اینترنت

برچسب: funding

  • Looming end of historic student homelessness funding has arrived

    Looming end of historic student homelessness funding has arrived


    Family Resource Center in Greenfield, CA, where families go for assistance with basic needs. The school district is located in southern Monterey County.

    Credit: Betty Márquez Rosales / EdSource

    Less than two months into this school year, three families seeking shelter in Monterey County asked for motel vouchers from their children’s schools and were turned away. The vouchers, along with several other services for students experiencing homelessness, are no more.

    The families sought help from the schools because, in the past, that was where the county’s homeless liaison had provided them with vouchers for short stays at local motels, temporarily sheltering their homeless families with the ultimate goal of getting them into permanent housing.

    But the funds that paid for those vouchers had come from a federal program, the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth, known as ARP-HCY. The historic allocation of $800 million for schools nationwide, of which California received $98.76 million, was one-time pandemic-era funding that must be committed by the end of this month and used by the end of January 2025. There is a possibility for schools to receive an extension on the timeline to spend the funds, though they won’t receive additional amounts.

    There is no plan either at the federal or state level to replace those funds at anywhere near the same level.

    “There is a fair amount of heartache because the needs are high, and higher than they were even before the pandemic, and homelessness is always a crisis,” said Barbara Duffield, executive director of youth homelessness nonprofit SchoolHouse Connection. “The prospect of the additional funds to meet those heightened needs going away is demoralizing. It’s true everywhere, but I think particularly true in California, where homelessness is unabated, to say the least.”

    In preparation for the fiscal cliff, homeless liaisons — school staff tasked with identifying and supporting students experiencing homelessness — are ending some services for students that they’d begun offering during the pandemic, laying off staff, and braiding together other streams of funding.

    Rising rates of child homelessness as the funding to address it decreases

    Homeless liaisons have long rung the alarm of rising child homelessness, and their concerns are not without merit. The rate of student homelessness in California rose by 9% during the 2022-23 school year from the year prior. Child poverty in the state also increased in 2023 for the third year in a row and, at 19.2%, is now higher than its pre-pandemic rate of 18.6%, according to a recent analysis published by the California Budget and Policy Center.

    There was a significant dip in student homelessness rates at the peak of the pandemic, which was followed by a sharp increase, once schools reopened. Experts attribute this dramatic shift to the identification efforts by liaisons. While some of the increase can be attributed to rising homelessness amid skyrocketing rent prices and inflation, it is also in part due to the staff hired with ARP-HCY funds whose jobs were to figure out which students were homeless and to connect them with resources.

    Liaisons have also resoundingly cited a critical issue: There is no dedicated, ongoing funding for their work, which they say impedes their ability to implement long-term programming, hire staff and build out preventive measures to help families avoid homelessness.

    “The money that we received is the money that we should be receiving on a regular basis to do the work that we need to do,” said Jennifer Kottke, the homeless liaison for the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

    There are other streams of funding for students experiencing homelessness, but most are one-time funds, too limited to be distributed across all schools, or they are not set aside specifically for this population of students.

    For example, California’s funding formula for education requires that funds be set aside for high-needs students, which includes homeless students. But those dollars need to be distributed across all high-needs students, not only those experiencing homelessness. As such, the percentage of funds has long been disproportionate to the number of homeless children enrolled in schools statewide. And crucially, this funding requires first identifying students who are homeless — the very effort school staff say needs to first be funded.

    There is also the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act’s Education for Homeless Children And Youth grant, but at $129 million nationwide, it is a fraction of the windfall the ARP-HCY provided.

    Earlier this year, there was a statewide push to include $13 million in the state budget as dedicated funding for students experiencing homelessness. The amount was a match for the federal McKinney-Vento dollars California received in the pre-pandemic years, but the state Legislature failed to pass it.

    What did liaisons do with ARP-HCY funding?

    Liaisons are pointing to ARP-HCY dollars as an example of the possibilities for supporting students experiencing homelessness when they are given the opportunity to hire staff and expand their services for children.

    “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 L.A. County’s Kottke.

    With the influx of funds, Kottke hired someone to run a countywide free tutoring program for a year and a half that served about 600 students experiencing homelessness, a data analyst to navigate the complicated nature of homelessness data, and a community outreach specialist to distribute informational modules to other liaisons and share social media posts on homeless education resources. In the last school year alone, her office served at least 63,000 students and families experiencing homelessness, though they are still finalizing their numbers and expect that number to be higher.

    Her county office received just over $3 million in the first round of ARP-HCY distributions and about $253,000 in the second round — but these amounts include the funds for 78 districts and charters that Kottke contracted with as the head of her local consortium, which she and other county offices statewide had to create in order to distribute funds to any districts and charters that received less than $500,000.

    The motel vouchers in Monterey County were paired with case management to guide families through the county’s housing assistance programs. The part-time staffer in charge of that was hired with ARP-HCY funds, which means that Donna Smith, the county’s homeless liaison, has had to eliminate the position.

    The American Rescue Plan “was designed as a safety net to be able to help students still participate in school, still have access to the curriculum,” said Smith, whose county has some of the highest concentrations of student homelessness. “It was really designed to keep them from failing in school, because we know that school is very important no matter what you do.”

    To highlight the importance of education, Smith also hired two people to run after-school programs for children at homeless shelters in the region. Every day, for two and a half years, children at the shelters were taught music and art, played sports, and went on field trips on the weekends. But with the money drying up, the programs were shut down on June 30.

    Smith’s county office received about $423,000 in the first round of allocations and just under $29,000 in the second round. As with Kottke, she was also the head of her local consortium and distributed portions of that funding to other districts and charters.

