اینترنت

برچسب: Gov

  • Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal calls for expanding arts ed pathway

    Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal calls for expanding arts ed pathway


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Faced with an ongoing teacher shortage, many California arts education advocates have been championing the use of career technical education (CTE) to attract new arts teachers to help fulfill the state’s historic arts mandate. The sticking point has been that the credential has only been applied to secondary classrooms, leaving elementary students out. 

    That may change if Gov. Gavin Newsom’s initial 2024-25 state budget becomes law. This proposal, subject to change in May, when the numbers are revised in response to shifting economic conditions and policy issues, calls for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education pathway for career technical education teachers. This expansion would allow more working artists to share their expertise with California students, a move many arts advocates praise.

    “Newsom is paving the way for a more vibrant and well-rounded educational experience, fostering creativity and skill development at every stage,” said Allison Gamlen, visual and performing arts coordinator for the San Mateo County Office of Education. “Empowering CTE teachers with the ability to bring their expertise to elementary classrooms is a positive step that will enrich the artistic learning experience for young students.”

    Expanding this credential into elementary schools might help recruit working artists, from musicians to animators, who are passionate about their craft into the school system, which is struggling to find staff in the wake of the pandemic.

    “It’s really exciting,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. He said the governor’s direction to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing about expanding the career technical education pathways for arts educators to include elementary schools “will help all 6 million children in public schools across California benefit from the additional funding Prop. 28 provides for arts education.”

    While many arts advocates are excited, some also caution patience, given the exhaustive nature of the bureaucratic process. The budget may well undergo significant changes during the May revision, for example.

    “Teaching artists will now have another pathway into employment at schools to meet the needs of Prop. 28,” said Eric Engdahl, professor emeritus at CSU East Bay and past president of the California Council on Teacher Education. But “knowing how state bureaucracies work and the laws that govern their actions, I don’t think this will produce any new teachers for at least two years, quite possibly more.”

    One key concern has been whether artists have sufficient knowledge of best practices for younger children. Some are concerned that teaching third graders requires a different skill set than eighth graders, for instance. 

    “Elementary has different foundational considerations, including meeting young students’ developmental and reading needs,” said Letty Kraus, director of the California county superintendents’ statewide arts initiative. “The developmental piece is an important one.”

    Kraus believes the state should solve the staffing problem by widening the existing arts educator pipeline. 

    “Rather than push CTE down into elementary, I think it is important to look at our existing credentialing system and consider how to increase statewide access to credentialing pathways, including virtual,” she said, “and also how to remove financial barriers and support credential candidates while they complete their student teaching.”

    Some arts education experts warn that teaching a subject is not the same as practicing it.

    “I am concerned about having CTE teachers teaching a core subject like arts, math and science —mastering a subject doesn’t mean you can teach it,” said Abe Flores, deputy director of policy and programs at Create CA, an advocacy group. “I know how to read, but it doesn’t mean I can adequately teach a student to read.”

    Others say that the new credential should require adequate training in child development as well as pedagogical concerns.

    “Since it is now in the CTC’s court, they will have to create a pathway that ensures preparedness,” said Engdahl. “A CTE credential requires classes in addition to industry experience, and the CTC should be looking at those classes closely.”

    Engdahl has confidence that aspiring arts educators will apply due diligence to their professional development. 

    “As for teacher preparedness, I am not really too concerned. When I was a teaching artist, and having worked with teaching artists for many years, I have noticed that their classroom preparedness is generally excellent.”

    However, classrooms today are not what they were before the pandemic, and many children are coping with mental health issues as well as learning loss. That raises the stakes for all new teachers, Engdahl notes, not just arts educators.

    “If there is an area of concern, it is in the changes in schools after Covid,” said Engdahl. “Students and schools are different now, and it is more challenging helping students to heal and learn.”

    This urgency to adapt to shifting school needs is one reason Beutner believes change is called for.

    “You have to meet the students where they are,” said Beutner. “You also have to meet the aspiring teachers where they are.”





    Source link

  • Federal Judge Orders Trump to Return Control of CA National Guard to Gov. Newsom

    Federal Judge Orders Trump to Return Control of CA National Guard to Gov. Newsom


    Just in: as reported by The New York Times:

    A federal judge issued an order late Thursday blocking President Trump from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles, and ordered the administration to return control of the forces to Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

    The restraining order from District Judge Charles R. Breyer, which takes effect Friday at noon Pacific time, delivered a sharp rebuke to President Trump’s effort to deploy thousands of National Guard troops on the streets of an American city, a move has contributed to nearly a week of political rancor and protests across the country. 

