اینترنت

برچسب: for

  • ‘Something went wrong’: state reconsiders who will get $470 million for college and career grants

    ‘Something went wrong’: state reconsiders who will get $470 million for college and career grants


    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

    UPDATE: The California Department of Education has announced a new timeline for the Golden State Pathways Program. Learn more.

    In June 2022, the California Legislature decided to invest a half billion dollars into the Golden State Pathways Program, a career and college preparation program that Gov. Gavin Newsom called a “game-changer” for high school students. But two years later, frustration is rising among school leaders who have begun another school year without the promised funding.

    Advocates say the vision of the Golden State Pathways Program laid out by the Legislature is both progressive and practical. Career pathways aim to prepare high school students with both college preparatory courses and career education in fields such as STEM, education or health care. But those same advocates are frustrated by the program’s rollout, which they say has been beset by late deadlines, a confusing application process and delayed funding.

    “We are approaching a third budget cycle, and to not have the money out the door is derelict,” said Kevin Gordon, president of the education consultancy Capitol Advisors Group. He lobbies on behalf of clients that include school districts that were promised funding.

    The most recent snafu came to light when the California Department of Education announced in July that it was again reviewing the way it would dole out grant money — two months after Newsom and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced the 302 districts and education entities that would be recipients of $470 million.

    Previously announced Golden State Pathways Program grant recipients include school districts large and small, charters, regional occupational centers and county offices of education. Recipients could receive up to $500,000 to implement one career pathway, and $200,000 to plan a pathway. Districts with many high schools and pathways could expect millions or even tens of millions of dollars in grants.

    Schools plan to use the grant money to expand dual enrollment, increase exposure to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers through programs like job shadowing, and to hire support staff to help students with their college and career plans.

    Administrators counting on that funding said the news that the California Department of Education (CDE) was reviewing grant awards has thrown their plans and budgets for this school year into disarray.

    One administrator at a midsize school district said the prospect of not receiving the expected grants, especially in the wake of sunsetting pandemic funds, is difficult. This administrator asked to speak on background, citing a concern that CDE could hold it against the district during the ongoing grant review process.

    “Our district had an implementation plan that we are continuing to move forward with, and we are hopeful that the funding will materialize,” the administrator said. “The unfortunate part is that there are other resources that students will not receive if the funding doesn’t come through.”

    A group of organizations penned a letter asking state leaders to do everything in their power to get the promised funds flowing by November for a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” Signatories included advocacy groups such EdTrust-West, school districts in Los Angeles, Oakland and Sacramento and even businesses such as the port of Long Beach. The letter to Newsom, Thurmond and Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education, referred to delays that have affected the competitive grant program.

    “We are extremely concerned, as this is not the first time processes have been delayed without a stated resolution date,” the letter stated.

    Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Tim Hire said he hopes to work with the state to find a swift resolution for the sake of students. The Tulare County Office of Education was selected as the lead agency for the state in November.

    “When there’s a delay, that means kids aren’t accessing those experiences and resources,” Hire said.

    Schools are in limbo

    There were signs during May’s announcement of grant awards that something went awry, according to school administrators.

    One school district was awarded three times the funding it requested, and others were awarded 1.5 times what they applied for, according to a countywide administrator. This administrator also asked for anonymity over a concern about CDE’s possible reaction to speaking out. 

    These local education agencies (LEAs) “don’t have the capacity to do three times as much work, even if they were awarded three times as much money,” the countrywide administrator said. This problem left school leaders “frustrated and a bit confused.”

    Hire confirmed that “overallocation” of grants was a problem across the state. Some schools received more than they asked, while others received none, but it wasn’t clear why.

    “Why did a district receive more than they requested?” he stated. “That’s a legitimate question to ask.”

    Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the department, said last May’s announcement was “preliminary.” The reconsideration of the recipients resulted from a “substantial” number of appeals, according to a July 16 statement.

    “Upon receiving appeals for Golden State Pathways Grant awards, the CDE determined that it was necessary to review all awards allocations in order to ensure that allocations are distributed consistently and fairly,” Roark wrote in a statement. The review will conclude by the end of September, he added. There will be a window for further appeals before funds are released.

    Many schools believed the announcement was official and included the awards in annual school budgets passed before July 1, according to an administrator who also declined to be identified by name, and who assisted schools with their grant applications.

    Roark said that the department received appeals for a “range of reasons” but declined to say what those reasons were.

    The review of $470 million in funds, now stretching well beyond the beginning of the school year, has put districts in an uneasy position. 

    Some school districts have put their plans on hold amid the uncertainty. By the time the grant funding is actually released, “it will likely be too late to hire,” said the administrator at a mid-sized district. “That puts the program launch another year behind.”

    Long Beach Unified is splitting the difference by moving forward with only a portion of the initiatives the district outlined in its grant application. In the initial announcement, the district was awarded $10.7 million in implementation grants and $335,523 in planning grants.

    Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was initially awarded $37.8 million in implementation grants and $200,000 in planning grants. A district spokesperson said it will be difficult to understand the effect of the revised awards until they’re announced.

    “We will have a better sense of its impact at that time,” said Britt Vaughan, a spokesperson for LAUSD.

    Regional leaders don’t have contracts

    It’s not just schools that have been left in financial limbo by the delayed rollout. 

    Up to 5% of $500 million for the program is set aside for grant administration, mostly through county offices of education. But that funding has yet to go out to the state lead and eight regional agencies for work they have been doing since January.

    Hire said that not having a contractual agreement yet with CDE has put the Tulare County Office of Education in an “uncomfortable position,” especially during a tight budget year.

    “We delayed hiring and just spread the workload among our current staff, which is challenging and probably not the best delivery of service,” Hire said.

    Colby Smart, deputy superintendent for the Humboldt County Office of Education, said this program is vital for California’s workforce, not just a “nice-to- have.” He expects the state will ultimately send funding to the regional lead office for Northern California, but the office has faced many “roadblocks,” including finalizing its contract and nailing down the scope of work.

    The administrator of one regional lead, who declined to use their name, said, “I’ve never in my life seen such dysfunction.”

    Rollout was ‘set up to fail’

    The rollout of the grant funding has faced hiccups along the way.

    The legislation behind the Golden State Pathways Program passed during the 2022-23 legislative session. Requests for proposals didn’t go out that year, but the program survived a massive budget cut in the next legislative session. In January, the department put out its request for proposals.

    Originally, March 19 was the deadline for grant proposals for programs that would begin in April. But due to “overwhelming interest,” the department said it needed extra time to complete the reviews. The awards were announced May 31.

    Administrators who worked on the proposal said that the application process itself was fraught. CDE revised the grant application several times.

    “They created something that was so complex from the get-go that it was set up to fail,” said Kathy Goodacre, the CEO of CTE Foundation, a nonprofit that works with school districts in Sonoma County. “But still, something went wrong.”

    CDE denied that a review of this magnitude was unprecedented.

    “Though we work to avoid significant review when possible, a review is not highly unusual and has occurred in the past,” Roark wrote in a statement.

    Both the federal and state governments have made big investments in preparing high school students for college and career at the K-12 level. The Golden State Pathways Program is a key piece of the governor’s plan for career education — a broad vision to ensure that all the agencies in the state are working together coherently.

    The countywide administrator said the problems with the rollout of the Golden State Pathways Program is an example of what happens when the funding for career and technical education (CTE) is not coherent. Funding for career pathways comes from over a dozen grants, some of which require applications every year. That creates a burden for both local education agencies and CDE, the administrator said.