    In total, Smith had to lay off seven part-time employees, and Kottke is laying off two this month.

    Farther north, Meagan Meloy, Butte County’s liaison, began offering what she calls “the next tier of support for students.”

    In her two decades doing this work, Meloy has focused on ensuring that students experiencing homelessness were enrolled and could get a ride to school. “That always felt like a Band-Aid approach versus the more comprehensive case management,” she said.

    But with over $295,000 total in ARP-HCY funds, she was also able to support families with getting into housing, maintaining their housing, addressing their social-emotional needs, offering academic support, and distributing basic aid needs like food and clothing.

    “It just puts more restrictions on prioritizing which students and families we’re going to serve first,” said Meloy, referring to the end of ARP-HCY funds.

    One of the uses of the federal funds was the increase in identification efforts. A significant dip in student homelessness followed school closures at the height of the pandemic, which experts agree occurred because the identification of students experiencing homelessness relies on school staff being able to see and interact with children. That became much more difficult, at times impossible, via video.

    If liaisons do not notice signs of potential homelessness, it is then up to the student and their families to self-identify. But, according to interviews with liaisons statewide, few children and families self-identify as homeless; they might feel ashamed, be fearful of their children being taken away from them, or might not consider themselves as being homeless.

    Such challenges make identification of homelessness among students a key part of every homeless liaison’s job. Some schools, such as Santa Rita Union Elementary in Monterey County, used their ARP-HCY money to hire staff who focused primarily on calling and visiting families they believed might be homeless. It’s a job that liaisons say requires significant investment in time, money and effort, as trust needs to be built with families.

    “I think we’ll see even a bigger bump (in homelessness rates) for ’23-24, because that’s when ARP was fully out, but if it goes down next year, it’s not going to be because ‘Oh, we’re solving homelessness,’” said Duffield. “It’s because there are fewer people knocking on doors and following up and asking questions.”





    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

  • Trump’s budget would abolish funding for English learners, adult ed, teacher recruitment

    Trump’s budget would abolish funding for English learners, adult ed, teacher recruitment


    A sixth-grade math teacher helps two students during a lesson about math and music.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    Top Takeaways
    • The president dismissed many programs as outdated or “woke.”
    • Advocates for English learners argue that the cuts will reverse progress.
    • The initial budget will face resistance from Democrats and maybe some Republicans.

    President Donald Trump would maintain funding levels for students with disabilities and for Title I aid for low-income students while wiping out long-standing programs serving migrant children, teachers in training, college-bound students, English learners and adult learners  in the education budget for fiscal 2026.

    Trump’s “skinny budget,” which he released on Friday, would cut $12 billion or about 15% of K-12 and some higher education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It contains sparse, sometimes dismissive, language explaining why he is eliminating programs and offers no details about plans to consolidate $6.5 billion in 18 unspecified programs into a single $2 billion grant program.

    “K-12 outcomes will improve as education returns to the states, which would make remedial education for adults less necessary,” according to the one-paragraph explanation for the full $729 million cut to adult education. 

    The budget summary justified eliminating funding for programs like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, which focus on increasing the college and career readiness of low-income students, as “a relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education to engage with low-income students and increase access.”

    “I don’t think the budget request reflects a deep understanding of what the programs are and what they do. The language is designed to capture headlines, not hearts and minds,” said Reg Leichty, founding partner of Washington, D.C.-based Foresight Law + Policy, which advises education groups, including the Association of California School Administrators, on congressional education policies. 

    “(Trump) has eliminated programs that it’s taken decades to build,” said U.S. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, a California Democrat serving the East Bay. “There’s been no analysis of what the financial assessment would mean to the communities served. You can always find more efficiencies, but just cutting everything is just mindless.”

    Only charter schools would receive more money — $60 million to bring the total federal spending on charter schools to $500 million.

    The U.S. Department of Education spent about $150 billion in fiscal 2024 on programs in states and school districts, of which California received $18.6 billion, according to the Pew Research Center.

    Trump’s initial budget is the first step in what will likely be a lengthy and contentious process in Congress before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

    “It’s not a budget reflective of the perspectives of many Republicans on Capitol Hill. We’ll see how they try to accommodate the administration,” said Leichty. “It’s a different Congress, it’s a different moment, but still, cuts of this scale and scope are hard to imagine how even the House (with a tiny Republican majority) would pass them.”

    The two largest federal K-12 programs — Title I grants of $18.4 billion and $15.5 billion for the Students with Disabilities Act — reach every school district nationwide and have bipartisan support, but Trump has proposed reshaping both programs as block grants administered by states with less oversight and more local control — actions requiring congressional approval.

    “With a budget that cuts the Department of Education by so much, we’re really pleased to see it does not cut funding for IDEA,” said Kuna Tavalin, senior policy and advocacy adviser for the Council for Exceptional Children, referring to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. “Of course, the devil is in the details.”

    The federal government funds programs that support students with disabilities from early childhood through 21 years old. Consolidation raises the specter that funding for some stages may be fungible, which “could potentially be really damaging,” Tavalin said.

    “This raises the hair on the back of my neck,” he said.

    Programs that Trump would abolish include:

    • TRIO organizations like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, $1.579 billion.
    • English language acquisition through Title III, $890 million.
    • Migrant education, $428 million
    • Teacher quality partnerships, $70 million
    • Federal work-study, $980 million
    • Preschool development grants, $315 million

    The budget proposal also calls for cutting $49 million from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. The office would shift the focus from enforcing Title IX and programs with goals of raising achievement for minority students to carrying out presidential executive orders and ending the office’s “ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.”