    “His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Judge Breyer wrote of Mr. Trump’s orders. But he gave the administration a chance to appeal.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    A federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to “return control” of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom after the president issued an extraordinary order deploying them to Los Angeles over the weekend.


    U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, presiding over the case, granted California’s request for a temporary restraining order, granting the federal government a stay until Friday to appeal the ruling.

    Breyer had expressed skepticism at a hearing Thursday over the matter, questioning whether President Trump had operated within his authority.

    “We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”

    “We live in response to a monarchy,” the judge continued, adding: “Line drawing is important, because it establishes a system of process.

    In the lengthy decision, Breyer wrote that he is “troubled by the implication” inherent in Trump administration’s argument “that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”



    Source link

  • Teachers, school boards threaten to sue over Gov. Newsom’s fix for revenue shortfall

    Teachers, school boards threaten to sue over Gov. Newsom’s fix for revenue shortfall


    Gov. Gavin Newsom

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

    The article was updated on May 20 to include a quote from Rob Manwaring and a graphic showing differences in Prop. 98 funding between the governor’s May budget revision and CTA’s estimate of full funding.

    Two powerful education groups’ opposition could derail Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to fix a massive state budget shortfall for TK-12 schools and community colleges and lead to litigation this summer with an unpredictable outcome.

    The dispute is over Proposition 98, the 35-year-old, complex formula that determines how much money schools and community colleges must receive annually from the state’s general fund. Newsom says he’s complying with the law while largely sparing schools and community colleges the larger budget cuts facing UC, CSU and non-educational parts of state government.

    To which the California School Boards Association and the California Teachers Association say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

    In separate announcements, the school boards association on Wednesday and CTA on Friday threatened to sue over what they characterize as an end run around the Proposition 98 formula that would deny schools and community colleges billions of dollars. They argue that Newsom’s tactic would set a bad and expensive precedent that governors in other tight times would imitate if allowed.  

    David Goldberg, CTA President

    CTA President David Goldberg called the budget maneuver “an outright assault on public school funding” that would “wreak havoc for years to come.”

    Patrick O’Donnell, a former high-ranking Assembly member who is now chief of government affairs for the school boards association, said the organization is willing to sit down with the governor but will not permit a violation of the state constitution on Proposition 98, “our lifeline to education.”

    Like other areas of state government, schools and community colleges are facing a massive revenue shortage — a drop of $17.7 billion in Proposition 98 funding over a three-year period, including $3.7 billion just since January alone.

    The biggest piece of the drop reflected a big miscalculation. Because of winter storms in early 2023 across much of the nation, the federal government and California pushed back the filing date for taxes from April 15 to Nov. 15. As a result, Newsom and legislators lacked accurate revenue estimates when they set the 2023-24 budget in June; it turns out they appropriated $8.8 billion more than the minimum required under Proposition 98.

    Since TK-12 and community colleges had already budgeted and spent the money,  Newsom promised to hold them harmless. The contention is over his Department of Finance advisers’ plan to treat the “overpayment” as an off-the-books accounting maneuver.

    The Department of Finance would pay for the $8.8 billion in cash — the state apparently has lots of it these days — and then accrue the expenditure from the general fund over five years, starting in 2025-26.  

    The proposed budget “is not only legal and constitutional in our view, but is designed to provide predictable and stable support” in response to unprecedented disruption in revenue projections,” said H.D. Palmer, the deputy director for external affairs for the Department of Finance. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has questioned whether the governor’s plan is prudent, without commenting on its legality. And key legislators, including the chairs of the budget subcommittees on education financing — Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, and Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego — appeared skeptical in hearings this week.

    CTA and the school boards association have a different beef: the “manipulation” of the Proposition 98 obligation. Voters passed the proposition as a constitutional amendment to protect education spending from tax cutters and, as has happened more often lately, tax volatility. The formula sets a funding floor but not a ceiling, and the Proposition 98 appropriation in any given year generally becomes the base for calculating the next year’s minimum. There are several “tests,” tied to economic conditions and growth in student attendance, that determine how much Proposition 98 funding changes annually.

