برچسب: laws

  • Jan Resseger: Trump Guts Civil Rights Laws

    Jan Resseger: Trump Guts Civil Rights Laws


    Jan Resseger reviews Trump’s vigorous crusade to eliminate civil rights laws by inverting their meaning. These laws were passed to break the monopoly held by white men in hiring and promotions. But now, any program that favors women and nonwhites is treated as a crime. Universities and corporations that once featured their efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion are now warned by the federal government that these efforts discriminate against white men and must be abolished.

    Resseger writes:

    When it comes to President Trump’s threatened tariffs and his foreign policy demands, we have all been reading about the phrase coined by a Financial Times reporter: “Trump always chickens out—TACO.” But when it comes to Trump’s attack on civil rights and racial justice in the nation’s public schools, the President has been doggedly persistent.

    On May 22nd, The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser mused about the President’s Oval Office ambush of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa as capturing how things are going in “Washington a hundred and twenty-one days into Trump’s second term: a manufactured scene of outrage about a nonexistent ‘white genocide’ ” and “a reminder of how explicitly Trump has, in his second term, defined the goal of his Presidency as a sort of racial-justice quest for white people.” Glasser describes “a President who has terminated affirmative-action decrees that have been in place for the federal government since the nineteen-sixties, unleashed a wave of arrests and deportations aimed at illegal migrants of color, gutted federal civil-right-enforcement offices, and blamed D.E.I. for just about every evil at home and abroad.”

    New York Times reporter Erica Green summarizes the Trump administration’s consistent work since the winter to attack racial justice and twist the meaning of the protection of civil rights: “In his drive to purge diversity efforts in the federal government and beyond, President Trump has expressed outright hostility to civil rights protections. He ordered federal agencies to abandon some of the core tenets of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that they represented a ‘pernicious’ attempt to make decisions based on diversity rather than merit. But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has turned to those same measures—not to help groups that have historically been discriminated against, but to remedy what he sees as the disenfranchisement of white men. The pattern fits into a broader trend… as Trump officials pick and choose which civil rights protections they want to enforce and for whom. Across the government, agencies that have historically worked to fight discrimination against Black people, women and other groups have pivoted to investigating institutions accused of favoring them.”

    Beginning on Valentines Day,  when Trump’s Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Craig Trainor sent all public school officials a “Dear Colleague” letter threatening their federal funding if they did not remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion from their schools, the Trump Administration turned its sights on U.S. public schools. In March, the administration closed seven of the nation’s twelve regional Office for Civil Rights locations that have traditionally investigated complaints filed by parents and families. At the same time the Office for Civil Rights abandoned its traditional practice of carefully investigating complaints and working with school districts to end discriminatory practices. Trump’s OCR turned to directed investigations aimed at punishing school districts failing to comply with the administration’s priorities and threatening loss of federal funding. In early April, the Department of Education threatened K-12 public school districts’ Title I funding unless school leaders (and statewide officials) signed a certificate that they were in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as well as in compliance with the administration’s broad, and many believe mistaken, interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which specifically banned affirmation in college admissions. The Trump administration has declared that the Students for Fair Admissions decision instead bans all DEI programming and policy.

    School districts and state departments of education, along with teachers unions and civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU, have put the consequences of almost all of these threats on hold by filing injunctions, which have yielded temporary stays in most of these cases, but Education Secretary, Linda McMahon and her Department of Education keep on persisting by conducting more investigations and threatening punitive consequences for school districts persisting in efforts to help particular groups of students.

    In mid-May, by executive order, President Trump banned the use of disparate impact as a standard for investigating Civil Rights investigations.  For ProPublica, Jennifer Smith Richards and Judi Cohen reported: “Remaking the Office of Civil Rights isn’t just about increasing caseloads and reordering political priorities. The Trump administration now is taking steps to roll back OCR’s previous civil rights work. Last month, Trump issued an executive order that directs all federal agencies, including the Education Department, to stop enforcing cases involving policies that disproportionately affect certain groups—for example when Black students are disciplined more harshly than white students for the same infractions or when students with disabilities are suspended more than any other group even though they represent a small percentage of student enrollment.”