    The budget is silent on several significant programs, including Head Start, research funding through the Institute of Education Sciences, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and the state assessment program.

    Reactions

    Title III

    This funding helps English learners and immigrant students learn to speak, read, and write English fluently, learn other subjects such as math and science, and meet graduation requirements. California received about $157 million in 2024-25 from Title III.

    Students who are not yet fluent in English when they begin school are entitled under federal law to get help to learn the language.

    According to the budget, “To end overreach from Washington and restore the rightful role of state oversight in education, the Budget proposes to eliminate the misnamed English Language Acquisition program, which actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding (non-profit organizations) and states to encourage bilingualism.”

    Advocates for English learners disputed the reasoning. 

     “The claim that Title III ‘deemphasizes English primacy’ ignores decades of research and legal precedent,” said Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language), a nonprofit organization. “Supporting bilingualism does not come at the expense of English proficiency — it enhances it.”

    “Without these funds, many schools will be forced to abandon evidence-based strategies that work and cut services,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. She said that without targeted support, more students may take longer to learn English and become “long-term English learners” who struggle to thrive in middle and high school.

    Migrant education

    The Migrant Education Program supports children of agricultural, dairy, lumber, and fishing workers who have moved during the past three years. California received $120 million for this program in 2024-25.

    Debra Duardo, superintendent of schools in Los Angeles County, wrote in an email that the loss of these funds will drastically reduce academic support and widen academic achievement gaps. “This decision would have devastating impacts on Los Angeles County schools, where we serve one of the nation’s largest populations of English learners and children from migrant families,” she said.

    Preschool Development Grants

    These programs help states improve their preschool and child care programs, for example, by conducting needs assessments, teacher training and quality improvement. California received Preschool Development Grants in the past, but is not currently a grantee. However, eliminating the grant program could impact California in the future, said Donna Sneeringer, vice president and chief strategy officer for Child Care Resource Center, a nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles that was a partner in the state’s last preschool development grant.

    “There’s still work to be done,” Sneeringer said. “California has made significant changes in our early learning landscape. With transitional kindergarten being available to all 4-year-olds, there are a lot of changes that our child care and early learning providers are having to go through.”

    In the budget proposal, the Trump administration called Preschool Development Grants “unproductive” and said they had been “weaponized by the Biden-Harris Administration [sic] to extend the federal reach and push DEI policies on to toddlers. 

    Adult education

    Unlike K-12 schools, adult education is heavily reliant on federal funding. Sharon Bonney, CEO of the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, said she found the proposed cuts “shocking” and fears the cuts would mean adult schools would rely on volunteers rather than trained teachers. She believes that this is a part of the Trump immigration agenda — 6 out of 10 adult education students are immigrants. 

    Adult schools offer career education or training, but much of their programming is aimed at helping immigrants assimilate and prepare for the citizenship test or learning English as a second language. 

    Teacher quality grants

    Federal funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership grant helps recruit and train teachers for high-needs schools and for hard-to-fill teaching positions.

    University, school district and nonprofit teacher preparation programs use grants from the $70 million fund to recruit and train teacher candidates for high-needs schools and hard-to-fill teaching positions, and sometimes to offer them stipends and other financial help. 

    “These abrupt, short-sighted cuts will directly disrupt critical teacher residency programs that were actively preparing new educators for high-need positions in urban and rural districts across the state,” said Marvin Lopez, executive director of the California Center on Teaching Careers. 

    The grants have been “weaponized to indoctrinate new teachers” in divisive ideologies, according to information attached to a letter from Russell T. Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

    “Cutting grants aimed at supporting and diversifying the teaching profession, at the same time that the nation’s student body is becoming increasingly more diverse and as many districts are struggling to recruit enough teachers, is senseless,” said Eric Duncan, director of P-12 policy at EdTrust West.





    Source link

  • California schools chief pledges to resist cuts in funding if Trump axes U.S. Dept. of Education

    California schools chief pledges to resist cuts in funding if Trump axes U.S. Dept. of Education


    Surrounded by education leaders from around the state, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond reacts to President-elect Donald Trump’s education agenda at a news conference in Sacramento on Nov. 8, 2024.

    Credit: California Department of Education

    California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond vowed on Friday to fight President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, which he said represented a “clear threat to what our students need to have a good education and a great life.”

    “We cannot be caught flatfooted,” Thurmond said, during a news conference.

    Thurmond made his pronouncement in Sacramento on Friday while flanked by legislators and education and labor leaders holding up signs saying “Education Is For Everyone” and “Protect All Students.”

    Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump has vowed to abolish the department, a long-standing and so far unfulfilled pledge made by Republican leaders dating back to former President Ronald Reagan.

    Thurmond said there are concerns that abolishing the department would put at risk some $8 billion that California receives in federal funds for programs serving students with disabilities and those attending low-income schools, both public and private.

    “We will not allow that to happen,” he said. “The law will not allow that to happen.”

    He observed, for example, that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA, guarantees students in special education programs a “free and appropriate education,” and to receive a range of special education services in an individualized education program drawn up for every special education student.

    Thurmond said Trump’s plan to defund the Department of Education would also harm students whose civil rights are violated and investigated through the Office of Civil Rights, including victims of racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, hate and bias toward LGBTQ students.

    “To tear down and abolish an organization that provides protections for our students is a threat to the well-being of our students and our families and of Americans,” Thurmond said.

    It was also not clear what would happen to student financial aid that the department administers, Thurmond said.

