in the past four years, may be receptive.

    No member of the public spoke against the bill. Instead, EdVoice, Families in Schools, and Innovate Public Schools, based in San Francisco, organized dozens of parents, members of the Black Parallel School Board and supporters to travel to Sacramento.  Although they signed up for Rubio’s stalled bill, they switched bills when they learned of the compromise. They were given time to say just one sentence.

    “I’m a parent of a dyslexic who only learned to read in the third grade because of outside resources,” said Alyson Henry. “I’m here in support of 1454.”

    “On behalf of the Sacramento Literacy Foundation, the Sacramento Literacy Coalition, the 200,000 kids who are not reading at grade level right now, and my son, a struggling reader, I am in support of 1454,” said April Jarvis.





    Source link

  • How Cal State’s first Black woman trustee influenced the university system

    How Cal State’s first Black woman trustee influenced the university system


    Donna J. Nicol, author of a book about Claudia Hampton, the first Black woman to serve on the Cal State board of trustees.

    Credit: Courtesy of Donna J. Nicol

    It was the photo of a Black woman dressed in university regalia that caught Donna J. Nicol’s eye. 

    “Trustee Claudia Hampton,” the caption read, “appointed by Reagan.”

    Nicol, an associate dean at Cal State Long Beach who studies the history of racism and sexism in higher education, was stunned. Ronald Reagan, as governor, opposed mandatory busing as a tool of school desegregation and, as president, attempted to undo affirmative action policies in the workplace. How could it be, Nicol wondered, that he appointed the first Black woman to sit on the California State University board of trustees? And what did Hampton do once she got there?

    Black Woman on Board: Claudia Hampton, the California State University, and the Fight to Save Affirmative Action”, Nicol’s recent book, answers those questions and others about Hampton’s two-decade stint on the board of trustees that governs the 23-campus public university system. Prior to her appointment at CSU, Hampton worked to enforce desegregation orders in the Los Angeles Unified School District and earned a doctoral degree from the University of Southern California. She rose to the CSU board when an opportunity to meet then-Gov. Reagan’s education secretary turned into an informal vetting process for a board seat. (She met Reagan only once, as far as Nicol can tell, an encounter Hampton described as pleasant.) 

    The book tracks Hampton’s emergence as a master tactician and a skillful diplomat on the Cal State board of trustees. Initially excluded from the informal telephone calls and meetings in which fellow board members discussed CSU business outside of regular meeting times, Nicol writes, Hampton traded votes with trustees to earn influence. Eventually, she began hosting board members for dinner to ensure she had a voice in important decisions, a practice she continued as board chair. Hampton also withstood subtle (and not so subtle) racism to win support for policies benefiting low-income students of color. 

    Though at first skeptical of Hampton’s approach to board politics, Nicol came to understand her as a pragmatist who worked within the period’s racial and gender norms to wield power on a board dominated by white, wealthy and conservative men. 

    “I realized how genius she was,” Nicol said. “When she became board chair, she had a strategy of letting her supporters talk first, and then her opponents had to play defense later. Everything was strategic.”

    Nicol also details Hampton’s work to implement, monitor and ensure funding for affirmative action programs. Soon after Hampton’s death, California voters passed Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot measure that bans state entities from using race, ethnicity or sex as criteria in such areas as public education and employment.  

    But Hampton’s legacy is still felt in CSU and beyond, Nicol writes. CSU created the State University Grant program after Hampton argued that increases to student fees should be offset by more need-based aid. A student scholarship named in her honor is aimed at underserved Los Angeles-area students. The California Academy of Mathematics and Sciences, a prestigious public high school that was her brainchild, continues to operate on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills.

    Nicol counts herself among the many students to have benefited from Claudia Hampton’s advocacy. She attended an enrichment program for African American high school students at Cal State Dominguez Hills and received a State University Grant to pursue her master’s degree at Cal State Long Beach. Today, Nicol is the associate dean of personnel and curriculum at Long Beach’s College of Liberal Arts. She spoke to EdSource about the book and Hampton’s legacy.

    This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.   

    You write about a couple of incidents in which Hampton used some savvy diplomatic skills while on the Cal State board of trustees. Would you mind walking us through an example or two of those strategies?

    She was silent (at board meetings) for her first year. She didn’t talk, because she used that time to assess who were the power players, who were the people who had the capital. And so when she identified them, she said, “I have to trade votes with them.”

    One of her first appointments was to be on the Organization and Rules Committee. People treated it as a throwaway committee, but she was the chair, and so she decided, “I’m going to learn all of the board policies inside and out.”