    “Funding CTE is like buying programs on gift cards,” the countywide administrator stated. “We never know what we will get.”

    Even though the rollout of the Golden State Pathways Program has been frustrating, educators say that the program is critical for the state.

    “Half a billion is important for our students and our future,” the countywide administrator stated. “We want students to have economic mobility and make more than their parents did.”





    Source link

  • Without funding, 10-year-old plan to improve literacy for all is just a list of good ideas

    Without funding, 10-year-old plan to improve literacy for all is just a list of good ideas


    Credit: Ashley Hopkinson/EdSource

    In 2014, the California State Board of Education adopted the evidence-based and standards-driven English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework (ELA/ELD Framework) — nonbinding guidance that encourages the implementation of a research-informed, comprehensive literacy approach for all students.

    The framework was the first in the nation to integrate two sets of standards: English language arts (grade-level literacy for all students) and English language development (progress in learning English for students from different language backgrounds), with a focus on the needs of English learners.

    Amid ongoing discussions about how to best teach literacy to English learners, it is critically important to both demonstrate the significance of the ELA/ELD Framework and to renew calls to fully fund and implement this crucial guidance.

    We cannot overlook the fact that the framework has never received the necessary funding for district, school and classroom implementation. Lawmakers appropriated $85 million to provide professional learning and support family engagement in mathematics, science and computer science — recognizing the need for support to accompany mathematics and science framework implementation. Without similar funding for English instructional materials, professional development, coaching and support services, the framework will remain nothing more than a collection of good ideas.

    A few districts in the state have taken it upon themselves to focus on professional development and instruction on the tenets of the framework. Norma Carvajal Camacho, assistant superintendent of educational services for the Azusa Unified School District, said it has been transformative for their students: “By integrating primary language instruction and ensuring effective designated and integrated ELD, we have created a more inclusive and dynamic learning environment, resulting in significant improvements in language proficiency and overall achievement for our English learners.”

    Unfortunately, without funding to back its implementation, most districts have not been able to adopt the framework’s powerful strategies for improving literacy for all students. This lack of funding means many districts are not providing the necessary professional development for teachers, not investing in high-quality instructional materials, and not offering sufficient coaching and support services. As a result, the framework’s potential to improve literacy outcomes remains unrealized in most areas.

    The framework should be the cornerstone of any statewide strategy aimed at improving literacy and reading. It centers literacy and seeks to develop fluency, decoding, comprehension and vocabulary. It also takes into account that knowledge about the world, including the aforementioned skills, comes from reading and writing about meaningful and engaging content. 

    Imagine a classroom where the students don’t just learn reading and writing in isolation, but connect these skills with other content areas. An integrated approach promotes learning environments where students can read, write and discuss scientific experiments, historical events, or even create stories based on what they’ve learned in math. This is an approach in which students are also immersed in reading entire books. The framework uplifts this integrated approach to literacy and language instruction, delineating literacy expectations from transitional kindergarten to 12th grade. It emphasizes the five research-based cross-cutting themes that encompass all facets of the “science of reading”:

    • Foundational skills: Acknowledges the significance of phonics (the ability to recognize written letters from spoken language), phonemic awareness (the ability to identify individual sounds), and fluency as essential building blocks of literacy.
    • Meaning making: Encourages critical thinking and comprehension by emphasizing reading, writing, listening, language, motivation and vocabulary development.
    • Language development: Focuses on nurturing oral and written language skills to express information, ideas, perspectives and questions effectively.
    • Effective expression: Promotes various modes of communication, such as writing, discussions and presentations to showcase students’ understanding and knowledge.
    • Content knowledge: Highlights the interconnectedness of content, language and literacy, emphasizing the importance of knowledge about the natural and social world in enhancing text comprehension.

    No single element, on its own, makes for a sound approach to reading or literacy — they interdependently bolster one another. Integrating all of these elements, ensuring a coherent and aligned approach over time, and supporting instruction that is responsive to students’ needs will produce better results for English learners and all students.

    In California, where students speak more than 140 different languages at home, the framework recognizes the value of cultural diversity, multilingualism and biliteracy as assets to be nurtured and celebrated. The framework also includes a call for all educators to ensure English learners are provided with both integrated and designated English language development instruction.

    Without designated instruction for English learners that helps them understand how English works and provides extra practice in speaking and reading, most aspects of learning to read in English become especially challenging. It becomes a struggle to hear and isolate the sounds of English, a challenge to understand the syntax and structure of text, and it becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend and make meaning of vocabulary in a language they haven’t learned.

    Included in the framework is guidance for curriculum and instructional planning that is aligned with the standards for integrated English language development occurring throughout the school day in every subject area for every English learner. Our instruction should be responsive to the linguistic demands English learners are facing throughout the curriculum.

    There are other efforts underway that are aligned to the ELA/ELD Framework. The Literacy Roadmap, for instance, will help educators apply the framework to classroom instruction and navigate the resources and professional development opportunities available to implement effective literacy instruction. The Literacy Standard and Teaching Performance Expectations for Preliminary Multiple Subject and Single Subject Credentials for teacher candidates are also aligned to the ELA/ELD Framework. These efforts are essential for addressing equity and improving outcomes for all students. Both initiatives will require significant efforts to support teachers, parents and administrators to ensure high-quality literacy instruction.

    Our students and teachers need and deserve a significant investment to fully realize the potential of the ELA/ELD Framework. Doing so is necessary for improving literacy outcomes for California’s 1.1 million English learners and all of California’s students. We are ready to work with policymakers to prioritize funding and support its full implementation.

    •••

    Martha Hernandez is executive director of Californians Together, a statewide advocacy coalition seeking to better educate English learners by improving California’s schools and promoting equitable educational policy.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Why the ACLU is suing UC Santa Cruz for banning students who participated in spring protests

    Why the ACLU is suing UC Santa Cruz for banning students who participated in spring protests


    Police and protesters faced off on May 31, 2024, at UC Santa Cruz.

    Credit: Photo by Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz

    Civil rights groups representing two students and one professor are suing the University of California Santa Cruz, alleging that the campus unlawfully banned students and faculty from campus last spring after they participated in pro-Palestinian protests.

    By filing the lawsuit, the civil rights groups, including the ACLU of Northern California, are seeking an injunction to prevent the university from banning students again, if there are additional protests in the upcoming fall term, which begins later this month.

    The complaint, filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court on Monday, says that more than 110 students and faculty were banned from campus for up to 14 days after being arrested at a pro-Palestinian encampment on May 31. Campus officials at the time invoked section 626.4 of California’s penal code, which allows campus chancellors to ban individuals from campus for up to two weeks if they disrupt the orderly operation of the campus.

    The lawsuit, however, alleges that campus officials violated the law by not first providing the individuals with a hearing before banning them. The lawsuit cites precedent in a California Supreme Court case, Braxton v. Municipal Court, when the court ruled that campus officials can ban someone without a hearing only if their continued presence “constitutes a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property.” According to the lawsuit, the campus didn’t provide the banned individuals with findings about how they presented such a threat. 

    The bans had consequences for students and faculty. One of the student plaintiffs, Laaila Irshad, ended up failing multiple classes required for her biology major because she wasn’t able to turn in assignments, meet with her professors or access her computer. Christine Hong, another plaintiff and a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, struggled to prepare for a summer class she would teach on the Korean War. 

    “Even though these were short-term bans, they had a significant impact on the students as well as faculty members who were instantly banished from campus,” said Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation. “And it’s blatantly illegal.”

    UC Santa Cruz officials were not available for an interview. In a statement, a campus spokesperson said “the decisions made in the spring were necessary and critical to preserve safety, access, and operations of the campus.”

