اینترنت

برچسب: Leaders

  • Improve community college transfer with dual admissions, clearer pathways, say college leaders

    Improve community college transfer with dual admissions, clearer pathways, say college leaders


    Fresno City College campus.

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

    Creating a more streamlined transfer pathway and expanding initiatives such as dual enrollment and dual admissions could help increase the number of California students who successfully transfer from community college to a university, officials from the state’s public higher education segments said Tuesday.

    “The key is that across all three of our systems, that we have a more unified process for designing pathways and programs together … so that these pathways naturally flow from the community college system into the CSU, into the UC,” Aisha Lowe, an executive vice chancellor for California’s community college system, said during a panel discussion hosted by the Public Policy Institute of California.

    The panel, which also included representatives from the University of California and California State University systems, came on the heels of a PPIC report that found that few students who wish to transfer from a community college to a UC or Cal State campus are successful in doing so. 

    The report also found that there are big racial and regional disparities in transfer students. For example, Black and Latino students as well as students from the San Joaquin Valley and Inland Empire are less likely than their peers to transfer successfully.

    But the state is taking steps that officials expect will improve the transfer process, which critics say is overly complex. Students considering transferring to a UC or Cal State often have to contend with different course requirements, depending on the campus, even in the same major.

    Currently, top lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom are in agreement on the framework of a new pilot transfer program between the community colleges and UC, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, told EdSource on Monday. Under Assembly Bill 1291, transfer students earning an associate degree for transfer would get priority admission, first to UCLA in select majors and later to additional campuses. Proponents say that solution will help streamline the transfer process because students earning an associate degree for transfer can already get a guaranteed spot in the Cal State system.

    UC has not yet formally endorsed the new bill, but McCarty said UC was involved in the negotiations that resulted in the legislation.

    Yvette Gullatt, UC’s vice president for graduate and undergraduate affairs, said during Tuesday’s panel that UC sees the associate degree for transfer “as an opportunity to enhance transfer, particularly” at community colleges where few students successfully transfer.

    “There’s always opportunity to explore more ways that ADTs can benefit students at UC, and you’ll hear more from us soon about some ways we plan to do that,” she added.

    California is also in the process of expanding both dual enrollment, in which high school students take college courses, and dual admission programs, which guarantee high school graduates a future spot at a UC or Cal State after they first attend a community college.

    The new statewide chancellor for the community college system, Sonya Christian, has said she wants every ninth grader to enroll in a college course through dual enrollment.

    Lowe said Christian’s plan could help improve the likelihood that students eventually attend a community college and transfer to a UC or Cal State campus by “getting them on that pathway” earlier in their academic career.

    “​​Helping them to get some of their transfer requirements done while they’re still in high school, exposing them to financial aid and the FAFSA and that process while they’re still in high school,” she added. “So we’re working on rolling out a comprehensive program around dual enrollment because we think that that’s going to continue to be an important lever.”

    At the same time, new pilot programs in dual admission at both UC and Cal State are going into effect this fall. The programs are open to students who weren’t admitted to the system where they are applying for dual admission. Both segments will guarantee eligible students a spot in their chosen major and at their chosen campus, so long as they meet all their requirements. Not all majors are available and, in the case of UC, not all campuses are participating. More information about the programs can be found here for UC and here for Cal State.

    Laura Massa, interim associate vice chancellor at Cal State, said during Tuesday’s panel that about 2,500 prospective students already have created an account on the portal for that system’s dual admissions program.

    Dual admission has the potential to be a “very promising practice,” said Marisol Cuellar Mejia, one of the authors of the PPIC report and moderator of Tuesday’s panel, in an interview.

    “It makes things more streamlined because from the beginning you know exactly where you are going, and then you avoid any duplication of courses or anything like that,” she said. “We are curious to see what it’s going to look like with these pilots.”