    Smith Richards and Cohen examine how the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has reduced its capacity to process complaints and changed its procedures in ways that bias investigations to reflect the Trump administration’s priorities: “The OCR, historically one of the government’s largest enforcers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been known for being a neutral fact-finder. Its investigators followed a process to determine whether complaints from the public met legal criteria for a civil rights claim, then carried out investigations methodically. The vast majority of investigations were based on discrimination complaints from students and families, and a large share of those were related to disability discrimination… Investigations being publicized now have largely bypassed the agency’s civil rights attorneys… McMahon and OCR head, Craig Trainor created what amounts to a shadow division. The Trump administration has ordered more than a dozen investigations in the past three months on its own, not initiated by an outside complainant. These ‘directed investigations’ are typically rare; there were none during President Joseph Biden’s administration. The investigations have targeted schools with transgender athletes, gender-neutral bathrooms and initiatives that the administration views as discriminatory to white students.”

    The ProPublica reporters spoke with OCR attorneys who anonymously describe what they believe are serious violations of departmental protocol: “McMahon and Trainor created ways to divert complaints and investigations away from the OCR’s legal experts entirely. The administration made an ‘End DEI’ portal that bypasses the traditional online complaint system and seeks only grievances about diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. Unlike the regular complaint system, the diversity portal submissions are not routed to OCR staff. ‘We have no idea where that portal goes, who it goes to, how they review the cases… said the attorney who said he struggles with being unable to help families.”  In other instances, “Conservative groups with complaints about diversity or transgender students have been able to file complaints directly with Trainor and get quick results… America First Legal, a group founded by Trump deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller… emailed Trainor a few days after Trump’s… executive order… (that) directs schools to stop teaching about or supporting diversity, equity, and gender identity. ‘AFL respectfully requests that the Department of Education open investigations into the following public school districts in Northern Virginia for continuing violations of Title IX,’ the letter read, listing five districts that have policies welcoming to transgender students. Senior leadership in Washington opened the cases the following week. America First issued a press release headlined ‘VICTORY!’ “

    Education Week‘s Brooke Schultz reports: “The U.S. Department of Education has announced or confirmed at least 100 investigations into school districts, colleges, and universities, and other entities as it emerges as a prime enforcer of President Donald Trump’s social agenda.” Here are some of Schultz’s examples: “(F)our school districts have drawn investigations from the department over a Black student success plan in Chicago, a students of color summit in New York, racial affinity groups in Illinois, and a selective Virginia high school’s admissions policy that the education Department says appears to be racially discriminatory… The first investigation Trump’s Education Department announced was a probe into the Denver district over a high school’s all-gender bathroom, which the agency suggested was a violation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds.”

    Last Friday, in “Trump Administration Gives New York 10 Days to End Its Ban on Native American Mascots,” Education Week‘s Brooke Schultz reported on a Department of Education demand that clearly represents the Trump administration’s twisting and tangling the purpose and meaning of civil rights protection in public schools: an attack by the Trump Department of Education on a New York law banning Native American mascots in public schools. “The (U.S.) Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights argues that the state’s mascot policy, enacted in 2022, violates Title VI because it prohibits the use of Native American imagery but ‘allowed names, mascots, and logos that appear to have been derived from other racial or ethnic groups, such as the ‘Dutchmen’ and the ‘Huguenots.”… McMahon said in a statement Friday that the department would ‘not stand idly by as state leaders attempt to eliminate the history and culture of Native American tribes.”

    Although McMahon seems to believe that the logo New York has banned in the Massapecqua School District connects with the history of American Indians in the region of the school district on Long Island, J.P. O’Hare of the New York Department of Education explained that neither the logo nor the term ‘Chief,’ was used by Native Americans in the area.

    Schultz lets the president of the National Congress of American Indians, “the largest nonprofit representing Native nations which has long tracked and challenged the use of Native American mascots, Mark Macarro” correct Education Secretary McMahon’s bizarre misconception of racial justice and civil rights law: “Native people are not mascots… We have our own languages, cultures, and governments—our identities are not anyone’s mascot or costume.  No political endorsement or misguided notion of ‘honoring’ us will change the fact that these mascots demean our people, diminish the enduring vibrancy of our unique cultures, and have no place in our country.”