    The lawsuit comes on the heels of UC President Michael Drake announcing that encampments would be banned across the 10-campus UC system this academic year. He asked each campus to come up with its own policy to enforce those rules.

    Fall classes at Santa Cruz begin on Sept. 26. If the plaintiffs are successful in getting an injunction before then, it would apply only to the Santa Cruz campus. But Lederman said she’s hopeful that such a decision would “send a message” to all UC campuses that they “can’t just summarily ban people from campus without a hearing and without finding that the individual poses a danger.”

    Irshad, now entering her third year at Santa Cruz, said she ended up changing her major as a result of being banned from campus for 12 days in the spring. She wasn’t able to turn in several assignments during that period, and she couldn’t go to her professors’ in-person office hours to ask for extensions. 

    She eventually got a hearing on June 11 and her ban was lifted the next day. But by then, it was too late, she said. She ended up failing a chemistry course required for her biology major, as well as a writing course she needed to fulfill one of her general education requirements.

    Irshad has since changed her major to critical race and ethnic studies. She previously hoped to pursue a career in environmental restoration, but has set aside that goal. 

    “I spent the past two years of my college education paying for classes within bio and now have to make up for lost time, I guess,” she said. 

    Ahead of the fall quarter, Irshad isn’t sure if she will participate in protests again. “I know I have a right to protest. I just am very scared about the impact or the ramifications of what might happen,” she said. 

    It wasn’t only students who were impacted by the bans. Hong, the faculty plaintiff, had planned to spend the final weeks of the spring term preparing to teach a summer class about the Korean War. 

    Hong needed to record lectures for the course, which was online and asynchronous. She said she had a “critical window of time” in late May and early June when she wanted to record them, but she didn’t have access to the campus recording studio nor to the tech staff who would have helped her edit the lectures. She also couldn’t use her office, where she keeps books and other course materials that would have helped her further prepare for the class. 

    Hong’s ban from campus was lifted after 11 days. She ended up offering the class anyway, which had about 75 students. But she said there’s “no question” the quality of the course suffered because of the time she wasn’t able to spend preparing to teach it.

    “Who gets impacted by this? It’s the students; the students get impacted by this,” she said. 





    Source link

  • Boosting achievement, mental health are priorities for LAUSD student board member Anely Cortez Lopez

    Boosting achievement, mental health are priorities for LAUSD student board member Anely Cortez Lopez


    LAUSD student board member Anely Cortez Lopez says she’s grateful for the privilege of offering a voice to students.

    Credit: LAUSD

    Vowing to uplift student voices, Anely Cortez Lopez was sworn in as the Los Angeles Unified School District school board student board member on Aug. 13 — the second day of the 2024-25 school year. 

    While student board members, who are elected by their peers, cannot formally vote on resolutions that come before the LAUSD school board, they can issue advisory votes, voice opinions and introduce resolutions. 

    “Since I was very little, I knew that student advocacy was a large priority — not only for my community, but just in my heart — knowing that I have the opportunity to advocate for the most needed issues and most important issues,” Lopez said. 

    Although only 17-years-old, Lopez has already served on the Superintendent’s Advisory Council, a group that provides student input to the superintendent on various district efforts, and has volunteered at local retirement homes, where she was also able to witness disparities in health care. 

    Lopez, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, said that from a young age, her mother would take her to town hall and neighborhood meetings where she would often help translate for her mother. That was where she quickly developed a passion for civic engagement — which has morphed into college plans for studying political science, with an emphasis on public health. 

    Soon after she was sworn in, Lopez spoke to EdSource about the issues LAUSD students feel are most pressing. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

    What motivated you to run for the position of student board member? 

    Being from a Title 1 school has allowed me to see a lot of the struggles of my community, and not only within my own community at school, but also within my family. And I have seen what happens to students when they succumb to the … .conditions within the neighborhood, and I believe that is one of the reasons why this position means so much to me. I’ve seen the situations that are occurring within our districts firsthand and can see what changes need to be implemented. And, I’m just so grateful for this opportunity and so grateful for this place of privilege to offer a voice to students.

    Are there things at your own school that you wanted to see improved?

    A large majority of students are low-income; and a large majority of those students are minorities, first generation, English learners. And that is primarily where the achievement gap exists within our schools. I feel as though seeing that and being in those shoes — especially as a first-generation student myself — I’ve seen the need for our community, for mentors and programs in place to amplify the needs and voices of our students. 

    You’ve been elected to represent Los Angeles Unified’s huge and diverse student body. What do you see as the challenges students are most concerned about as the new school year gets going? 

    Students’ voices are desired to be heard and not overshadowed. They’re the ones who are sitting in the seats eight hours a day and have such a unique perspective on the issues that, to them, need the most attention. And … when they feel their input is not taken into account, that is when issues begin to become present in the student body. So definitely, the amplifying of student voices and also an increase in mental health and wellness. 

    From the pandemic, we’ve seen an increase of issues in our student body, pertaining specifically to mental health and wellness and seeing how, at a systematic level, we can learn to combat that. And going into that also is preventive measures surrounding drug use within our youth and ensuring that our school environment is a sanctuary for opportunity to flourish, and ensure only the best for our students here in LAUSD — and also focusing on the fact that a lot of these students may come from households that might not provide mentorship. So, also providing mentorship for some of our most marginalized groups in LAUSD, such as first- generation, low-income and English learners to, once again, help close that achievement gap.

    What are the issues you are most passionate about? 

    I definitely am very passionate about amplifying the student voice. Because although there might be issues that specifically pertain to me, I found that being in this position of power means not being led by my own ideas, but being led by the needs of my peers. Since I represent such a large group of students, it’s so important for me to take into account the various issues that are being presented to me from the student population, and ensuring that those are the perspectives that are being shared and not just my own. 

    What do you hope to accomplish during your time in the position? 

    One of the biggest goals for this year is to … amplify student voices. But especially since my term falls within our election year, ensuring that students understand the value of their civic engagement — whether it be in volunteering for their community, pre-registering to vote, ensuring that everyone in their families who is capable of voting and is 18 and older is voting in this election, and knowing that their voices are not overshadowed, that they have a place here in this country, that they are able to share their needs and problems and that they will receive solutions to them. 





    Source link

  • For preschool educator, kids’ paintings give them a deep brush with themselves

    For preschool educator, kids’ paintings give them a deep brush with themselves


    Credit: Courtesy of Daniel Mendoza

    Daniel Mendoza makes his own paintbrushes. It may have started out as a way to save money, but it also reflects his aesthetic as a veteran preschool teacher who uses painting to engage pint-sized students.

    “The brushes happened out of a necessity of wanting to make things big,” said the child development specialist who is also a painter. “If you’re familiar with preschool teachers, we make super low salaries starting out. I had to stay on a budget.”

    Daniel Mendoza uses art as a way to spark engagement in preschool.
    Credit: Daniel Mendoza

    Instead of downsizing his plans to teach small children how to create epic murals or Jackson Pollock-style canvases, Mendoza got creative. The brushes became a symbol of his DIY vibe.

    “I came up with this mop-style brush,” said the 44-year-old, with customary modesty. “It really allowed me to feel even more connected to this work and a part of who I am and what I’m trying to convey, down to the materials themselves.” 

    While he started out as a musician and now works primarily in visual arts, he says the leap to education was a no-brainer for him. 

    “It wasn’t really a stretch for me to move worlds,” said Mendoza, the program administrator for the Placer County Office of Education early childhood education department. “Music and visual arts are so interconnected. Even education is the same in ways.  It takes thinking in that creative mindset.”