    Source link

  • California leaders should focus on getting our money’s worth from public schools

    California leaders should focus on getting our money’s worth from public schools


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    After years of promoting “local control” in education, the latest news is full of stories on state intervention in decisions being made by local school boards.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened the Temecula Valley school district with fines for exercising its local control. He disagrees with their decisions on curriculum. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond flew to Southern California to stand at the lectern during a Chino Valley Unified School District board meeting and lambasted the members over their policy change strengthening the rights of parents to be involved when their child is facing mental health challenges.

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta has even gone so far as to sue Chino Valley Unified for approving the parental notification policy, with the implicit threat this may extend to other districts that have passed or are considering the same policy.

    So much for local control.

    With all this state-level attention to local school districts, does it surprise anyone that none of that focus has anything to do with actually improving education?

    As we’ve seen in headline after headline, actual education in our state is doing nothing but getting worse. By every objective measure, there is — including NAEP scores, SAT/ACT results, and the state’s own CAASPP/SBAC testing system — our education system is doing worse than ever at its core function: educating our kids.

    In 2022, according to the Smarter Balanced testing, less than half of our kids (47%) were proficient in English, and a miserable 28% (fewer than one-third of students) were proficient in math.

    Results from the statewide CAASPP/Smarter Balanced standardized tests, which are administered to students in grades 3-8 and 11 each spring. No data available for 2020, when testing was suspended due to the Covid pandemic.

    Our educational system is clearly failing our kids.

    Meanwhile, districts are spending record amounts of money achieving those dismal results. In 2023-24 our state will spend $127.2 billion on K-12 education, more than any year in history.

    Since 2012, when California voters approved Proposition 30 to increase taxes on ourselves to “better fund education,” per-student funding has skyrocketed. Based on school district financial data published by Ed-Data, in 2012 the state provided $8,832 per student. In 2022 that number was $18,827.

    That means in the last decade, education spending has grown by almost $10,000 per student, which works out to an annual increase rate of 7.86% per year. During that same period, the state reports inflation averaged 2.97% per year. Education funding has risen at a rate over 2½ times faster than inflation.

    This doesn’t include one-time Covid mitigation funding, but does include the extraordinary post-Covid increase in tax revenue. This increase is not expected to continue, meaning districts that used that money to increase spending on ongoing expenses (like pay and benefits) will be facing decisions on what to cut from our kids when the expected “fiscal cliff” arrives.

    The California Department of Education appears to have stopped reporting class size data in 2019, but as of then, the average class size in the state was about 26 kids; $20,000 times 26 students equals $520,000 per classroom.

    Some may think over a half-million dollars a year per classroom should be adequate to provide kids with a good education, but not the education establishment. In a private business, having revenue rising at rates so far above inflation would result in the sound of champagne corks popping. In education, all we hear are continued complaints about “lack of funding.”

    To our education leaders, it’s not about how the money is spent, it’s all about insufficient funding. This is said to us by people who clearly benefit personally from those increases in funding.

    If we look at pay and benefits for education employees, the graph looks much more like the trend in revenue than the graph of academic performance.

    Data for 2022 is not yet complete, but in 2021 according to public pay data collected by Transparent California, the median total compensation for a K-12 administrator was $167,857, and for the certificated group (primarily teachers), $124,513.

    Now, as I said in my EdSource article on respect for teachers, I’m very happy we can afford to pay our education professionals well. But are we getting the results we’re paying for?

    The failure of education in our state is a crisis. For our kids and for the future of the state. The need for leadership to focus on improvements is clear.

    Why, then, is Superintendent Thurmond not showing up at the lectern of board meetings in failing districts and talking about that?

    San Diego Unified recently approved a bonus raise for employees adding tens of millions to future deficits. Funding this will require cuts to programs and services for kids. With only 53% of its kids proficient in English and 41% achieving state standards in math, why did Mr. Thurmond not stand up at their meeting and demand they use their funding to improve education, rather than improving their personal bank accounts?

    Los Angeles Unified is spending $18 billion dollars, with similar failing results. Why is Gov. Newsom not threatening them with fines, or having Mr. Bonta file lawsuits for misuse of government funds?

    Self-serving actions by politicians calculated to appeal to their base rather than improve government services are common in politics. But this is the education of our kids; shouldn’t that be different?