    Schultz adds: “Research has found that, for Native students, exposure to Native American mascots reduces self-esteem, their ability to imagine future accomplishments, and their belief that Native American communities can make a difference. For non-Native people, research shows that mascots are associated with negative thoughts and stereotypes about Native Americans… The portrayals are often outdated, whitewashed stereotypes, and aren’t grounded in realistic portrayals of Native people.”



    Source link

  • New laws impacting education go into effect as the school year begins

    New laws impacting education go into effect as the school year begins


    George Washington Elementary School Principal Gina Lopez welcomes students on the first day of school on July 30.

    Credit: Diana Lambert / EdSource

    California students, including those in elementary school, will have better access to mental health care, free menstrual products and information about climate change this school year. The expansion of transitional kindergarten also means there will be more 4-year-old students on elementary school campuses. 

    These and other new pieces of education legislation will go into effect this school year, including a bill that bans schools from suspending students for willful defiance and another that offers college students more transparency around the cost of their courses and the materials they will need to purchase for them. 

    Here are a few new laws that may impact students in the 2024-25 school year.

    Climate change instruction required

    Science instruction in all grades — first through 12th — must include an emphasis on the causes and effects of climate change, and methods to mitigate it and adapt to it. Although many schools are already teaching students about climate change, all schools must incorporate the topic into instruction beginning this school year.

    Content related to climate change appears in some of the state curriculum frameworks, according to an analysis of Assembly Bill 285, the legislation that created the requirement.

    Assemblymember Luz Rivas, D-Arieta, the author of the bill, said the legislation will give the next generation the tools needed to prepare for the future and will cultivate a new generation of climate policy leaders in California.

    “Climate change is no longer a future problem waiting for us to act upon — it is already here,” Rivas said in a statement. “Extreme climate events are wreaking havoc across the globe and escalating in severity each year.”

    Menstrual products in elementary bathrooms

    A new law in effect this year adds elementary schools to the public schools that must offer a free and adequate supply of menstruation products — in order to help younger menstruating students.

    Last school year, the Menstruation Equity for All Act went into effect, requiring public schools serving sixth- through 12th-grade students to provide menstruation products. It affected over 2,000 schools. 

    The new law expands the requirement to public schools that serve third- through fifth-grade students. A Senate analysis of the legislation notes that 10% of menstruation periods begin by age 10, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

    The new law requires affected schools to offer free menstrual products in all-gender bathrooms, women’s bathrooms and at least one men’s bathroom on each campus. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes,D-San Bernardino, includes one men’s bathroom on each campus to offer access to transgender boys who menstruate.

    Supporters of the bill note that menstruation isn’t always predictable and can strike at inopportune times, such as during a test. Menstruation products can also be pricey — especially for students who might also be struggling with food insecurity. 

    Girl Scout Troop 76 in the Inland Empire advocated for the bill. Scout Ava Firnkoess said that menstruation access is important to young girls, like her, who started menstruating early. 

    “I have another friend who also started at a young age. She had to use toilet paper and paper towels because she did not have access to menstrual products,” Firnkoess said in a statement. “We think young students who start their periods need to have access to products, not just those who start in sixth grade or later.”

    Younger students on campus

    Elementary students may seem to be getting a little smaller this year, as transitional kindergarten classes are expanded to children who will turn age 5 between Sept. 2 and June 2. 

    Transitional kindergarten, an additional grade before kindergarten, was created for 4-year-old children who turn 5 before Dec. 2. It has been expanded each year since 2022 to include more children aged 4. All 4-year-old students will be eligible in the fall of 2025.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond have celebrated the expansion of transitional kindergarten, pointing to numbers that show enrollment doubled over the past two years, from 75,000 in 2021-22, to 151,000 in 2023-24. However, a recent analysis by CalMatters found that the percentage of children eligible for transitional kindergarten who actually enrolled had gone down 4 to 7 percentage points.

    Colleges must disclose costs

    The typical California college student is expected to spend $1,062 on books and supplies in the 2024-25 academic year, according to the California Student Aid Commission.

    The exact costs can be hard for students to predict, leaving them uncertain about how much money to budget for a given class. Assembly Bill 607, which Newsom signed last year, requires California State University campuses and community colleges to disclose upfront the estimated costs of course materials and fees for some of their courses this school year. The bill asks University of California campuses to do the same, but does not make it a requirement.