    Much like the preschoolers he spent 10 years teaching, Mendoza embraces big messes. One of the first things students saw when they came into his classroom was a drippy, paint-splattered canvas.

    Now, he teaches other educators how to unleash the power of creativity in the classroom. Some teachers are afraid of making a big mess, but he relishes it.

    “Art is intrinsic to who we are as humans,” he said. “It’s tied to our identity and our outlook on how we view the world.  Think about the aesthetics of art, and how that is tied to everyday life. What we like to wear, eat, listen to … We want to create, it’s deep in who we are.”

    Mendoza, who grew up on a pistachio farm, seeing nature as his playground, believes that children are naturally artists. They love to get down-and-dirty, and they often focus more on the process than the product. Sometimes a child will concentrate so hard on a piece they seem to lose themselves in the work, only to run off as soon as it’s finished.

    “They love making the art,” he quips, “not putting their name on it.”

    Little children think outside the box by default, experts say. The challenge is how to let them grow that impulse even as they grow up. 

    “Preschoolers live in their creative mindset, all the time. It’s the perfect space for me,” he said. “Art gives children a voice. It opens the door for them to share their feelings, their thoughts, their ideas.”

    Having grown up in a low-income immigrant family, Mendoza is passionate about making sure all children have the same exposure to the arts that high-income families often take for granted.

    “I was a Head Start kid, I know what it’s like to struggle,” said Mendoza. “It’s sad because when we think about the circle, generational poverty or generational addiction as opposed to generational wealth and prosperity. Some of these children will stay in this lower socioeconomic status as they grow into adults. That’s how they exist. Giving them tools like art, dancing, painting, gives them an understanding of freedom, of expression, of identity.”

    Mendoza views teaching as an art form of its own, cultivating his pedagogy with the same depth of dedication as his mixed-medium artworks.

    “He approaches his work like an artist — with creativity,” said Letty Kraus, director of the California County Superintendents Statewide Arts Initiative, “but also with an educator’s understanding of how to remove enough limitations to engage in play and art-making both individually and collectively.”

    Preschool teacher Daniel Mendoza with some of his students.
    credit: Daniel Mendoza

    Sometimes Mendoza worries that no matter how much headway he makes in the early years, encouraging children to think for themselves and embrace their creativity, that it all gets lost by middle school, when the intense pressure on achieving high test scores can diminish the love of learning.

    “I feel that so many don’t see that connection, the connection art has to culture, individuality and community,” he says ruefully. “It might be a lack of education or awareness, but this conversation is missing. Helping connect what is seen as a ‘luxury’ to those learning goals and foundations that are important to families, gives us an opportunity to show the massive impact the arts have on children’s learning and ability to reach their maximum potential in school and throughout life.  We all need the arts, not just children.”

    He partly blames the laser focus on numeracy and literacy for creating a more stressful environment for children that also hasn’t moved the needle academically.

    “Math scores are down,” he notes. “We have done math all day, and then we did this after-school math program, and now we’re sending math homework home, and that’s still not working. So now we’re going to double down and kids are going to do math on the weekends. I’ve watched a lot of baseball. That’s three strikes right there.”

    By contrast, art teaches focus, he says. It demands that you slow your roll, pay attention and then reflect on the nuance. That depth of concentration and perception pays off in all the other subject areas, experts say. 

    “He has the seamless ability to integrate the arts with other content areas,” said Jennifer Hicks, assistant superintendent of educational services at the Placer County Office of Education. “When children experience art with Daniel, they are experiencing math, they are experiencing literacy, they are experiencing science.”

    Mendoza says he almost got arrested once at the old Guggenheim Hermitage Museum in Las Vegas for spending too much time looking at a painting. The lights turned off, and when security guards appeared, they assumed he was up to no good.

    “Art is an invitation to have an inner dialogue,” he said. “To examine yourself, what you think, what you feel.”

    Credit: Courtesy of Daniel Mendoza

    One of the most noticeable things about Mendoza is his exuberance for art and learning for their own sake. That’s partly why small children often gravitate to him, even when he and his wife are just out shopping at Target, because he radiates warmth.

    “Daniel is joyful,” said Hicks. “ His passion for early education is apparent in everything he does.  He’s always ready to take on a new project or implement an innovative idea. He has a magical way of communicating with children, teaching them language, expression and how to be good humans.”

    While his time is jam-packed with training preschool teachers, painting and teaching about the creative process in children at Sierra College, when he needs to recharge creatively, he always heads back into the classroom to the little ones who are his muses. 

    “If my tank is low, I go hang out at one of our classrooms,” he said. “The children are always so awesome at refilling that creative tank for me.”





    Source link

  • Why are students often ineligible for homelessness funding? | Quick Guide

    Why are students often ineligible for homelessness funding? | Quick Guide


    Hygiene supplies and clothing for families in need at the Family Resource Center in Monterey Peninsula Unified.

    Credit: Betty Márquez Rosales / EdSource

    With schools adjusting to the end of historic Covid-era federal funding for students experiencing homelessness, much of their focus has shifted to trying to sustain the programming they implemented and keep the staff they hired with those pandemic relief funds.

    California has allocated significant levels of state funding toward addressing homelessness, and there are other streams to help cover students’ needs, but students experiencing homelessness are not always eligible.

    “I think particularly in California, unsheltered, visible homelessness is in the news and is a political issue, but people aren’t talking about children. State policymakers in particular are not talking about this crisis, and certainly not anywhere near the level that they are about adult homelessness,” said Barbara Duffield, executive director of youth homelessness nonprofit SchoolHouse Connection.

    This quick guide, a follow-up to a recent EdSource story — “Looming end of historic student homelessness funding has arrived” — explains why students are not always eligible for all homelessness funding and the challenges this presents to the school staff tasked with supporting students experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

    Why are homeless students eligible for some streams of homelessness funding but not others?
    Some of the state funding that California has funneled toward preventing and addressing homelessness is targeted toward youth. The state’s Homekey program, for example, has resulted in millions of dollars toward the building or conversion of housing for youth who are homeless or on the verge.

    But most students experiencing homelessness are not always eligible for state or federal funding, and that often comes down to how homelessness is defined.

    There are two definitions: one outlined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and the other by the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

    The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a federal law implemented decades ago to ensure students experiencing homelessness are identified and supported, defines homelessness, in part, as “children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.”

    Among homeless liaisons and other school staff, this is often referred to as being “doubled-up,” and that is how the majority of homeless youth in California and nationwide live.

    But the more common definition of homelessness used outside of school settings is the one set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and that definition does not include people living in doubled-up environments.

    “You’ve got all these kids living in precarious doubled-up situations that have no way to get any type of services because they technically don’t meet HUD-related pieces,” said Jennifer Kottke, the homeless liaison for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

    Some children are indeed living unsheltered, but most are out of sight. Given that reality, homeless liaisons say they are best equipped to address the impact of homelessness among their students because schools are where families experiencing homelessness are more likely to already be.

    In other words, liaisons are meeting those families where they are, and this rings particularly true for liaisons working in rural parts of the state.

    “In rural areas, schools are where you’ll find families. We don’t have big drop-in centers and resource centers where families would be showing up for services. They’re out there in unpopulated areas, but they’re coming to school, so school is this kind of avenue to do outreach,” said Meagan Meloy, the homeless liaison for the Butte County Office of Education.

    What forms of funding are available for students experiencing homelessness?
    There are several streams of funding for students experiencing homelessness, though they are either short-term, one-time grants, limited in amounts, or not set aside specifically for this population of students.