    Why do we accept this? Why do “We the People” not stand up and demand action, from both our local district and our state? An entire generation (and perhaps more) of our kids is at stake. Perhaps that should be more important to our state leadership than grandstanding on political issues that play to their base?

    •••

    Todd Maddison is the director of research for Transparent California, a founding member of the Parent Association advocacy group in San Diego, and a longtime activist in improving K-12 education.

    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

  • Headstart Leaders Speak Out Against Kennedy’s Order to Ban Children of Non-Citizens

    Headstart Leaders Speak Out Against Kennedy’s Order to Ban Children of Non-Citizens


    The first iteration of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill included the elimination of Headstart. This program was birthed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “war on poverty.” It provides food, medical screening, education, and socialization skills for low-income children ages 3-4. It also provides jobs for some of the children’s mothers.

    But there must have been enough negative feedback from Republicans to cause Headstart to survive.

    However, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared that children of undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to participate in Headstart. How will the programs know which children to exclude? The announcement outraged Headstart providers, those brave enough to speak out.

    The blog Wonkette reported on the negative reactions:

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added further shame to his family’s legacy Thursday, announcing that effective immediately, undocumented immigrant children will be banned from the Head Start preschool program, which not only provides child care and preparation for kindergarten to low-income preschoolers, but also provides school meals and health screenings. The point is to finally crack down on undocumented three- to five-year-olds to send the message that they must not come to the US without proper legal authorization. 

    In addition to kicking an unknown number of children out of Head Start, the change in HHS policy also bars everyone in the country without legal status from multiple HHS programs including access to public clinics, family planning, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and the federal low-income energy assistance program. Sure, some people will probably get sick and die, but that’s the point. The Trump war on immigrants must ratchet up cruelty at every opportunity, just as the Nazis’ Nuremberg laws systematically excluded German Jews from every aspect of public life. 

    People living in the US without authorization are already prohibited from most public benefits like Medicaid and SNAP, but a 1998 rule enacted by the Clinton administration allowed them to use some public health programs, including Head Start, under the logic that a healthy public, including children attending preschool, is actually better than sickness and ignorance. Kennedy reversed that interpretation, redefining Head Start and a bunch of other HHS programs as “federal public benefits’’ that are only available to citizens and to permanent legal residents. You know, at least until Stephen Miller figures out how to invalidate all green cards, too. The MAGA faithful can never be satisfied in their demands for eradication of ILLEGALS.

    Kennedy said in a press release that even the most basic health and education measures “incentivize illegal immigration,” which of course is some bullshit, so we won’t quote any of his other lies. 

    Yasmina Vinci, executive director of the National Head Start Association, issued a statement pointing out that in its 60 years of existence, Head Start “has never required documentation of immigration status as a condition for enrollment,” and that nothing in the Head Start Act justifies the new restrictions. Vinci added that “Attempts to impose such a requirement threaten to create fear and confusion among all families who are focused on raising healthy children, ready to succeed in school and life,” which of course is the point. She also noted that Kennedy’s action

    “undermines the fundamental commitment that the country has made to children and disregards decades of evidence that Head Start is essential to our collective future. Head Start programs strive to make every child feel welcome, safe, and supported, and reject the characterization of any child as ‘illegal.’”

    We will just assume that her comments were met with angry complaints from MAGA that it’s dishonest to call someone a “child” when in fact they’re an ILLEGAL ALIEN, which automatically wins every argument. 

    As for wisely using taxpayer money, HHS claimed that banning undocumented kids from Head Start would save $374 million a year, at the low, low cost of only $21 million annually to document eligibility. Not included in the estimate was any guess at how many US citizen children would be thrown out of Head Start because their parents fear submitting paperwork to the government, or how many kids of US citizens would lose access to the program because of paperwork snafus. 

    The number of children affected by the decision is difficult to assess, since according to experts, most of the young children of parents here without papers were born here in the US. Julie Sugarman, who directs K-12 research for the Migration Policy Institute, told the Washington Post, “The actual number of children this would affect is probably very, very small.” Of course, the ban is also so vaguely defined that the administration may intend for it to exclude any children of undocumented parents regardless of the child’s own citizenship status. 