    Before she passed away in (1994), she asked for a very specific rule, which is to hold presidents accountable for the implementation of affirmative action. What she wanted to ensure was that someone besides the middle manager, who would be the affirmative action officer, would be held accountable to make sure that they didn’t fall short on their affirmative action goals. 

    Claudia Hampton faced both subtle and overt racism that challenged the legitimacy of her role on the board. What are some examples of the discrimination that she experienced and how she was able to overcome that opposition?

    She was kind of presumed incompetent, because she was a Black woman coming into the board — even though she actually had a doctorate degree coming in.

    You had a trustee by the name of Wendell Witter. This is a few years in. They’re discussing affirmative action. And he yells out, “Oh my God, there’s a n— in the woodpile.” So she is taken aback by all of this, and all the men on the board, she says, are upset, too. And Wendell Witter is looking around like, “Well, what did I do? It’s just an expression.” 

    Hampton had a lot of experience in administration in (Los Angeles Unified), and she worked explicitly on race relations within the K-12 setting. When she got to the board, instead of yelling at Witter for what he had said, she told the board chair at the time, “I’ll talk to him individually. You keep going with that meeting.” And so the men on the board started to rally around her, because they viewed her as a political moderate, because she had every right at that moment to tell him off for the statements.

    Help me to understand the victories that Hampton ultimately won with regard to affirmative action and related policies.

    California Gov. Jerry Brown was actually kind of an opponent of affirmative action. He would say he supported it, but then when it came to funding, he would support (Educational Opportunity Programs, or EOPs, which help low-income and other underrepresented students attending a CSU campus), but he would not (fund) student affirmative action (in admissions) or faculty and staff affirmative action (in hiring). Hampton put a lot of pressure on Jerry Brown. She would call him out in meetings and say, “What about your commitment to these principles?’” (Hampton ultimately used her board position to ensure funding for student affirmative action pilot programs during a period of budget cuts in the late 1970s.)

    There was an update in the admission standards for students (in the 1980s). And she told people, ‘Yes, we’re going to increase the admission standards, but what we’re going to do is make sure that there’s enough EOP money that would prepare students in low-income areas in order to make sure they could meet those standards.’ She was particularly focused on the fact that L.A. Unified and San Francisco Unified had these large numbers of students of color and low-income students, but they weren’t getting access to things beyond reading, writing and arithmetic. They didn’t have access to a drama club or all those sorts of things. So she made sure that the CSU put funding aside to help support (that programming).

    Hampton and other affirmative action advocates’ success was short-lived because of the passage of Proposition 209, which prohibited state and local governments from considering race and other factors in public education. What were the forces that brought about Proposition 209?

    You have the recession that happened in the 1990s. Wherever there’s a recession and an economic downturn, you see an uptick in either racial violence or racial animus. So that’s one big part of it. The other part is the L.A. riots of 1992 because folks are like, ‘Well, they don’t deserve affirmative action, because look at how they’re behaving in the streets.’ That’s the idea. And then you also have, in 1994, Proposition 187, which has to deal with undocumented students.

    So you take all of those things – the recession, the LA riots, Proposition 187. Then, on top of that, you have (University of California regent member Ward Connerly, who championed Proposition 209) as this Black man who becomes a public face of the anti-affirmative action movement. (Connerly has said he has Native American, Black and white ancestry.) He’s kind of supercharging the debate over whether affirmative action is a good thing or not. So that’s really what led to its falling apart.

    We find ourselves now in a moment when a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has effectively ended the practice of race-conscious college admissions. Are there lessons from Hampton’s life that you feel are even more relevant today in that context?

    I think that having diversity in our boards is really important because diversity leads to better policy. Too often we think of diversity as a feel-good thing — to make people feel included and inclusive. We talk about representation, but representation is more than just having two or three people from this group here; It’s really about having different perspectives so that you can write better policy.

    If you look at the CSU board, it is more diverse than it was, but is it reflective of what’s happening on the ground with students? I’m at CSU Long Beach, and we have a much larger Latinx population than what is represented on the board.

    I always say that the American project has been built on racism, and we don’t reconcile that. And Hampton just approaches the problem in a different way than others. I was raised in the Black radical tradition. So I had to come to terms with this pragmatic side — that we need the pragmatic and we need the radical at the same time. You need the radical to raise the consciousness of people, but you need the pragmatic in order to turn it into policy and something that has a legacy. 

    I also think that Hampton — her story, her life, what she did for the board— really demonstrates, in a lot of ways, people’s ignorance about how the trustees work. They’re super powerful, but they are super unnoticed. They are appointed by governors, and they are not held to account by the public.





    Source link

  • California launches first phase of long-anticipated Cradle-to-Career data system

    California launches first phase of long-anticipated Cradle-to-Career data system


    After years of preparation inside and outside the state Capitol (shown), California has launched a website that gathers all sorts of education and career data in a single, searchable place.