    The first line of defense in the fight against Trump’s education plan is the Congress, Thurmond said. He said his department is reaching out to legislators to affirm their commitment to public education — an issue that he says surpasses partisan labels.

    “Let me be clear,” Thurmond said. “This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of continuing to assure that students have access to the resources that they are entitled to under the law. And we will continue to do that, and we will work with the members of Congress to ask them to stand and support our students.”

    But Thurmond said that the California Department of Education is also preparing for a worst-case scenario: large-scale cuts to federal funding. In that case, he said, he is working with the California Legislature on a backup plan.

    “If it comes to it, as a contingency, we are prepared to introduce legislation that would backfill funding for special education programs, Title I programs and programs that are similar in its scope,” Thurmond said. Title I money supplements state and local education funding for low-income students.

    Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, the chair of the Assembly Education Committee, said that the state is prepared to stand up for all the students who are targeted by Trump’s policy proposals and rhetoric. He pointed to the threat of deportations of undocumented immigrants that would hurt large numbers of children of immigrants, as well as threats to other student populations.

    “It is the job of every teacher, every school board member, every principal, every elected representative in the state of California who believes in public education, it is time for us to stand up to protect all of these kids,” he said. “When we are facing a bully who is targeting our most vulnerable students, we all need to stand up.”

    “We need to get ready now for what is going to start on Jan. 20,” Muratsuchi said, referring to Trump’s second inauguration.

    In 2017, California enshrined into state law some federal laws or court decisions to protect the education rights of immigrant students, said Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez, deputy director of Californians Together, a statewide coalition that advocates for immigrants and multilingual learners.

    In the wake of Trump’s attacks on immigrants, Cruz-Gonzalez said it is important to remind school staff of those protections so that students and families will continue to feel safe and protected when they attend school.

    “It’s not enough to know that we have laws on the books,” Cruz-Gonzalez said. “We have to work together in coalition and ensure our superintendents, our school board members and our teachers know what to do to protect these rights.”

    The right to public education is the “cornerstone of democracy,” said Chinua Rhodes, school board member at Sacramento City Unified School District.

    “This is not just a political battle, it is a moral one,” Rhodes said. “Our schools should not abandon the most needy.”

    Louis Freedberg contributed to this report.





    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 Signs Executive Order Urging CPB to Stop Funding NPR and PBS

    Trump Signs Executive Order Urging CPB to Stop Funding NPR and PBS


    The Constitution says Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. The president executes the funding decisions of Congress.

    Yesterday Trump called on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding public radio and public television. Never mind that National Public Radio brings news to listeners in areas totally saturated by rightwing Sinclair stations. Never mind that PBS is the best source of documentaries about science, history, nature, medicine, other nations, and global affairs. PBS is educational television at its best.

    The Washington Post reported:

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday evening seeking to prohibit federal funding for NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order, which could be subject to legal challenge, called the broadcasters’ news coverage “biased and partisan.”

    It instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cease providing direct funds to either broadcaster. It also orders CPB to cease indirect funding of the services through grants to local public radio and television stations.

    CPB is the main distributor of federal funds to public media. It receives about $535 million in federal funds per fiscal year, which it mostly spends on grants to hundreds of stations nationwide. The stations spend the grants on making their own programming or on buying programming from services such as NPR and PBS.

    CPB, created by an act of Congress in 1967, also sometimes provides direct grants to NPR and PBS to produce national programs.
    Thursday’s order instructs the CPB board to ensure that stations receiving its grants “do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.”



    Source link

  • Why isn’t Los Angeles Unified settling this lawsuit on arts funding?

    Why isn’t Los Angeles Unified settling this lawsuit on arts funding?


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    My time on the high school football field was spent with a snare drum strapped around my chest. As a student who was easily distracted in the academic classroom and struggled to apply myself, band class was a welcome reprieve during the day.

    Playing the drums was my niche, it was how I stood out. I carried my drumsticks around the way football players wore their varsity jackets.

    During my school years, I was fortunate that the district I attended recognized the importance of arts education. In elementary school, there were classrooms devoted to art and music staffed by full-time teachers. There was also an orchestra teacher. My middle school had two full-time band teachers, and an art class was included in the curriculum. High school offered a full range of band and choir classes in addition to the chance to participate in the jazz band and marching band in after-school programs.

    Even back then, it was clear that future students would not have these same opportunities. The program that allowed interested sixth-grade students to participate in a stage production disappeared while I was in school, a victim of budget cuts as the baby boom turned into a bust. During my time in high school, there were constant rumors of plans to reduce the number of band teachers.

    This reduction in the availability of arts education was part of a nationwide trend that accelerated as the second Bush administration and then Obama’s placed an increasing focus on test scores. Ignoring evidence that music and art help increase academic performance, teachers were forced to spend more time teaching to standardized tests. Arts funding was seen as extravagant in a system that values data over a full educational experience.

    When I visited my old elementary school in 2015, the band room did not even exist anymore. I grieved for the school’s students who no longer had the opportunity to find the joy of mastering an instrument.

    California voters understood the magnitude of this loss when 64.4% of voters opted to approve Proposition 28 in 2022. This measure provided an additional source of funding for arts and music education for K-12 public schools with rules to ensure that districts used this money to supplement, not supplant, existing funding.

    This included a requirement that schools with 500 or more students use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% for training and materials.

    Complaints grew as parents in Los Angeles noticed that their children were not seeing improved access to art and music funding as the Proposition 28 money started to flow into the district. As the author of the proposition, Austin Beuttner was well acquainted with the rules it set in place and agreed that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was not following the spirit or the letter of the law.