    We’ll add that ripping away education and health services from any children at all as a means of punishing their parents is cruel on the face of it. And of course Donald Trump is still itching to end birthright citizenship so babies can be deported more easily. 

    For that matter, the Right has long despised Head Start and sought to wipe it out altogether because preschool is communist, and allows poor families to have some childcare they don’t deserve. It’s a bit of a wonder that the administration’s draft budget plan to zero out Head Start, leaked in April, didn’t ultimately make it into the Big Shitty F**k Poor People Twenty Ways From Sunday Bill. But then, there’s little reason to think Trump won’t decide at some point to simply eliminate Head Start by decree, since he considers funding passed by Congress only a suggestion anyway.

    In the longer term, red states and groups like the Heritage Foundation keep pushing their efforts to pass laws to ban undocumented children from public schools altogether. The 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe ruled that states can’t deny access to public education based on immigration status, but that’s yet another thing that gets rightwingers spittin’ mad. Bills that would have required schools to collect information on families’ immigration status failed this year in Indiana, New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee, but eventually one is nearly certain to pass and make its way to the Supreme Court.

    Pushback to the latest assault on Head Start and undocumented children came very quickly. The Illinois Head Start Association on Friday instructed its hundreds of members not to make any changes to who they serve, pointing out that the government hasn’t provided any directions on how providers are supposed to put the ban in place and screen out undocumented children. (Or parents? Nobody knows!) 

    “We have never asked for [the] status of our children that we’re serving, and to do so creates fear and anxiety among our community,” said Lauri Morrison-Frichtl, head of the Illinois Head Start Association, which supports about 600 centers statewide serving the 28,000 students in Head Start in the state. “So we’re really worried that families will stop bringing their children, they won’t be able to go to work [and] children will be in unsafe places.”

    The Illinois Head Start Association is also one of several educational organizations and parent groups who filed a federal lawsuit in April aimed at stopping Trump’s threatened cuts to Head Start. The ACLU, which is representing the plaintiffs, immediately announced that the plaintiffs will amend their complaint in the case to fight the administration’s latest attack on Head Start.

    Now that Trump’s polling on immigration policy is deep underwater with Americans, who support deporting dangerous criminals but are horrified by Trump’s fascist stormtrooper shit, this new cruelty aimed at little kids is only going to make people more disgusted with the administration. Americans freaking love education. We hate seeing kids harmed. Let Republicans know you aren’t going to stand for this crap.



    Source link

  • Cal State leaders look to reduce tension, hate incidents on campus

    Cal State leaders look to reduce tension, hate incidents on campus


    California State University, Fullerton

    Credit: CSU Fullerton/Flickr

    With tensions still high on college campuses over the Israel-Hamas conflict in the Middle East, California State University officials are offering resources and engaging with more students to ease the mood on campuses. 

    “The CSU condemns in the strongest terms terrorism, including the horrific acts committed by Hamas on Oct. 7,” Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said during a trustees meeting Tuesday. 

    “They are hatred and senseless acts of violence, and they are antithetical to our core values. The loss of innocent life in Israel and the Gaza Strip is heartbreaking, and our deepest and most heartened sympathies are with all of those affected by this horrific tragedy.”

    The chancellor’s office also delivered a report Wednesday to the CSU board of trustees highlighting hate crimes and incidents that took place last year, while emphasizing the work it was doing to confront bias and extremism across the nation’s largest public university system. The report gave the trustees a chance to learn what campuses and the chancellor’s office are doing now to address on-campus conflicts, rallies and incidents related to the Middle Eastern conflict. 

    The number of hate incidents reported within the Cal State system is relatively low across the 23 campuses with more than 460,00 students and 56,000 faculty and staff. However, there was a slight uptick in incidents from 2021 to 2022. As of Dec. 31, 2022, the most recent data available, 13 hate crimes and six acts of violence related to hate were committed across the CSU system. The numbers reflect that six more incidents of hate and violence were committed last year than the previous year. 