    Credit: Kirby Lee / AP

    Top Takeaways
    • The Cradle-to-Career data system links education, workforce and social service data.
    • The Student Pathways dashboard, released Tuesday, will help students decide on a college and career path.
    • California is one of the few states that make educational data easily accessible to the public.

    California introduced the first phase of its ambitious Cradle-to-Career data system Tuesday, making it one of the few states with education data accessible to everyone.

    Now, parents, students and others can go to the Cradle-to-Career (C2C) website to learn how many graduates from each school district earned a bachelor’s degree each year, how long it took to achieve that goal and how much, on average, they earned after graduation.

    Cradle-to-Career links data sets from school districts, institutions of higher education, workforce organizations and social services to help students plan their education and careers.

    The first phase, the Student Pathways dashboard, explores pathways to and through college, college enrollment, awards and diplomas, time to graduation or certificate, and earnings during and after college.

    “With the C2C Student Pathways Dashboard now live, Californians can visualize their futures by seeing disconnected data from across sectors and previously unavailable insights, all in one place,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement released Tuesday. “The Golden State is once again leading the way in innovation, connecting our education system to the workforce to ensure everyone has the freedom to succeed.”

    How it works

    The website uses charts, guiding questions and pull-down menus to make the information accessible and easy to use. The pull-down menus allow users to compare their child’s school to other schools, the state average or legislative districts. They can also compare the pathway progress of different student populations, said Ryan Estrellado, director of data programs for C2C.

    Each chart in the dashboard has links with instructions to help users interpret it, and includes links to underlying data that can be downloaded and used by the public to create their own charts and reports.

     “What’s so exciting about what California has done is they’re putting the information out to everybody,” said Paige Kowalski, vice president of the Data Quality Campaign, a national nonprofit advocacy organization. “It’s out there for the community folks, for schools, for parents, for kids looking at colleges. And, this is their first step, right? It’s not everything. It’s not all of it, but it is the first step, and it’s a really good one.”

    Future C2C dashboards will focus on early education, primary school, college and career readiness, transfer outcomes, financial aid, employment outcomes, and teacher training and retention. 

    This year, the data team will work on launching additional dashboards and completing a secure data enclave to allow researchers to use underlying data, said Mary Ann Bates, executive director of C2C. 

    Access to centralized data about education and workforce outcomes is necessary to understand whether efforts to improve student success are working, according to a media release from C2C. The dashboards will not include information about individual students.

    A community effort

    The website follows years of community meetings, open meetings of the 21-member C2C board and feedback from residents, advocates, policymakers and researchers. The most requested feature from the public, Bates said, allows users to break down the data by both geography and student populations.

    “We hope that when the public uses this, they will see that the questions and the feedback that they had are represented here,” Estrellado said Monday. “The most exciting part for me is that we invite them to continue that conversation with us as we improve this tool. I can’t wait to get it to the public.”

    C2C data will eventually be available in three ways — through accessible data stories and charts, through aggregated data files that use query builders, and through a data request process for approved research projects.

    Launch delayed

    The initial launch was originally expected to happen late last year. 

    “We prioritize securing the data system, ensuring privacy protection and ensuring linked information is accurate and reliable before working to make our tools publicly available,” said Bates when asked about the delay.

    The data for the website is submitted each March by partners that have signed data-sharing agreements with C2C, including the California Department of Education, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, University of California, California State University, California Community Colleges, Department of Social Services, Employment Development Department, Department of Industrial Relations, Department of Developmental Services and private universities.

    The data from all partners was linked by the end of the year, Bates said.

    “We’re really proud of being able to have moved from the linkage of the underlying data system to releasing a public tool just a few months later,” Bates said. “Few (states) have prioritized creating dashboards like this for the public. And many of those have done so after more than a decade of working on building their data systems.”

    Six years in the making

    In 2019, the Legislature passed the Cradle-to-Career Data System Act, which called for creating a data system to support teachers, parents and students; enable agencies to optimize educational, workplace and health and human services programs; streamline financial aid administration, and advance research.

    The state legislation included public engagement in the planning process and mandated that the data system also require an annual survey of students and their families to ensure their voices and experiences guide the work, according to C2C. By the end of 2023, the program had received its first batch of data.

    The price tag for the project, which includes direct costs like contracts, as well as relevant staff time, is $24.2 million, Bates said, and current spending is still below that.

    There is also an ongoing line item in the state budget to fund the operation of the office and to pay the salaries of its staff, including $15 million this fiscal year.