    After months of trying to get the district to do the right thing, Beuttner joined parents, students,and teachers in filing a lawsuit against the district and current Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho.

    The suit could have served as a wake-up call to LAUSD’s leadership that their actions were being watched, but they did not use it as an opportunity to ensure the Proposition 28 money was being spent properly. Carvalho saw the suit as a public relations problem, and instead of fixing the compliance issues, he tried to spin the narrative. As noted by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Jeff Chemerinsky, he “has already decided to double down on explanations not grounded in fact.”

    To resolve this issue, the plaintiffs are demanding that LAUSD:

    • Publicly acknowledge that it misspent the Proposition 28 funds in the 2023–24 and 2024–25 school years.
    • Fully restore the misspent and misallocated funding to schools.
    • Be fully transparent about how the funding is used in future years.

    In a letter to the LAUSD’s general counsel, Chemerinsky reminds the district that, if it is found that the funds were not used properly, it will have to return the money to the state. Combined with possible penalties for “violating the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Black and Latino students,” LAUSD could be facing a hit to its budget of over $100 million.

    This is not a slip-and-fall lawsuit designed to squeeze scarce education funding from our children’s classrooms. Rather, it is intended to improve the educational experience of our students.

    The suit would not have been brought if Carvahlo and the district had engaged with the community instead of ignoring their concerns. As Chermerinsky notes, “families, labor partners and concerned citizens spent months seeking answers. Regrettably, LAUSD refused to meaningfully respond.”

    The lawsuit has also attracted the attention of California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, who has asked the state auditor to look into how the funds were spent.

    If the audit proceeds, Bryan says, “The district is going to have to produce the necessary documents to show that they are in compliance.” Based on statements from Carvalho saying the author of the proposition has a “misunderstanding of the law,” LAUSD should be concerned that its creative budgeting will not pass muster when held up to scrutiny.

    The LAUSD board must make it clear to Carvahlo that the concerns of their constituents can no longer be ignored by an increasingly detached bureaucracy. A good place to start would be by settling this lawsuit.

    •••

    Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, and serves as the education chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. Read more opinion pieces by Petersen.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom proposes stable California school funding in 2025-26 with an ominous warning

    Gov. Newsom proposes stable California school funding in 2025-26 with an ominous warning


    Gov. Gavin Newsom outlines his proposed 2025-26 $322 billion state budget during a news conference at California State University, Stanislaus in Turlock on Jan. 6..

    Credit: AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli

    The article was updated on Jan, 10 to include more reactions to the budget proposal and note that Newsom did not include funding for ethnic studies.

    California school districts would receive $2.5 billion through a small cost-of-living increase, plus additional funding to train math and reading coaches, expand summer and after-school programs, and help launch the state’s Master Plan for Career Education in the proposed 2025-26 state budget that Gov. Gavin Newsom released Friday.

    But countering a stable funding forecast for schools and community colleges, Newsom said both the University of California and California State University should expect as deep as an 8% cut in ongoing state money.

    Newsom’s budget included a strong caution. He warned that revenues could change between now and May, when he revises his budget proposal, because of potential global financial instability, volatility in stock market prices, and likely conflicts with President Donald Trump that could jeopardize federal funding.

    “California is facing a new federal administration that has expressed unalloyed and uninformed hostility toward the state, threatening the funding of essential services for political stunts,” Newsom stated in the introduction to the 2025-26 budget. The governor, who previewed the budget Monday, was in Los Angeles responding to the wildfires and not at a news conferenceFriday by the Department of Finance.

    Christopher J. Nellum,  executive director of the advocacy no-profit Education Trust-West, urged Newsom and the Legislature to stand firm on behalf of “many students of color and multilingual learners (who) are feeling uncertain and concerned.”

    “We’re glad to see Gov. Newsom affirming that California is a state that believes in and invests in educational equity,” he said. “If the incoming federal administration does what it says it will, state policymakers will find themselves standing between harm and the people of California”.

    The bulk of state funding for the state’s nearly 1,000 school districts, 1,300 charter schools and community colleges is through Proposition 98, a 1988 voter-approved formula. The budget projected that Proposition 98 funding will be flat in 2025-26 at $118.9 billion, $300 million less than $119.2 billion in 2024-25. To avoid overfunding, the state, for now, will assume 2024-25 funding will end up $1.6 billion less, according to the budget.

    Per-pupil funding from Proposition 98 would rise to $18,918 and to $24,764 per pupil, including federal funding and other state money, such as pension contributions for teachers and other school employees.

    Bad news for UC and CSU

    Both the University of California and California State University should expect as deep as an 8% decrease in ongoing general fund dollars under Newsom’s proposed budget for 2025-26. That’s a decline of $396.6 million at UC and $375.2 million at CSU, which officials say would affect academics and student services.

    UC President Michael Drake said he’s concerned about the impact that the cuts would have “on our students and campus services.”

    CSU Chancellor Mildred García expressed disappointment that the governor’s budget maintains plans for a 7.95% cut in light of a rosier state budget outlook than previously projected — and said she hopes that ongoing funding will be restored if state revenues improve.

    “The impact of such deep funding cuts will have significant real-world consequences, both in and out of the classroom,” García said in a statement. “Larger class sizes, fewer course offerings and a reduced workforce will hinder students’ ability to graduate on time and weaken California’s ability to meet its increasing demands for a diverse and highly educated workforce.”

    The two four-year systems were each due to receive a 5% base increase in 2025-26, but the state would also defer that commitment until 2027-28, a move that was telegraphed in the 2024 budget agreement. UC additionally would have to wait until 2027-28 for a $31 million commitment offsetting revenue it lost by enrolling fewer out-of-state undergraduates and more in-state students.