    The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act’s Education for Homeless Children And Youth grant is a steady stream of funding, for example, but at $129 million nationwide, it does not reach all schools that enroll students experiencing homelessness. California received $13.9 million for the 2021-22 school year, which was distributed across 6.4% of the state’s school districts via a competitive grant process.

    There is also the state-funded Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program which sets aside a percentage of funds for youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The set-aside for youth uses the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, which broadens eligibility of students who live doubled-up, though it restricts the ages to 12- to 24-year-olds.

    Meloy applied and received that grant for rural Butte County, which will provide funds over three years. Her team’s plan is to pilot a program where multiple agencies team up to reach out to homeless families through the region’s schools and provide case management to guide them through housing services and prevent them from entering into unsheltered homelessness. Her team plans to support younger students through their parents.

    “We appreciate it … and it’s one of the strategies we’re using but, again, it’s not going to be a comprehensive fix to address what I see as a huge need in our state,” said Meloy, referring to student homelessness.

    Even if schools are able to tap into those funds, they are set aside exclusively for housing and not for services such as transportation, food assistance, clothing, school supplies and more. “Those services are equally important to housing, especially if youth are going to recover from their homelessness and be successful in school as a long-term prevention strategy,” Duffield said.

    Additionally, Butte County is likely to be an exception in this use of state funding, according to Duffield, “because additional licensing is required for housing providers to serve minors.”

    Schools are also required to set aside dollars from the state’s education funding formula to support high-needs students. That funding requires first identifying students who are homeless — the very effort school staff say needs to first be funded. That funding is also distributed across all high-needs students, not just those experiencing homelessness.

    “The thing is that the work is intense, but the funding doesn’t match, so then you end up undercounting because you don’t have the time to do the proper identification process,” said Kottke, who said the federal housing department should be working with schools, given the evidence that education is a preventive measure against homelessness.

    Other streams of funding can be used to support students experiencing homelessness, though they all run into similar challenges. And, none of them get anywhere near the level of funding that liaisons received for students experiencing homelessness during the pandemic through the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth, or ARP-HCY.

    “These California funds still are no substitute or replacement for the scale of ARP-HCY, or what California is spending on its adult homeless population,” said Duffield. “This is where the real disparities lie.”

    What if liaisons keep piecing together various streams of funding?
    Liaisons say that the nature of their funding model can be tedious and time-consuming. Since there isn’t one source of funding that can by itself cover services this population of students, liaisons say they spend much of their time doing what they call “braiding” of grants and other funding streams.

    “Our department here … is almost all grant-funded. For me, it’s kind of a way of life,” said Meloy.

    An example of braiding is what Meloy did with the HHAP funding.

    “It’s hard because it takes a lot of administration work and braiding funding is beautiful if you can figure out how to put a square peg into a round hole,” said Kottke, “but sometimes braiding funding isn’t what it’s chalked up to be, and so sometimes it’s hard to do.”

    The braiding of funding also makes it more difficult to track and assess the use of funding across all schools and counties.

    What further complicates this funding model, plus the time required to identify students as homeless, is that liaisons are rarely, if ever, solely focused on this specific student population. Most often, the time they can spend on supporting students who are homeless is a small percentage of their work.

    A quick scroll through the list of liaisons statewide highlights their widespread titles: director of operations, superintendent, manager of student information systems, truancy mediation liaison, office manager, and more.

    What do liaisons say they would do with dedicated funding for students experiencing homelessness?
    For Meloy, who lives in a county particularly susceptible to wildfires, the lack of dedicated funding means her team cannot prepare for the now-expected rise in student homelessness that happens when families are displaced due to fires.

    “That need isn’t going away,” said Meloy. “It feels like we’re kind of getting through the Covid disaster, but we’re still facing these other disasters that impact housing.”

    In Monterey County, liaison Donna Smith would like to offer more transportation options to students experiencing homelessness. She also services foster youth in her county, and she’s able to contract with a company to drive foster youth to and from school.

    Students who are homeless can either receive a bus pass or their parents can be reimbursed for gas; families don’t always have vehicles, however, or children might be too young to ride the bus by themselves. “But there’s not a lot of options outside of that. That’s just one kind of thing that I wish we had: better transportation for these kids to and from school that is paid for.”

    Kottke in L.A. County also said she would like to focus more on preventive strategies. “A lot of the work we do is very reaction-based. I’ve always been preventative, so I think that’s one of the pieces that I spend a lot of time in this work fighting for,” she said. “We should be preventionary, not reactionary.”





    Source link

  • All California students should be empowered to be ready for UC and CSU admission

    All California students should be empowered to be ready for UC and CSU admission


    Making Waves Academy, a charter school in Richmond, tries to instill a college-pursuing attitude while leaving room for kids to enter a career after graduation if they wish.

    Courtesy: Making Waves Academy

    There is a troubling trend in California that makes affordable and quality higher education — which is meant to be a public good — not even an option for most students, particularly Black and Latino students. It’s the inequity of students completing the “A-G” courses required for admission to the University of California and California State University systems. More than half of all students, and over two-thirds of Black and Latino students, did not meet these requirements — too often because the courses were not offered or the students didn’t know they were needed. This means they are ineligible for admission into California’s public universities.

    As CEO of a grade 5-12 charter school in Richmond, I believe the A-G requirements should be seen as an asset rather than an obstacle for California schools. The requirements are transparent and attainable. They help prepare students academically, support eligibility for California’s public universities, and open up a variety of opportunities for students’ future career pathways. Ultimately, this helps alleviate inequities in education, the workforce and the economy.

    At our school, our goal is that 100% of our students are ready for college while also embracing, supporting and celebrating students who want to pursue early post-secondary career options. Within the Class of 2024, 95% of our graduates are pursuing higher education, and within that group, 71% are planning to attend University of California or California State Universities campuses. Among our 1,000 or so fifth through 12th graders, 99% are students of color, and 85% are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Here is how school and district leaders can build a culture around supporting students in meeting the A-G requirements.

    Align your curriculum to the A-G requirements

    Students don’t know what they don’t know. And they don’t always know there are specific course requirements to be eligible to attend public universities. It is our responsibility as school leaders and systems to align our curriculum to the A-G requirements and remove that burden on individual students.

    The good news is that this is not a very heavy lift. In California, students are already required to take a variation of core academic subjects listed within the A-G requirements, such as English, history, science and math. Making sure students are taking a lab science class, a third year of a world language, or a math up to Algebra II are small but meaningful adjustments to their course schedules that would help more students meet the A-G requirements, thus meeting eligibility requirements for UC and CSU campuses. 

    Get creative to track individual students

    For every college and career counselor in California, there are 464 students. It’s no wonder 56% of California students experience barriers to meeting the requirements. Instead of relying solely on counselors, make the most of advisory period. Advisory period teachers can reinforce college readiness and help track individual students’ progress on the A-G requirements. Our advisory teachers track the same cohort of students from ninth through 12th grade. With this support, students can also practice their agency by being actively involved in mapping out their courses and paying attention to their post-graduation plans, which serves them well whether they ultimately pursue college or not.

    Be inclusive of non-college-going students

    It is important to note that a culture that embraces the A-G requirements and college readiness and a culture that embraces a continuum of college and career options can and should live side by side. It is a both/and approach not an either/or approach. Allow for both. When you align to the A-G requirements, you ensure that students meet the “floor” for college eligibility. Build further understanding with students on the continuum of attainable pathways. For example, the A-G requirements can also align with career technical education, which integrates core academic courses with technical and occupational ones. This way, students can explore career interests and still remain eligible for college. Knowing the range of options available means students can choose what’s best for them.