    The schools must provide information for at least 40% of courses by Jan. 1 of next year, increasing that percentage each year until there are cost disclosures for 75% of courses by 2028. This year, campuses should also highlight courses that use free digital course materials and low-cost print materials, according to the legislation.

    Proponents of the law, which was co-authored by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra, D-San Jose; Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles; and Sabrina Cervantes, D-Inland Empire, said it will promote price transparency. The bill covers digital and physical textbooks as well as software subscriptions and devices like calculators. 

    A student speaking in support of AB 607 in May 2023 said she felt “helplessly exposed and vulnerable” when she had to appeal to a professor for help covering the surprise costs of a textbook’s online course content.

    “If I would have known that a month ahead of time, I could have organized and evaluated my budget in an effective manner for the entire semester,” said Rashal Azar. “This would have prevented my financial anxiety and not triggered my mental health as well.”

    TK exempt from English language test

    Students enrolled in transitional kindergarten, also known as TK, are no longer required to take the initial English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC). The test, which measures proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing in English, is required to be taken within 30 days of enrollment in kindergarten through 12th grade, if parents indicate in a survey that their children speak another language at home.

    Previously, transitional kindergartners also had to take the ELPAC when enrolling. But many school district staff and advocates for English learners said the test was not designed for 4-year-old children and that it was not identifying English learners accurately, because the children were too young to answer questions correctly.

    The California Department of Education has directed school districts to mark children’s English language acquisition status as “to be determined” in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, if their parents indicate on the home language survey that their primary or native language is a language other than English. These students will take the initial ELPAC when they begin kindergarten the following year.

    Californians Together, which advocates for English learners, and Early Edge California, which advocates for quality early education for all children, were among the organizations that celebrated the bill.

    “As the parent of bilingual children and a dual language learner myself, I deeply appreciate Governor Newsom, Assemblymember (Al) Muratsuchi, and California’s legislators for supporting our young multilingual learners by championing AB 2268,” said Patricia Lozano, executive director of Early Edge California in a news release. “This bill will create more support tailored to their needs and strengths, so they can learn and thrive from the early years onward.”

    Kids can consent to mental health care

    A new law that took effect in July makes it easier for children on Medi-Cal who are 12 or older to consent to mental health treatment inside and outside of schools. Children older than 12 on private insurance can already consent to mental health care without parental consent.

    Previously, students in this age group could only consent to mental health treatment without parental approval under a limited number of circumstances: incest, child abuse or serious danger, such as suicidal ideation.

    “From mass shootings in public spaces and, in particular, school shootings, as well as fentanyl overdoses and social media bullying, young people are experiencing a new reality,” said Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, D-Los Angeles, author of the bill. “The new law is about “making sure all young people, regardless if they have private health insurance or are Medi-Cal recipients, have access to mental health resources.”

    Children who need mental health care but do not have consent from their parents could potentially seek help from social media and other online resources of sometimes dubious quality, according to the legislation.

    The legislation allows mental health professionals to determine whether parental involvement is “inappropriate” and also whether the child in question is mature enough to consent.

    California Capitol Connection, a Baptist advocacy group, opposed the bill, stating, “In most cases, a parent knows what is best for their child.”

    This is not strictly an education bill, but it does affect schools. The law notes that school-based providers, such as a credentialed school psychologist, find that some students who want to avail themselves of mental health resources are not able to get parental consent.

    No willful defiance suspensions

    Beginning this school year, and for the next five years, California students across all grade levels cannot be suspended for willful defiance.

    Acts of willful defiance, according to Senate Bill 274, include instances where a student is intentionally disruptive or defies school authorities. Instead of being suspended, these students will be referred to school administrators for intervention and support.

    SB 274 builds on previous California legislation that had already banned willful defiance suspensions among first-through-eighth-grade students, and had banned expulsions for willful defiance across the board. 

    Studies show that willful defiance suspensions disproportionately impact Black male students and increase the likelihood of students dropping out of school.

    Los Angeles Unified, Oakland Unified, San Francisco Unified and other school districts have already banned the practice.

    SB 274 would apply to all grades TK through 12 in both traditional public schools and charters. The bill would also prohibit schools from suspending or expelling students for being tardy or truant.

    Schools can’t ‘out’ students

    After Jan. 1, California schools boards will not be permitted to pass resolutions requiring teachers and staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender. 