    The teachers union and the school boards association argue that the extra $8.8 billion becomes the floor for calculating the 2023-24 obligation, and that it is not a mistake or overpayment.

    By CTA’s calculations, adding in the $8.8 billion and applying other Proposition 98 factors would raise funding for 2023-24 by $6.8 billion beyond what Newsom calls for in his May revision and $5.1 billion more in 2024-25.

    “The Proposition 98 maneuver proposed in the May Revise threatens public school funding,” Goldberg said in a statement. “Eroding this guarantee would harm schools for years to come and create the conditions for larger class sizes, fewer counselors, school nurses and mental health professionals, cuts to essential school programs and potential layoffs.” 

    Kenneth Kapphahn, senior fiscal and policy analyst for the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said that the agency hasn’t seen CTA’s calculations but that the union’s numbers are “close to what we are tracking.”

    “The Administration is trying to illegally exclude the $8.8 billion that already was spent on schools in 2022-23 when calculating the minimum guarantee for 2023-24,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser for the advocacy nonprofit Children Now. “In passing Proposition 98 as a constitutional amendment, voters were clear they wanted to avoid manipulations to suppress spending on schools and community colleges.”

    Suspension of Proposition 98 likely

    Newsom’s May revision to the budget calls for using $8.8 billion from the general fund to plug the shortfall for 2022-23, draining what remains of the nearly $8.5 billion Proposition 98 reserve to balance 2023-24 and 2024-25, and making a couple of billion dollars’ worth of cuts, including facilities spending for preschools and transitional kindergarten, middle-class college scholarships, tuition grants for teacher candidates and a delay in funding preschool slots.

    A win for the CTA and the school boards association, whether through negotiations or in court, wouldn’t immediately send additional revenue, which the state doesn’t have, to districts’ doorsteps or resolve the challenge of a $17.7 billion shortfall. 

    O’Donnell, representing the school boards, acknowledged that adding billions to the Proposition 98 minimum could compound the “short-term pain” of balancing the budget. 

    This immediate result could be additional cuts, an emergency suspension of Proposition 98 this year or the creation of billions of dollars in IOUs called deferrals.‘ The legislative analyst’s Kapphahn said that the state is heading into the next fiscal year with less state revenue and without a rainy day fund to help out. 

    Suspending Proposition 98 when the state cannot fund its minimum obligations has been done twice, in 2004-05 and 2010-11. Suspension requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and creates a debt, called the “maintenance factor,” that, Kapphahn said, “can take many years to be restored.”

    Deferrals, which were used in the years after the Great Recession, involve late payments, anywhere from days to months, into the next fiscal year, which are rolled over yearly until there’s enough new money to end them. 

    “There’s a whole series of options, and they are all difficult. Every single one seems to require us to pay money that is not budgeted with the possible exception of the governor’s proposed maneuver,” said the Senate’s Laird. “We are going to have intense discussions over the next few weeks about these options.”

    CTA acknowledged that a Proposition 98 suspension might be inevitable but also essential. “At least a suspension brings a constitutionally required restoration of the guarantee level” through repayments of the maintenance factor, it said in a statement Friday,  “thereby avoiding a permanent reduction in school funding and the whims of future Administrations.” 

    The union intends to put pressure on legislators. “We will be calling our elected leaders in the coming weeks to demand protection of school funding,” Goldberg said, adding that CTA will launch a media campaign to ensure that our communities understand what’s at stake.”





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom, school groups settle funding fight, with some more money coming as IOUs

    Gov. Newsom, school groups settle funding fight, with some more money coming as IOUs


    Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    The Newsom administration has settled a disagreement with K-12 education groups over multiyear funding that will provide nearly all of the money the groups had demanded, although deferring and delaying several billion dollars for at least a few years.

    Pending legislative approval, the compromise that the California Department of Education negotiated with the California Teachers Association (CTA) would remove an obstacle to resolving the 2024-25 state budget by the June 15 deadline.

    The deal would preserve Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise to exempt TK-12 schools and community colleges from appreciable funding cuts that other areas of the state budget would face, including the California State University and the University of California.