    Communicate early and often with parents and families 

    California has some of the world’s best and most affordable opportunities for higher education. Tragically, many students and families don’t know these opportunities are attainable. The importance of the A-G requirements and information around college affordability must be communicated to students and families early and often. Ideally, regular updates and information sessions start with students and families in middle school. For example, we set clear expectations with students and families at fifth grade orientation. We talk to them about the A-G requirements being built into our curriculum and about our school culture around college readiness. Time and time again, we see ecstatic students and families when they realize college is accessible and attainable.

    It’s our responsibility as school leaders or school systems to provide the necessary courses and support to bridge the inequities between high school to college and careers. The logistical challenges are surely outweighed by the opportunities: more racial representation in higher education, an increase in economic mobility for students from low-income backgrounds, and a more diverse and educated workforce.

    •••

    Alton B. Nelson Jr. is the CEO of Making Waves Academy in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • AI can free up time for principals to engage with staff and students

    AI can free up time for principals to engage with staff and students


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Imagine a school where the principal spends less time buried in paperwork and more time in classrooms, supporting teachers and fostering an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities.

    Embracing artificial intelligence (AI) can make this vision a reality.

    AI holds the potential to revolutionize school leadership by alleviating the administrative burden on principals. Principals are essential to developing school culture and steering our schools toward more inclusive practices. Their guidance and decision-making for professional learning, promoting specific desired outcomes, and allocating budgets and resources directly impact students’ experiences.

    When a school leader is passionate about creating inclusive learning environments and ensuring students have more access to the general education curriculum, little can stop them — except, of course, the ever-increasing tasks and paperwork that keep them in their offices and away from the classrooms.

    Just this past year, the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) targeted the growing number of duplicative mandates that district and school leaders are spending valuable time on as one of their platforms for Legislative Action Day. Nearly 400 education leaders came together in Sacramento this past April to demand change in a handful of areas, including streamlined accountability: calling for less time spent on writing separate plans and reports for the many (often redundant or overlapping) state and federal programs, so more time can be spent in classrooms.

    Not only are principals responsible for numerous plans required by the state, they also have school site plans, emergency plans, loads of evaluations to write, newsletters to the community, emails to respond to, websites to keep up-to-date, data to review and analyze, the list goes on and on. The workload on principals has dramatically increased over the years, and we should be concerned if we want effective leadership in our schools.

    In much of my work with administrators on creating more inclusive schools, I address these issues through ideas like sharing responsibilities, delegating tasks and inventorying initiatives to help streamline resources, including time; and now I’m adding a new one: Embrace AI!

    New tools, including AI virtual assistants, or SchoolAI and TeachAI, can automate routine administrative tasks like scheduling, attendance tracking, data analysis, and report generation. Tools like ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Co-Pilot can summarize our notes, edit our writing, and be thought partners when our brains are fried. Just this week I have used AI tools to help with rewording and editing my writing, drafting an agenda, and creating original pictures to use in presentations without having to search the web for what I need, all in all, saving me a few hours.

    And imagine what our principals could be doing with a few extra hours a week — observing classrooms, providing instructional feedback and greeting students. At the Inclusive Leadership Center at Chapman University, I work with K-12 school administrators supporting their strategic planning and providing professional development. We hear again and again that one of the biggest barriers administrators face in creating inclusive environments for students with disabilities is a lack of time — so let’s remove this barrier.

    As we work on improving the quality of education for students with disabilities, leveraging technology and AI to achieve this is a no-brainer. So why not use it as a tool for administrators and not just for our students?

    In addition to taking on some of the mundane tasks, AI can even assist in identifying trends and areas for improvement through data analysis, helping principals make informed decisions that support all students. Once administrators embrace AI, think of how teachers can use it. The possibilities are endless and time-saving.

    Of course, there are valid concerns about artificial intelligence, such as data privacy and the fear of technology replacing human roles. We need to think about AI as a tool to enhance human capabilities, not replace them. We need proper safeguards to address privacy concerns, but solving these issues should not stop us from using AI to the advantage of our communities and students. I am not advocating for AI to take over all our school leaders’ tasks, like generating all school communication, teacher evaluations, and individualized education plans. But it can assist through editing, clarifying and summarizing through the drafting process, even helping with communicating to specific audiences and tone. Most administrators, including myself, have sent an email we later wished we could have asked AI to check first.

    By embracing AI, schools can empower their leaders to spend more time fostering an inclusive, supportive and effective learning environment. It’s time for education to harness the power of AI to benefit all students.

    •••

    Kari Adams directs the Inclusive Leadership Center at the Thompson Policy Institute on Disability at Chapman University and leads the Coalition of Inclusive School Leaders. She previously was a public school special education administrator.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Campaign for College Opportunity’s new president on tackling the transfer process 

    Campaign for College Opportunity’s new president on tackling the transfer process 


    Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity

    Courtesy of the Campaign for College Opportunity

    One of California’s top higher education advocacy groups, the Campaign for College Opportunity, has a new leader.

    Jessie Ryan, who took over as president of the organization on July 1, has worked at the campaign for 19 years, most recently as an executive vice president. 

    Under Ryan’s predecessor, Michele Siqueiros, the campaign sponsored legislation making it easier for community college students to skip remedial math and English classes and enroll immediately in transfer-level courses. The organization has also advocated for reforming the state’s financial aid program and backed legislation intended to make it easier for students to transfer from a community college to a four-year university. 

    Ryan, who is a product of the Los Rios Community College District and San Francisco State University, recently spoke with EdSource about her priorities and how she plans to build on the campaign’s work around remedial education, improving transfer and expanding financial aid, among other topics.

    The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

    What are your main priorities as the campaign’s new president?

    I’d love to share with you a little bit about my journey because I think it connects to my priorities as well. 

    I was raised by a single mother who always dreamed of going to college, and she did not succeed in reaching her college dream. We moved around a lot and struggled with homelessness and food insecurity. She really instilled in me from the time I was 4 or 5 years old that a college education was going to be my pathway out of poverty. 

    When I went to a community college, I had no clue as to how to access financial aid, how to develop an education plan so that I could transfer — all of these key things that would be building blocks to lifetime success. And just by luck, I ended up finding a counselor who really changed my life. Because of her, instead of going into remedial math, I had access to statistics. Because of her, I got an education plan to transfer and worked 35 hours a week and went to three campuses simultaneously to transfer. 

    When I did transfer, my mother became homeless again, and I was faced with this question of, do I drop out? And I did not have an associate’s degree to show for my work because the requirements to transfer did not align with the requirements to get an associate’s degree.

    And years later, I would find out that these were the experiences of millions of community college students across the state. Students being put into remedial sequences from which they could never recover based on one high-stakes test. Or having to repeat coursework because the requirements to transfer didn’t align with the requirements to get an associate degree, and sometimes dropping out and having nothing to show for their work.

    Those have been two of the bedrock policies that we have worked on at the campaign over the years, alongside a host of other issues. The campaign is going to continue to be at the forefront of policy transformation. 

    The Campaign for College Opportunity previously sponsored Assembly Bill 705 and co-sponsored Assembly Bill 1705, bills meant to make it easier for community college students to skip remedial math and English classes and access transfer-level coursework right away. How do you assess the implementation of those bills, and do you expect there could be additional legislation?

    We are not currently looking at additional legislation, but I wouldn’t say it is off the table, should it be necessary moving forward. AB 705 was one of most significant equity levers in ensuring that students are completing college-level math and English, accessing college-level math and English. There is significant data that has supported why this reform was necessary. But despite that, what we have marveled at is the level of continued opposition. 