    Newsom signed the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, in July in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. At least seven California school districts passed the policies, often after heated public debate.

    The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex. 

    The new law protects school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    “Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety and dignity of transgender, nonbinary and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, who introduced the legislation along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.





    Source link

  • New year starts with new laws impacting education

    New year starts with new laws impacting education


    Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation.

    Photo: Office of the Governor of California

    New California state laws will protect the privacy of LGBTQ+ students, ensure that the history of Native Americans is accurately taught and make it more difficult to discriminate against people of color based on their hairstyles.

    These and other new pieces of legislation will be in effect when students return to campuses after winter break.

    Schools can’t require parental notification

    Assembly Bill 1955, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July, forbids California school boards from passing resolutions that require school staff, including teachers, to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender.

    The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, also protects school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    The legislation was created in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex.

    “Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety and dignity of transgender, nonbinary and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, author of the bill, in a media release. “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family.”

    Opponents of the bill, including Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, indicated that the issue will be settled in court. 

    Accurate Native American history

    Building a Spanish mission — out of Popsicle sticks or sugar cubes — was once a common assignment for fourth-grade students in California. The state curriculum framework adopted in 2016 says this “offensive” assignment doesn’t help students understand this era, particularly the experiences of Indigenous Californians subject to forced labor and deadly diseases from Spanish colonizers.

    But supporters of a new law that goes into effect on Jan. 1 say that there are still grave concerns that the history of California Native Americans — including enslavement, starvation, illness and violence — is still misleading or completely absent from the curriculum.

    AB 1821, authored by Assemblymember James Ramos, D-San Bernardino, aims to address this. When California next updates its history-social science curriculum — on or after Jan. 1 —  it asks that the Instruction Quality Commission consult with California tribes to develop a curriculum including the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization and the Gold Rush eras.

    “The mission era of Spanish occupation was one of the most devastating and sensitive periods in the history of California’s native peoples and the lasting impact of that period is lost in the current curriculum,” according to a statement from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, one of the supporters of the legislation.

    Teaching about desegregation in California

    Another law that also goes into effect this year also requires the state to update its history-social science curriculum. AB 1805 requires that the landmark case Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County be incorporated into the history social-science curriculum updated on or after Jan. 1.

    The case, brought in 1945, challenged four districts in Orange County that segregated students. The plaintiffs in the case were Mexican-American parents whose children were refused admission to local public schools. The case led to California becoming the first state to ban public school segregation — and it set a precedent for Brown v. Board of Education, which banned racial segregation in public schools.

    The Mendez case is referenced in the history-social science curriculum that was last adopted in 2016 for fourth- and 11th-grade students, as well as the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, as an example of inter-ethnic bridge-building.

    The Westminster School District wrote a statement in support of the law to ensure that the case is “properly recognized and rightfully incorporated into the state’s education curriculum.”

    Protecting against hair discrimination

    Assembly Bill 1815 makes it more difficult to discriminate against people of color, including students, based on their hairstyle. Although this type of discrimination is already prohibited by the CROWN Act, it has not extended to amateur and club sports.

    The new legislation also clarifies language in the California Code, eliminating the requirement that a trait be “historically” associated with a race, as opposed to culturally, in order to be protected. 

    “(This bill) addresses an often-overlooked form of racial discrimination that affects our youth — bias based on hair texture and protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks, and twists,” stated a letter of support from the ACLU. “By extending anti-discrimination protections within amateur sports organizations, this bill acknowledges and seeks to dismantle the deep-rooted prejudices that impact children and adolescents of color in their sports activities and beyond.”

    Protection for child content creators

    Newsom signed two pieces of legislation in September that offer additional protection to children who star in or create online content.

    The new laws expand state laws that were meant to protect child performers.  Senate Bill 764 and Assembly Bill 1880 require that at least 15% of the money earned by children who create, post or share online content, including vloggers, podcasters, social media influencers and streamers, be put in a trust they can access when they reach adulthood.

    “A lot has changed since Hollywood’s early days, but here in California, our laser focus on protecting kids from exploitation remains the same,” Newsom said in a statement. “In old Hollywood, child actors were exploited. In 2024, it’s now child influencers. Today, that modern exploitation ends through two new laws to protect young influencers on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and other social media platforms.”





    Source link