    The proposal also would meet the legal requirements of Proposition 98, the 4-decade-old formula that calculates the minimum portion of the general fund that must be spent on education. It was Newsom’s plan in his original January budget to spare schools and community colleges immediate cuts while scaling back Proposition 98 growth in future years that led CTA and the California School Boards Association to threaten to take Newsom to court with a lawsuit it had reasonable odds of winning.

    “This is a good deal for public schools. In its simplest terms, this agreement will protect the state’s core TK-12 investments, like the Local Control Funding Formula and new whole child programs,” said Derick Lennox, senior director of governmental relations and legal affairs for the California County Superintendents Association, who was briefed on the negotiations Tuesday. “If approved by the Legislature, the governor will be able to honor his commitment to protect school funding amidst a challenging budget.”

    Challenging is an understatement. Because the state will fall short of full funding for the current year, 2023-24, the Legislature would suspend Proposition 98 for the first time since the height of the Great Recession in 2010-11 by $5.5 billion. The money owed, an IOU called the “maintenance factor” under Proposition 98 terminology, would be repaid over multiple years, as determined by the growth in state revenue. The repayments would start with $1.3 billion in 2024-25.

    The deal would reintroduce funding deferrals — another accounting maneuver from the Great Recession, though at a smaller magnitude. As opposed to a funding suspension, a deferral is a late payment, in which the Legislature shifts funding by days or months from one fiscal year to the next, and districts are on the hook for money they’ve already spent.

    The settlement calls for three years of deferrals, ranging from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion, from 2023-24 through 2025-26. The last deferral, for $2.4 billion, would make up about 2% of funding to community colleges and school districts. Together, the three deferrals should have no appreciable impact on school and community college budgets but will require $2.4 billion in future school funding to pay off. They will involve an accounting shift from June, the last month of one fiscal year, to July, the first month of the next.

    “The agreement reached with the governor to protect public school funding is a critical step forward for California’s schools and communities,” said CTA President David Goldberg. “It ensures that students, educators, and families aren’t impacted by cuts to the classroom and includes protection against additional layoffs of educators.”

    The revenue conundrum reflects a slow rebound from an unexpected drop in state revenue following the Covid pandemic. Because of winter storms in early 2023, the federal government and California pushed back the filing date for taxes by six months. Without accurate revenue estimates when they set the 2023-24 budget in June, Newsom and the Legislature appropriated $8.8 billion more than the Proposition 98 minimum.

    Since TK-12 and community colleges had already budgeted and spent the money, Newsom promised to hold them harmless. But in his first budget draft in January and his May revision, Newsom proposed to treat the $8.8 billion as an off-the-books, one-time overpayment; CTA and school groups viewed it as an ongoing obligation, that, as spelled out by voters in approving Proposition 98, would become the base for the following year’s minimum level of the guarantee.

    “They arrived at a solution that gives the Governor and Legislature near-term budget flexibility while abiding by the state’s constitutional provisions related to minimum funding for schools,” education consultant Kevin Gordon said. “A negotiated suspension of Prop 98 has been the obvious solution since the outset of the debate.”

    Here’s how the negotiated deal resolves the dispute over the three-year period covered by the budget:

    2022-23

    Original Proposal: Newsom proposed an unorthodox move: holding the general fund, not Proposition 98, responsible for paying for the $8.8 billion shortfall over five years, starting in 2025-26, at $1.8 billion per year.

    Compromise: Shift an unallocated $2.6 billion in one-time funding from 2022-23 into 2023-24. That would lower the ongoing Proposition 98 increase from $8.8 billion to $6.2 billion. The effect would be to cut general fund repayments by $500 million to $1.3 billion per year for five years. And it would lower the calculation for the following year’s Proposition 98 minimum.

    2023-24

    The state would drain $8.4 billion from the Proposition 98 reserve fund, built up during a half-decade of good revenue years, to pay off a continuing Proposition 98 shortfall, including the $2.6 billion deferral from 2022-23.

    Compromise: The $6.2 billion rise in the Proposition 98 base in 2022-23 would raise the Proposition 98 minimum by $4.2 billion. Lacking the money to pay for it, the Legislature, by an anticipated two-thirds majority, would suspend the Proposition 98 base by $5.5 billion; this would include $1.3 billion, the first installment of the maintenance factor, due to be repaid in 2024-25. As a result of the $5.5 billion suspension, the Proposition 98 base would be lowered to $101.3 billion.