    The State budget Process

    Governor’s initial budget proposal:

    • Must be released by Jan. 10.
    • Assumes an estimate of revenues the state will collect over the next 18 months (by June 30, 2026). Actual revenues are often significantly different based on economic conditions, federal policy and unforeseen events, like the destructive fires in Los Angeles.

    May revision: In mid-May, Newsom will submit a revised budget with an updated revenue forecast.

    Legislature’s response: The Assembly and Senate have until June 15 to hold hearings and respond with their own version.

    Negotiation: Behind closed doors, Legislative leaders and the governor settle differences. Lawmakers sign off, and the governor signs the final version.

    • About 40% of the state’s general fund will go to schools and community colleges. The bulk goes to keeping schools running, but in some years new money is spent on new programs, like, in recent years, transitional kindergarten and community schools.
    • Governors increasingly have used the budget to rewrite statutes outside of the legislative process. That’s why it’s important to read the fine print in massive “budget trailer bills” written after the budget is passed.

    New programs for schools

    The expiration of about $3 billion for spending in 2024-25, will free up money for one-time funding beyond the 2.4% cost of living increase for transitional kindergarten through grade 12.

    These include:

    Transitional kindergarten (TK): The budget completes the four-year phase-in for the new program, which serves as a bridge between preschool and kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. In fulfilling a commitment, Newsom is also providing $1.5 billion to lower the student-to-teacher ratio from 12:1 to 10:1 in every transitional kindergarten classroom. This is key to maintaining quality because younger children need more personal attention, experts say.

    “This is great news,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers. “With this move to a smaller class size, TK takes an important step to becoming the high quality pre-k experience all children deserve.”

    Literacy instruction: The budget would double the $500 million for literacy coaches appropriated in two recent budgets and enable the funding to include math coaches. It also includes:

    •  $40 million for training and materials to inaugurate annual universal screening of kindergartners through second-graders for potential learning challenges, including dyslexia.      
    • $5 million to launch Literacy Network, a clearinghouse for state-developed literacy resources and support to districts with persistent performance challenges.

    Summer and after-school programs: The state will extend the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program for grades TK-6 for districts in which 55% of students are low-income students, English learners, or students in foster care. That will require an additional $435 million. Until now, funding was for only districts with 75% or more of qualifying students.

    Teacher recruitment: The budget proposal includes $300 million for teacher recruitment, including $150 million in financial assistance to teacher candidates. With $50 million, it would revive dwindling funding in the Golden State Teacher Grant program, which awards up to $20,000 to students enrolled in teacher preparation programs who commit to work in priority schools or in the California State Preschool Program.

    A $1.8 billion discretionary funding: Districts will have discretion over a new Student Support and Discretionary Block Grant, but will be encouraged to spend it on professional development for teachers in reading instruction, especially for English learners; teacher training in the new math standards; and additional efforts to address the teacher shortage.

    Career education: In multiple ways, the budget supports Newsom’s proposed Master Plan for Career Education, whose goal is to make it easier for Californians of all ages and backgrounds to find jobs in high-wage, high-growth fields.

    • $100 million to support community colleges in validating the experience students bring from their jobs, the military, internships or even volunteering.
    • $5 million in ongoing funding to establish a planning agency to put the master plan into practice and $4 million to support regional coordination for career education and training.

    The budget would also allow districts to use funding from the $1.8 billion discretionary block grant to expand career pathways and dual enrollment. 

    Funding for career education comes through many different programs, which school leaders describe as both a blessing and a curse. The budget directs the Department of Education to examine how it could consolidate applications for all these different grants into one single application process.

    Barring a big drop in revenue, the 2025-26 proposal would mark a return to normal following the current year’s jury-rigged budget. To avoid education cuts and deal with the hangover from pandemic revenue complications, in the past two budgets, Newsom and the Legislature drained the $8.4 billion Proposition 98 rainy day fund and withheld hundreds of millions of dollars, called deferrals, from districts. The proposed budget would eliminate the deferrals and rebuild the rainy day fund to $1.5 billion.

    No money for ethnic studies

    One much anticipated question was whether Newsom would include funding to implement a high school ethnic studies course. He did not. A spokesperson from the Department of Finance said that there were many demands for spending with limited resources. Ethnic studies was not among the priorities.

    A lack of funding to pay for teachers’ time and materials would delay the Legislature’s 2021 mandate for all high schools to offer a semester course in ethnic studies, starting in 2025-26 and to require that all students take it in order to graduate from high school, starting in 2029-30.

    After multiple drafts and thousands of public comments, the State Board of Education adopted a voluntary framework for teaching ethnic studies in 2021. Since then, there have been conflicts and lawsuits over districts that have adoped curriculums promoted by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. Without naming the Liberated version, the ethnic studies law said that districts should not adopt elements of it “due to concerns related to bias, bigotry, and discrimination.” Without funding, that warning also would not take effect.

    A lack of funding also might short-circuit a proposal pushed by UC ethnic studies faculty to require a high school ethnic studies course as an admission requirement with course criteria that UC would create. In December, the UC Academic Senate postponed a vote on the proposal until April; one reason was the uncertain status of California’s ethnic studies mandate.

    More budget reactions

    Other responses to the budget proposal were mixed.

    Vernon Billy, CEO of the California School Boards Association, said the proposed budget appears to avoid direct cuts, while spending more for transitional kindergarten. “But before we offer unqualified praise, we’ll need to evaluate the actual language in the education budget trailer bill to be released in February — especially since the budget summary contains provisions that seem to open the door for shortchanging Proposition 98 under certain conditions.”