    We’ve been really lucky to have, through former (California Community Colleges) Chancellor Eloy Oakley and now Chancellor Sonya Christian, champions who are committed to this issue. But it has been a fight year after year, more recently with the pandemic. A lot of people want to say that because of the pandemic, students are less prepared than ever before. And yet what we have seen from the most recent data is that students who access transfer-level math and English have done as well as in the prior years or even slightly better. 

    I think that the next iteration of this work is going to be, how do we implement equitable access to college-level math and English for our STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) students and for our ESL (English as a second language) students? Because those are the last two pieces of 705 and 1705 that need to be addressed and built out. The chancellor’s office is already talking with us at the campaign about helping to guide what the successful ESL implementation would look like for our multilingual learners.

    Where I think there’s potential for additional legislation and potential for additional budget investment is around co-requisite. Students who take co-requisite courses alongside transfer-level math and English succeed at higher rates. And so I think where we are is, how do we analyze evidence-based high quality co-requisite and resource it at scale? Because then it allows us to celebrate not just a 100% access to transfer-level math and English, but stronger throughput, stronger completion rates.

    Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1291 to create a pilot program in which students seeking to transfer to UCLA will get priority admission if they complete an associate degree for transfer starting in 2026-27. The campaign at the time said it appreciated the legislation but called it only a first step. Do you have plans to try to further improve transfer to the University of California?

    We have over the years struggled with the reality that UC, while they’ve made some significant progress in meeting the needs of transfer students, can and should do more. They have had transfer admission guarantees, but they’re not at all campuses. And for community college students who are trying to prepare, they want to be able to use the associate degree for transfer, not just for admissions consideration, but for an admissions guarantee, if not to the campus of choice, to the system at large. 

    With 1291, the original bill was not a pilot. But it was amended to a pilot in the final stages of the legislative cycle. It is a first step. I appreciate that it’s a first step and that UCLA would be an important campus. 

    But at the end of the day, that pilot should be used to take the associate degree for transfer to scale. It should not live in isolation. How do we make sure that with UCLA’s new leadership, this is prioritized in such a way that sets it up for success and applicability for other campuses across the state? I hope that that will be the case. 

    Lawmakers and advocacy groups for years have said they want to reform the Cal Grant to make it simpler and make more students eligible for aid, but it hasn’t happened yet because of the state’s fiscal woes. Is Cal Grant reform still a goal of the campaign?

    We’ve been in touch, me and the new head of the California Student Aid Commission, Daisy Gonzales. She brought together a small group of partners to talk about how we can begin looking ahead to do what we need to so that we don’t find ourselves in this position again. Recognizing that there’s not going to be the kind of funding we need to actualize the Cal Grant Equity Framework this year, how do we start thinking about alternative funding sources and a multi-year approach that might allow us to take on pieces of the Cal Grant Equity Framework until we get to a place of full funding?

    What kinds of alternate funding have been discussed?

    We’re very early in conversations about alternative funding sources, but right now I’m encouraged because Daisy and the California Student Aid Commission are saying we need to think big. Is there the possibility of going after new dollars? Could we even be talking about seeing if there could be a tax that would be able to fund the kind of financial aid that would drastically expand access for students across the state? 

    But they’re early conversations. Nothing is moving yet. What I will say, though, is, for me, having done this work for nearly 20 years, sometimes the greatest innovation comes at a moment of desperation. Or a moment of budget malaise. And so instead of just standing on the sidelines, I really think there is power in folks in the education equity community, our higher ed institutional partners and our Student Aid Commission saying, ‘Here are the suite of options that we’re looking at,’ recognizing that this is going to take a few years to be able to see into fruition.

    Do you have any specific goals or priorities related to the California State University system?

    At the CSU system, we are seeing that there have been some really strong practices adopted around inclusive hiring, cluster hiring to ensure that faculty and leadership reflect the diversity of the state. There has been some really good work that has happened to support Black learner excellence and innovation. I would say an example of that right now is what we’re seeing with Sac State developing the first Black Honors College in the nation and what is going to be the house to a dedicated $2 million fund to support Black learner success systemwide. We want to really work with the system and accelerate those efforts because I think the challenge here is we know that some campuses have done well and others have not. And really the key to equity moving forward is going to be to ensure that all CSU campuses offer the same type of quality experience for our Black and Latinx students that some leaders on campuses are prioritizing. I think it becomes even more important that we elevate those high-impact practices like cluster hiring and dedicating funding to ensure welcoming campuses right now than ever before, because students and families are questioning the value of college. 

    In response to the Supreme Court ban on race-conscious admissions, California people have said, ‘Well, we’ve had Proposition 209 for quite some time. So does this really affect us?’ But the reality is we have seen that there is a chilling effect often after these types of decisions. Students and families are questioning the value of college. Students and families are wondering whether or not college is affordable, accessible, worth enrolling in at this time. And so I do believe that given the size, the significance of the CSU system, we have a huge opportunity to say we’re going to do more than ever before in the Graduation Initiative, to make sure that those gains are actually resulting in not just real number gains for all student populations and racial and ethnic subgroups, but closing of equity gaps.





    Source link

  • A guide to what a $10 billion construction bond on the ballot could mean for your school

    A guide to what a $10 billion construction bond on the ballot could mean for your school


    West Contra Costa Unified’s Stege Elementary School in Richmond.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    More than 1 in 4 school districts are asking local voters to approve a record $39 billion in school construction bonds on the Nov. 5 ballot. Those that pass will jockey for some of the $10 billion in matching state funding that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are asking voters to approve by passing Proposition 2.

    The facility needs of districts are huge and growing, even as the state’s overall enrollment is projected to decline over the next two decades.

    Decades-old “portable” classrooms are falling apart; many air conditioners are malfunctioning, and classrooms without them are sweltering. Roofs leak, plumbing is corroding, wiring is fraying. 

    Parents worry about open access to insecure campuses. Schools lack room for new transitional kindergarten classes and plans for climate-resilient, energy-efficient buildings. Increasingly popular career and vocational education programs need up-to-date spaces.

    Districts’ priorities will vary, and so will their capacity to pay for them. As in the past, districts with high property values, which often correlate to higher-than-average incomes of homeowners, will have a leg up on their property-poor neighbors in terms of what they can ask their taxpayers to approve. Some districts will check off items on their wish list; other districts will resort to triage, fixing what’s most falling apart.

    In March 2020, amid first reports of a new pandemic on the horizon, statewide voters defeated a state construction bond with an unlucky ballot number. As a result, the state fell further behind in helping districts repair and rebuild school facilities.

    “The defeat of Proposition 13 in 2020 and the pandemic made local districts more hesitant to put bonds on the ballot in 2022, so there is a lot of pent-up need,” said Sara Hinkley, California program manager for the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley, which has extensively analyzed facilities needs in the state. 

    “The number of bond measures and the total amount reflect the aging and deferred maintenance of California schools, as well as the increasing urgency of HVAC and schoolyard upgrades to grapple with extreme heat.”

    The center estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are more than 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 years old or older.

    Proposition 2 won’t significantly reform a first-come, first-served funding system if it passes, but it will clear out a backlog of unfunded school projects and partially replenish a state-building fund that has run dry.

    With so much on the ballot competing for attention, Proposition 2 may escape many voters’ attention. Here are answers to questions that should help you fill out your ballot.  

    What’s on the ballot this year?