    2024-25

    The level of Proposition 98 is determined by several factors, called “tests,” that are tied to changing economic conditions, such as a rise in state spending or personal income, and the increase in the base from the year before. The 2024-25 Proposition 98 level, under Test 1, would be set at about 39% of the general fund: an estimated $110.6 billion. This would include a $1.3 billion maintenance factor repayment.

    The Department of Finance says that “overall, the Agreement provides stability for schools both in the short and long-term.”

    That’s true as long as the governor’s revenue projections for the next two years hold. But if they come up short, expect additional deferrals or cuts without a state rainy day fund to cushion the impact; many districts were already required to reduce their local rainy day funds this year. And heading into 2025-26, the state will still owe districts and community colleges a $4.5 billion maintenance factor, an IOU with no immediate deadline for repaying it.   

    “We’re encouraged that the administration has found a way to address the constitutional concerns, and this might be the best funding package that schools could hope for in this budget environment,” said Rob Manwaring, a senior adviser for the nonprofit Children Now. “At the same time, it is difficult to support suspending the constitutional funding guarantee when California schools are still in the bottom five states in terms of student-teacher ratios and other staffing supports.”





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget

    Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom answers a reporter’s question about his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    True to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise, the 2024-25 budget compromise that the Legislature announced Saturday and will pass this week will spare TK-12 and community colleges from cuts that other state operations will bear.

    TK-12 funding will be flat and will continue Newsom’s major commitments to multiyear, multibillion-dollar programs, including community schools and before- and after-school expansion.

    Update: State Budget Signed

    On June 26, Gov. Newsom signed Assembly Bill 107, the main budget bill, and Senate Bill 154, the Proposition 98 suspension bill. On June 28, Newsom signed SB 153, the education trailer bill.

    The budget will even throw in a couple of billion in new revenue that Newsom didn’t call for in January or in his May budget revisions. Newsom and legislators, meanwhile, struggled to squeeze an additional $28 billion out of a $211 billion general fund spending.

    But protection for schools and community colleges will carry risk. To balance the budget, Newsom and legislative leaders rely on budget maneuvers that would give a button-down accountant acid reflux.

    They include creating a $6 billion debt that won’t be fully repaid to the state treasury for a dozen years, and draining the $8.4 billion education rainy day fund.

    The deal also requires delaying payments to schools and community colleges and suspending — for only the third time in its 36-year history — Proposition 98 obligations for the current school year, on the assumption the money will be repaid quickly. Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988, established a formula for determining the minimum level of general fund spending on transitional kindergarten through grade 12 and community colleges — generally about 40%.

    Rather than punish schools for money already spent, the budget bill creates a $6.2 billion debt that the general fund, not schools and community colleges, will repay the state treasury over a decade, starting in 2026-27. The remaining $2.6 billion will be a Proposition 98 obligation pushed ahead to 2023-24; that unfunded amount is called a deferral.

    The California State University and the University of California won’t fare as well in the budget deal, although better than Newsom had proposed in January, even with a drop in state revenues since then. Both will get a 5% budget increase in 2024-25 that Newsom had proposed delaying, equal to $227.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU, to support enrollment growth of California residents this fall. 

    Another promised 5% budget increase for both systems in 2025-26, however, will be put off a year. UC and CSU also face one-time cuts in 2024-25 of $125 million and $75 million, respectively, which will be restored in 2025-26.

    Both CSU and UC will also face a 7.95% cut in their administrative expenses in 2025-26.

    There will be no reforming the Cal Grant program in 2024-25, but, at the Legislature’s insistence, the $637 million ongoing funding for middle-class scholarships will continue, with a $289 million one-time increase.

    Late spending changes

    The final budget will also restore some TK-12 and child-care cuts that Newsom had proposed in his May budget revision while maintaining others. They include:

    • Restoring $60 million for the Golden State Teachers Program, which provides $20,000 in scholarships to teacher candidates, although a new means test may pare back $10 million in eligibility.  
    • Restoring $100 million in funding to help preschools prepare classrooms and train teachers in order to enroll more children with disabilities, while withdrawing larger plans to expand the program.
    • Continuing the existing agreement to serve 200,000 more children in the state-subsidized child care system but pushing back the timetable for full compliance to 2028.
    • Rescinding $895 million in one-time spending on electric-powered school buses that Newsom had made a priority. Instead, the money will be used to reduce some of the late payments in state funding for schools.