    Lance Izumi, senior director of education studies at the conservative Pacific Research Institute, said, “Governor Newsom said that education is ‘all about human capital.’  It is revealing, then, that the governor discussed his proposed 2025-25 education budget only in terms of inputs — the increase in Prop. 98 and total education funding, the increase in per-pupil funding, and the increase in spending directed at particular education programs such as before/after-school and summer school.”

    “Human capital,” he added, ”is about improving the knowledge and skills of students. The fact that he did not include any evidence that the increased education spending during his administration has raised student achievement and therefore increased their human capital is a glaring omission.” 

    Ted Lempert, president of the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, said, “We applaud the governor’s focus on continued support for kids in his proposed budget, including TK, community schools, after-school, and career education.  But much more is needed.” Noting that California ranks at the bottom of states in terms of the ratio of teachers, counselors and nurses to students, he added, “We look forward to working on increasing support for child care, education, mental health, youth homelessness and youth in foster care.”

    Jessie Ryan, the president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, said it’s likely that K-12 school districts in the Los Angeles area will decide to dedicate new block grant funding to wildfire recovery, rather than investments in services for undocumented students or other vulnerable populations. 

    “That is a very real possibility,” she said. “We’re moving towards financial stability, but we’re not at restoration, and we’re going to have to continue to do everything in our power to protect our most vulnerable students, recognizing that we still have limited resources to do just that.”

    David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, said he also is concerned that the state might not fund its full obligation to Proposition 98. “We are excited to see so many transformative education initiatives supported by CTA members come to fruition in this state budget, including investments in transitional kindergarten, school nutrition and professional development. However, we are concerned that the proposed budget does not allocate the full funding guaranteed by Proposition 98. In the coming months, our union will carefully monitor the required funding levels for schools and community colleges to ensure full funding is provided to our students in a timely manner, without unnecessary delay.”

    Mary Vixie Sandy, executive director of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, said the commission is grateful for continued investments in addressing the teacher shortage. “Funding for teacher recruitment helps to improve affordability and access to teacher preparation programs and helps to ensure that students receive the high-quality education they deserve,” she said. 

    Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, which advocates for English learners, said, “We are encouraged to see the governor prioritizing key areas of importance, including a $10 million one-time allocation for statewide English language proficiency screeners to support multilingual learners in transitional kindergarten. Additionally, we applaud the emphasis on the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework as the foundational guide for literacy instruction—an essential focus that we strongly support.”

    Max Arias, chief spokesperson and chair of Child Care Providers United, a union that is negotiating with the state to increase reimbursements for its 40,000 child care workers, said the union is disappointed with Newsom’s proposed budget for child care.

    “Continuing on the path proposed in this budget — poverty wages with untimely payments — doesn’t just hurt providers and their families, it hurts the parents with essential jobs like grocery clerks, janitors and delivery drivers who can’t go to work without quality, affordable child care,” he said.

    Emmanuel Rodriguez, the senior director of policy and advocacy for California at The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), called on the state to use programs like the Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship to help students from mixed-status families, who may decide not to apply for federal financial aid. Rodriguez said the state must also ensure the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education has an adequate budget framework “to shield Californians from anticipated federal regulatory changes that will leave students more vulnerable than ever to predatory, low-quality colleges.”





    Source link

  • California leaders still uncertain about impact of potential federal funding freeze

    California leaders still uncertain about impact of potential federal funding freeze


    People protest against a funding freeze of federal grants and loans following a push from President Donald Trump to pause federal funding near to the White House in Washington on Jan. 28, 2025.

    Credit: AP Photo/Ben Curtis

    The White House budget office rescinded the order freezing federal funds on Jan. 29. Read our update on the funding freeze.

    State leaders spent much of Tuesday trying to determine the potential impact of a White House freeze on federal grants and loans that could potentially affect millions of California students and their families. 

    A White House memo released Monday from the Office of Management and Budget called for the freeze to begin Tuesday at 2 p.m. PST. But, just minutes before 2 p.m., U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, D.C., blocked the order until next Monday at 2 p.m. PST to give courts more time to consider its impact, according to Politico.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Tuesday that the freeze could cut $3 trillion in federal funding from programs that help the homeless, veterans, seniors, disaster victims and school children nationwide.

    The order has thrown state programs into chaos and created uncertainty around their administration, said a media release from Bonta’s office.

    “I will not stand by while the president attempts to disrupt vital programs that feed our kids, provide medical care to our families, and support housing and education in our communities,” Bonta said in a statement. “Instead of learning from the defeats of his first administration, President Trump is once again plowing ahead with a damaging — and most importantly, unlawful —agenda.” 

    Bonta joined 22 other state attorneys general to file a lawsuit calling for a temporary halt to implementation of the memo. The White House directive called for advancing the Trump administration’s policies and called “the use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism and green new deal social engineering policies a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the White House memo a violation of federal law. “We are confident funding will be restored,” officials there said in an email to EdSource.

    California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said the White House action is misguided.  “(It) serves nothing more than to hurt the most vulnerable students and people in our nation,” he said.

    Early Tuesday, state education leaders expressed concern that student loans, special education, Head Start, and Title 1 programs could be impacted by the freeze.

    But by late Tuesday afternoon, conflicting information from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Education made it unclear which programs would be affected, according to a letter from the California Department of Education to county and district superintendents scheduled to be sent Tuesday night.