    Federal cuts to education data collection are not expected to impact the Cradle-to-Career IT project, which is entirely funded by California. It is not clear if data collection from any of the state’s data partners will be negatively impacted by federal cuts.

    “Regardless of what happens in the federal context, we remain committed to ensuring that we’re building a data system that answers the needs of Californians and remains true to California’s values,” Bates said.

    Kowalski is hopeful that the work California has done can be replicated in other states.

    It took a great deal of political will, resources and expertise to make the California data system a reality, Kowalski said.

    “Data tells us what kind of job we’re doing, how we fared as a political leader, as an agency head, as a system leader,” Kowalski said. 

    “And when you put that data out there, whether you’re sharing it with another agency, or you’re putting it out in the public, or you’re handing it over to a researcher, you are giving them the power to look at that data and judge you.”





    Source link

  • First PBL Project Modest in Scope Achieve Best Results

    First PBL Project Modest in Scope Achieve Best Results


    PBL Project Scope Image

    Scope

    First PBL Project needs to be modest in scope to achieve the best result. Andrew Miller stresses that if you are just getting started with Project Based Learning, “Don’t Go Crazy”. Miller’s article “Getting Started with Project-Based Learning (Hint: Don’t Go Crazy)” suggests a few things to consider if you are just started with PBL:

    Limited Scope:

    Try to focus on two or three priority standards for your first project. Concentrate the learning on one subject rather than multiple disciplines. Aim for a two-to-three-week project, or approximately 10 to 15 contact hours.

    In addition to limiting the time, you might consider narrowing choice. Instead of many product options, offer a short menu. Allow students to choose how they want to work but choose the teams for the project yourself. There are many ways to build voice and choice into a project, but these aspects can be limited.

    By narrowing the scope of a project, teachers and their students can have short-term success that builds stamina for more complex projects later.

    Plan Early:

    One of the challenges of PBL, but also one of the joys, is the planning process. In PBL, you plan up front, and it does take a significant amount of time. You need to plan assessments and scaffolds and gather resources to support project learning.

    While you might be able to do some of this during scheduled planning time, ask your leadership for creative structures to carve out time for planning. Perhaps staff meetings can be used for this time, or release days can be offered.

    It is important to get ahead and feel prepared for and confident about a project. By using the backward design process, you can effectively map out a project that is ready to go in the classroom.

    Once you plan, you can differentiate instruction and meet the needs of your students, rather than being in permanent crisis mode trying to figure out what will happen tomorrow.

    Gather Feedback:

    When you have a great project planned, contact colleagues both digitally and in person to get feedback. This can be done through posting an idea on X or having a gallery walk of ideas, where teachers walk your project gallery and leave feedback on Post-its. If you can, have a 30-minute conversation with a teacher colleague or instructional coach.

    Main Course, Not Dessert:

    It is easy in a short-term project to fall into the trap of a “dessert” project that isn’t necessarily inquiry based. With PBL, the project itself is the learning- it’s the “main course.” In fact, many teachers who think they are doing PBL are actually doing project. In PBL you are teaching through the project-not teaching and then doing the project.

    Use an effective PBL project checklist to ensure a high-quality experience, while still keeping a narrow focus and timeline. It helps ensure that you focus on aspects such as inquiry, voice and choice, and significant content.

    Commit to Reflection:

    We are all learners, and when we start something new, we start small, limiting our focus to help us master the bigger thing step by step. A key aspect of this is that when you finish a project, you should take time to reflect on it.

    Consider journaling, having a dialogue with an instructional coach, or following a structured reflection protocol with a team of teachers.

    Through reflection, projects become better and may live on for many years, so that reflection time pays off with time saved on subsequent runs through the project.

    Tips From the Classroom

    From PBL in the Elementary Grades Step-by-Step Guidance book provides the following tips:

    First Project? Modest is Best

    A project ambitious in scope might last a month or more. It would involve multiple subjects and complex products, community outreach, presentations to a large public audience, advanced technology…but if this is your first project, you don’t need to go there yet. You might want to get comfortable with the basics of PBL first. Here’s what we advise for a modest first project:

    • 2 weeks in duration
    • 1 curricular area of focus (with integrated literacy standards)
    • limited complexity and number of student products
    • takes place completely in the classroom, does not include trips into the community

    Hallermann, Sara; Larmer, John; Mergendoller PhD, John. PBL in the Elementary Grades: Step-by-Step Guidance, Tools and Tips for Standards-Focused K-5 Projects (p. 28). Buck Institute for Education. Kindle Edition.

    Reminder:

    If you have no idea for your first Project Based Learning, you can read my post Explore Project Idea with 5 Tips for Authentic Learning.

    You can read my next post PBL Project Design Focus on Content Knowledge & 3Cs Students Need



    Source link