    School districts receive the bulk of their funding through the Local Control Funding Formula, which is based on daily student attendance and a yearly cost-of-living adjustment. So, even though overall state funding won’t be cut, many districts with declining enrollments and high absenteeism rates will face financial challenges.

    The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is based on a federal formula tied to the cost of goods and services but does not factor in regional costs, including housing, will be only 1.07% for 2024-25, forcing further belt-tightening. One option for school districts, giving layoff notices to staff, will be off the table. State law allows an additional round of layoffs in August in years when the COLA is less than 2%, but, at the urging of public employee unions, Newsom and legislative leaders included a clause prohibiting late summer layoffs. They have done the same statutory override before.

    The initial reaction from two veteran TK-12 budget watchers was mixed. “This budget remarkably insulates K-14 funding from cuts, abides by constitutional requirements to restore funding in the future, and even provides a modest cost-of-living increase, all amid a record budget shortfall. Pretty amazing,” wrote Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, a school consultancy firm.

    Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser with the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, was cautious. “While the final budget is perhaps the best schools could anticipate given the budget challenges, we worry about the size of the suspension for schools, $8.3 billion,” he wrote. “Schools will eventually get paid back those funds in future years on top of the minimum guarantee, but these payments will result in increased school funding volatility and uncertainty until they are paid back.”

    And if revenues falter next year, schools and community colleges will no longer have a rainy day fund to turn to; it will be depleted by the end of 2023-24, with the possibility of replenishing it by $1.1 billion in 2024-25.

    Proposition 98 juggling act

    The proposed 2024-25 budget for schools and community colleges will be balanced, if revenue projections hold true, by juggling three years of Proposition 98 shortfalls, with one year’s solution creating the next year’s dilemma.

    The big drop was in 2022-23 when the Legislature “over-appropriated” the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee by $8.8 billion, while state revenue from the post-Covid stock market and the tech sector plummeted. Legislators didn’t see the warning signals because winter storms had pushed back the tax filing deadline from April to November.

    Under the mechanics of Proposition 98, the funding level for 2022-23 becomes the base level for 2023-24, even though the state still lacks the revenue to pick up the tab. So all but $1 billion of the $8.4 billion in the education rainy day fund will be drained to cover some of the 2023-24 deficit and the $2.6 billion deferral from the year before.

    On top of that, the budget deal calls for suspending $8.3 billion of the Proposition 98 funding for 2023-24. That has the effect of lowering the minimum guaranteed funding by that amount, while freeing up money to avoid deeper cuts in other state operations. That’s how the Legislature can restore cuts in 2024-25 for child care and preschool that Newsom had planned.

    The architects of Proposition 98 wanted to discourage the Legislature from suspending the law. So it requires the Legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and to make the suspended funding a priority for repayment as soon as there is new revenue. The 2024-25 budget assumes the state will have enough new revenue to pay back at least $4 billion of the suspended $8 billion, maybe more. But if revenues falter, districts won’t get what they’re entitled to, with no set date for repayment.

    That’s why the deal is also a gamble for schools and community colleges.

    There’s one more wrinkle. To raise revenue quickly, the Legislature has accelerated the temporary, three-year suspension of two tax benefits for large and medium-sized businesses: net operating loss deductions and tax credits. The period will start in 2024-25, one year ahead of schedule. It will yield a projected $5 billion, with $2 billion going to Proposition 98 — funding that will be used to pay down deferrals.

    Between this new money and the $4 billion payback for suspended funding, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee is expected to rise to a record $115.3 billion in 2024-25.

    As with all deadline negotiations, legislators will have at most three days to review hundreds of pages of budget details spread over 16 separate bills. Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, are expecting that legislators will demand some changes when they return from vacation in August.  





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom vigorously defends, praises California, his own contributions in State of State 

    Gov. Newsom vigorously defends, praises California, his own contributions in State of State 


    In his State of the State address, Newsom juxtaposed clips of his meetings with National Guard members charged with intercepting illegal drugs to contrast with Republican efforts to quash immigration reform.

    Credit: YouTube / Office of the Governor

    Gov. Gavin Newsom sharply contrasted California with red-state America during a pre-recorded State of the State address Tuesday, warning ominously that the state’s values and status as “a beacon of hope” are “under assault.”  