    School districts have placed 252 bond proposals to raise $39.3 billion; 15 community college districts are asking voters to pass $10.6 billion worth of bonds, for a total of 267 proposed bonds valued at $49.9 billion. They range from a proposed $9 billion bond issue in Los Angeles, the state’s largest district, to $3 million sought by Pleasant View Elementary School District for repairs to its only school in Porterville.

    How is school construction funded?

    Unlike school districts’ operating money, which mostly comes from the state’s general fund, school construction and repairs remain largely a local responsibility, paid for by bonds funded by property taxes. Over the past 20 years, voters approved $181 billion in local bonds for public school and community college facility projects, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  

    That compares with $31.8 billion over the same period in state facilities bonds passed for school district and community college construction, plus $4.6 billion from the general fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom directed toward school construction. Altogether, the state has chosen to bear only 17% — one-sixth — of the total costs of school construction since 2001.

    Bonds are essentially loans that are paid back, commonly over 25 or 30 years, with interest. In the past 10 years, interest rates have ranged from about 2% to nearly 5% and now are coming down again. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would cost the general fund about $500 million annually for 35 years to pay back Proposition 2’s principal and interest.

    What does it take to pass a bond?

    The passage of a local bond requires a 55% approval rate. Despite the higher threshold than a simple majority, voters have approved 80% of local bonds on the ballot since 2001, according to CaliforniaFinance.com. The exception was in 2020, when voters defeated about half of local bonds, along with Proposition 13. The passage rate bounced back in 2022 to 72% — perhaps a good omen for proposals on Nov. 5 . 

    It takes only a 50% majority to pass a state construction bond. A voter survey in September by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 54% of likely voters said they would vote yes on Proposition 2, with 44% voting no.

    The bulk of state funding for school and community college construction came in the early 2000s, during fast-growing enrollment and boom years for the state economy. However, the state issued no state bonds for a decade after 2006. The 2016 bond, Proposition 51, the last that voters approved, allocated $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for the state’s 115 community colleges. All of that funding has been distributed. 

    Are there limits to how much districts can tax property owners for school bonds?

    Yes. Property taxes from school construction are capped at $60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for unified districts, $30 per $100,000 for elementary or high school districts, and $25 per $100,000 for community college districts. A person whose home assessed value is at $400,000 (often significantly less than the market value) could pay up to $240 in annual property taxes in a unified district to pay off bonds’ principal and interest. Districts will stretch out the timeline for projects to stay under the limit.

    How will Proposition 2 be divvied up?

    The $10 billion will split:

    • $1.5 billion for community colleges
    • $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
      • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
      • $3.3 billion for new construction
      • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
      • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
      • $115 million set aside to remove lead in school water

    Will all of this money go toward new projects?

    No. 

    Unfunded projects left over from Prop. 51 in 2016 that are deemed eligible for funding will go to the front of the line. That’s how the system worked in the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around, and the Legislature applied the same language to Prop. 2. The rationale is that districts spent time and money hiring architects and engineers and drawing up plans, and shouldn’t be penalized for efforts done in good faith.

    Those existing projects could consume half of the $8.5 billion for TK-12 funding. As of Aug. 31, the Office of Public Instruction, which tracks projects for funding, reported 1,000 school projects requesting $3.9 billion were already in line, with requests dating back to 2022. These break down to 812 modernization projects potentially eligible for $2.6 billion and 189 new construction projects eligible for $1.3 billion. The deadline for school districts to apply is Oct. 31, so the list may yet grow. 

    The Office of Public Construction cautioned that although the districts have filed paperwork, they have not been evaluated and approved for funding by the State Allocation Board under the rules in effect for Proposition 51. Some may have been built with local funding and are waiting for a state match.

    With $40 billion in local projects on the ballot and probably a net of $4 billion available for modernization and new construction, there likely will not be enough to fund more than a portion, leading to the establishment of a new list of unfunded projects.

    How does the match work?

    The state awards matching money to districts to defray the qualifying cost of individual school projects; it does not provide a lump sum award for all of the districts’ requests.  The state pays a uniform amount per student based on a school’s enrollment. Districts with growing enrollment, buildings over 75 years old, and a shortage of space can receive funding for new construction. 

    As with past state bonds, the state will split the cost of new construction; the state will contribute a higher match for modernization projects — 60% by the state and 40% by the district.

    A new feature in Proposition 2 will provide a slightly larger state match — up to an additional 5 percentage points on a sliding scale system to districts with both high rates of low-income students, foster children and English learners, and, to a lesser extent, with a small bonding capacity per student, another measure of ability to issue construction bonds. Low-income districts like Fresno Unified and Los Angeles Unified will be eligible for 65% state assistance for renovations and 55% for new construction, lowering their share to 35% and 45%, respectively.

    Is the formula fair?

    Analyses by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley have concluded that the current system favors property-wealthy districts. Property-poor districts serving low-income families can’t afford bonds to qualify for state modernization subsidies to repair and upgrade schools. 

    The center’s data showed that the quintile of districts with the lowest assessed property value — those with a median of $798,000 of assessed value per student — received $2,970 per student in state modernization funding from 2000 to 2023, while the districts in the highest quintile, where the median assessed property value was $2.3 million per student, received $7,910 per student — more than two-and-a-half times as much. 

    Another factor is that matching money is distributed first-come, first-served, which favors large districts and small property-wealthy districts with an in-house staff of architects and project managers adept at navigating complex funding requirements.

    Does Proposition 2 address these complaints?

    To an extent, yes.

    • Proposition 2 would dedicate 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction to small districts, defined as those with fewer than 2,501 students. First-come, first-served wouldn’t apply to them.
    • Proposition 2 would expand financial hardship assistance in which the state pays for the total cost of projects in districts whose tax bases are too low to issue a bond. Eligibility would triple the threshold for hardship aid from a maximum of $5 million to $15 million in total assessed value; additional dozens of mostly rural districts would become eligible. Some have never issued a bond to fix schools that urgently need attention. Since 1998, about 3% of state bond money has been spent on hardship aid.
    • The higher state match for districts with large proportions of low-income students and English learners is a step toward addressing inequalities. However, critics led by the public interest law firm Public Advocates charge that it does not go far enough and uses flawed measures. Districts like 3,500-student Del Norte in the far north of the state  and 46,000-student San Bernardino Unified in Southern California would need an 80% to 90% state match to raise enough money to fix critical conditions and add facilities that property-wealthy districts take for granted, they argue.

    What else is new in Proposition 2?

    The bond will allow districts to seek a supplemental grant to construct or renovate transitional kindergarten classrooms and build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them.

    Districts must write an overall plan documenting the age and uses of all facilities when submitting a proposal for Prop. 2 funding. The lack of data has made it difficult to determine building needs statewide.

    What would happen if Proposition 2 is defeated?

    In the last 30 years, voters have nixed state construction bonds twice, but never twice in a row. If voters do that next month, the unmet building needs of districts struggling to address them will mount. The price to fix them will rise, forcing difficult choices on how to scale back and reorder priorities.

    The $9 billion bond issue passed in 2016 would cost $11.8 billion to cover the same work in 2024, 31% more, according to a U.S. inflation calculator. A $10 billion bond passed in 2002 would require $17.5 billon in funding today.

    The escalation in materials and labor costs since the pandemic may continue to soar — or maybe not. Voters on Prop. 2 will have to decide whether to take that gamble.

    “We believe that voters will understand the value of making the critical repairs and classroom upgrades that our students need and deserve,“ said Rebekah Kalleen, legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing or CASH, the lobby representing school districts and school construction contractors campaigning for Prop. 2.





    Source link