    According to the letter, the U.S. Department of Education assured state departments of education that Title 1 programs for low-income schools, special education and other formula grants will not be frozen. But, officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said these programs will be subject to the same scrutiny as others regarding compliance with the Trump administration’s executive orders.

    “We hope to gain more clarity on affected programs before Feb. 3 and plan to communicate this information to the field as soon as possible in case the OMB directive becomes effective,” said the California Department of Education guidance signed by David Schapira, chief deputy superintendent.

    Officials in the U.S. Department of Education said only discretionary grants would be affected and not formula grants, according to Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association. 

    A list of discretionary grants on the U.S. Department of Education website includes grants for educator development, charter school programs, early learning programs, school and community improvement programs, as well as grants for arts and literacy education.

    California School Boards Association officials will be watching to see how the issue is resolved in the courts, Flint said. “This is a fluid and fast-moving topic, and we don’t think we have heard the end of it.”

    University leaders are also waiting to see what the freeze could mean for them. University of California staff and lawyers are “working diligently to clarify the potential impacts” on the university, said President Michael Drake in a statement. 

    He noted that the White House has said federal student loans and Pell Grants would not be impacted. 

    “We are in contact with key policymakers in Congress and at federal agencies, as well as association partners and other higher education institutions. We are evaluating what actions we are able to take and will keep you informed,” Drake added in a message to the UC community.

    EdSource reporters Emma Gallegos, Michael Burke, Mallika Seshadri, Betty Márquez Rosales, Amy DiPierro, Vani Sanganeria contributed to this story.





    Source link

  • California leaders must keep their promise by funding ethnic studies

    California leaders must keep their promise by funding ethnic studies


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Decades of institutionalized racism and inadequate funding have left California with a racial achievement gap in its schools. All of our students deserve the chance to learn and succeed, but all too often, students of color have been failed by an education system that still bears the marks of a long history of racism and inequality.

    To address this persistent structural problem, Gov. Gavin Newsom has allocated funding that will be directed toward the poorest schools, to be used specifically to help all student groups improve academic achievement in this year’s proposed budget.

    The governor did not, however, explicitly allocate funding to support Assembly Bill 101, the mandate that all public high schools offer an ethnic studies course in the 2025-26 school year and require all students to complete a one-semester ethnic studies course for graduation, beginning with the school year 2029-30. The lack of explicit funding has emboldened opponents of ethnic studies education, who now argue that the ethnic studies requirement must be delayed or withdrawn.

    Delaying or abandoning the state’s commitment to ethnic studies would not only break the promise that the governor and the Legislature made to the people of California at a time when this kind of education is more important than ever, but also threaten efforts to close the racial achievement gap. Although ethnic studies isn’t designed with the specific goal of reducing or closing racial achievement gaps, it has a track record of doing exactly that.

    For example, Stanford researchers Thomas S. Dee, Emily K. Penner and Sade Bonilla found San Francisco’s ninth-grade ethnic studies course to improve students’ GPA, school attendance, and graduation rate. University of Arizona researchers Nolan L. Cabrera, Jeffrey F. Milam, Ozan Jaquette and Ronald W. Marx found that participation in Tucson’s Mexican American studies program raised students’ achievement on the state’s reading, writing and math achievement tests and virtually closed racial achievement gaps.

    San Francisco State University researchers found that students who major in ethnic studies graduate within six years at a much higher rate (92%) than students in other majors and students in other majors who take at least one ethnic studies course boost their graduation rates compared with students who do not. At the University of Louisville, researcher Tomarra A. Adams found that Black students who major in Pan-African studies have a higher graduation rate than Black students who major in something else.

    Ethnic studies has consistently positive impacts on the academic achievement of students from racially marginalized backgrounds. By offering a relevant curriculum that speaks to issues of concern to their lives and communities, ethnic studies taps into and engages the knowledge students bring to the classroom, allowing them to draw from and recognize their own expertise.

    Ethnic studies classes offer an environment where important and relevant issues related to race and ethnicity can be addressed openly rather than be belittled or ignored. Further, as students come to see education as relevant to addressing problems and needs in their communities, and themselves as academically capable, they gain confidence to thrive in school more generally.

    Ethnic studies benefits all California students while helping to close the racial achievement gap and preparing the workforce of tomorrow for the multicultural reality of our state. It was in recognition of these benefits that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 101, declaring as part of the signing statement that “these courses boost student achievement over the long run — especially among students of color.”

    Recently, Assembly Bill 1468 was introduced to authorize the development of content standards for high school ethnic studies. This bill is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Ethnic studies is a highly contextual approach to curriculum and teaching because it connects with the local cultures and issues of specific communities in which it is being taught.

    For that reason, there can be no standardized ethnic studies curriculum. Within the current Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, we already have a set of six guiding values and principles that are broad enough to allow for diverse contextualized approaches to ethnic studies, while they are also sufficiently direct as standards.

    I worry that further specification of what should be in an ethnic studies curriculum will authorize one version of ethnic studies to the exclusion of others. This has been my experience with content standards for decades. In addition, ethnic studies is interdisciplinary, which means that the standards for that subject (such as history or English) should be used along with the seven ethnic studies guiding principles. AB 1468 unnecessarily adds layers to the standards we already have.

    Ethnic studies needs to be a part of the curriculum offered to California’s students, and it is incumbent on the governor and the Legislature to make good on that promise by resolving any ambiguities about the funding of AB 101.

    •••

    Christine Sleeter is professor emerita in the College of Education at California State University Monterey Bay, known for pioneering research into multicultural education and anti-racism.

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

    A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee.





    Source link