    “Forces are threatening the very foundation of California’s success — our pluralism, our innovative spirit, and our diversity,” he said. To underscore his claim, he liberally juxtaposed images during his 28-minute speech: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing a ban on abortion with Newsom embracing an LGBTQ marcher at a Pride rally; headlines of congressional Republicans rejecting bipartisan immigration reform with National Guard members whom Newsom deployed to the border to intercept fentanyl. 

    The partisan, politically charged talk came two days before the first debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump and five months before a national election that Newsom called “another extraordinary moment in history.”  Newsom, who has assumed the informal role as an articulate surrogate for Biden, underscored the importance of the president’s re-election for Californians.

    “For generations, we’ve stood for progress: championing women’s rights and LGBTQ rights, protecting the environment, and expanding civil rights,” he said. “Conservatives and delusional California bashers want to roll back social progress, social justice, racial justice, economic justice, clean air, clean water and basic fundamental fairness.”

    Primarily, though, Newsom’s talk both defended and lauded the “California way” and his administration’s accomplishments — in enhancing innovation and job creation, stopping drugs at the border, lowering crime, expanding environmental protections and providing shelter for the homeless.

    He pointed to the elimination of 9,300 unsafe homeless encampments while turning former hotels and apartments into 15,300 units of housing and the progress with the Delta conveyance to protect water supplies, the “largest climate resilience project in the nation.”  California is driving the electric vehicle industry and new industries to combat climate change, he said.

    While critics portray California’s cities as lawless dystopias, the governor said the state’s violent crime rate has dropped to half of its peak in 1992; California has a lower homicide rate than 29 other states, including Florida and Texas, he said. He attributed California’s gun safety laws as a cause and asserted that 140,000 more Americans would be alive if the nation had California’s homicide rate.

    Newsom devoted little of the address to education but pointed to the expansion of after-school and summer programs for low-income schools and the creation of community schools — a $4 billion initiative he protected from possible cuts — as accomplishments. At community schools, he said, students will receive family support, free meals and tutoring.

    He also cited the state-funded hiring and training of literacy coaches in high-poverty schools, the creation of universal transitional kindergarten — a new grade for 4-year-olds — and, starting next year, the screening of all young students for possible learning challenges, including dyslexia, while introducing a new, state-funded multi-language screener.

    Together, he boasted, these K-12 initiatives comprise “some of the most transformative policies in our state’s history, and most significant in our nation.”

    In a vague reference to the state’s efforts to thwart censorship of social studies textbooks and novels from school libraries by conservative school boards, Newsom said California has acted “to protect a student’s right to learn, and a teacher’s right to teach.”

    Diversity in demographics and in thought is California’s strength, he said. “Weird, wild, free-spirited California. A place that can elect Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown — back to back,” he said.

    Through revolutions in farmworker rights, free speech, love, computing and biotechnology, “we are building a state that transforms the world over and over again,” Newsom said.

    In a news conference outside the Capitol an hour after the speech was released, Republican leaders laid out a vastly different counter-narrative.

    “We have crime out of control, inflation out of control,” said state Sen. Brian Dahle, R-Bieber. “$24 billion for homeless, and we’ve actually increased homelessness. For the first time in the state’s history, we’ve deployed CHP (California Highway Patrol) to Oakland, San Francisco and Bakersfield to combat crime.”

    “Republicans in California have not controlled a statewide office or the Legislature for decades, so (Gavin Newsom) needs to look in the mirror and understand that he’s running the state into the ground,” Dahle said.

    Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, called Newsom “unhinged” for diverting attention from his own performance by attacking Republicans in Congress.

    “Let me tell you what the state of the state is right now. It’s a husband and wife sitting around that kitchen table, head in hands, trying to figure out how to pay the bills,” Gallagher said. “It’s parents who are afraid to send their kids to the local park because they’re afraid they might be attacked because it’s human devastation on our streets in every city. People lost in homelessness.

    “And the problem has only gotten worse since Gavin Newsom has been governor,” he said.

    Newsom had planned to give the State of the State address in March but delayed it while awaiting the outcome of Proposition 1 on the March primary ballot, which he had championed. The initiative, which passed narrowly, channeled $6.4 billion to assist Californians facing chronic homelessness and mental health or drug abuse problems. 





    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