    Melinda Latas, a CSU director who is in charge of campus safety compliance and disclosure for the university system, said hate violence includes incidents such as property destruction and verbal threats of force, or physical violence against a person or group of people, that do not meet the definition of a hate crime under California law.

    The most common incident type was physical assaults, followed by intimidation and other threats of physical harm, Latas said, adding that bias was most commonly based on sexual orientation, followed by race and ethnicity. 

    The increase from 2021 is also likely due to fewer on-campus incidents reported during 2020 and 2021 because of the Covid-19 pandemic, Latas said, adding that for 2023, most campuses so far have seen no increase in hate incidents. 

    Latas said CSU campuses want to be an example and leader for other universities over how to handle heightened tensions over religious, racial and other political topics. The chancellor’s office said campus leaders have offered support to Jewish students and Hillel houses, as well as Palestinian and Muslim student groups. Counseling services are available, and campuses are encouraging people to report bias incidents or discrimination. 

    A preliminary review of hate crimes on the San Jose State campus since Jan. 1 reveals only two incidents were reported. Following the Hamas attack on Israel in early October, the campus also hosted two peaceful protests and rallies, each with diverging points of view, said Cynthia Teniente-Matson, SJSU president. 

    “Some found (the protests) controversial and had the potential to lead to hate-based disruptive activity,” she said. “The campus took precautionary steps.” 

    Those steps included working with local law enforcement and activating plans for public safety threats. 

    “Fortunately, we didn’t have to call on them,” Teniente-Matson said, adding that she’s been consistently engaging with students, faculty, staff and community leaders since the Middle East conflict reignited. 

    She said that the nature of incidents reported on the South Bay Area campus since Oct. 7 have been “mostly fears and concerns about personal safety, which I and other members of my cabinet have taken seriously and responded with prudence.”  The University Police Department increased the number of officers and patrols on campus and investigated reports of suspicious circumstances.

    According to Cal State San Bernardino’s Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, violence targeting people of different religions has been increasing nationally. A 2023 report from the center found that religion-targeted hate crime reports increased by 27% in major American cities in 2022, with 470 religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people and 50 targeting Muslims. 

    The report explained that antisemitism has grown nationally in recent years due to a spread in conspiracism, religious nationalism and anti-government sentiment. 

    “There is widespread concern that these numbers could dramatically increase with the response we are seeing to events in the Middle East right now,” said Rafik Mohamed, CSUSB provost, adding that Black Americans remain the most frequently targeted group of hate crimes. 

    Hate crimes against Asian Americans have also increased since the start of the pandemic, he said. 

    “These aren’t just individual acts of hate, but fundamental attacks on our democracy,” Mohamed said. “Religion-oriented attacks are disturbingly on the rise, as are attacks based on gender identity and sexual orientation.”





    Source link

  • As ethnic studies mandate withers, it’s clear state leaders misled districts

    As ethnic studies mandate withers, it’s clear state leaders misled districts


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Last week, the California Legislature let its widely heralded 2021 high school ethnic studies bill, AB 101, silently lapse after it and Gov. Gavin Newsom passed a 2025-26 state budget that did not appropriate funds for it. Without that funding, school districts will not be bound by AB 101’s Fall 2025 deadline to offer students an ethnic studies course. 

    Ethnic studies’ popularity has been built on a false narrative: that California requires high school students to pass an ethnic studies course to earn a diploma. What’s been omitted from this narrative is that shortly before AB 101’s passage the Legislature added a barely noticed but hugely consequential sentence to AB 101 — that the ethnic studies graduation requirement will become “operative only upon an appropriation of funds” in separate legislation.

    In other words, from its inception, AB 101 was, and remains, aspirational. 

    Upon learning this surprising news, Mountain View-Los Altos High School District Superintendent Eric Volta dubbed the state’s ruse “a hot mess” (view recording hour 3:37). “Everyone was moving in one direction until December,” he said, scrambling with limited resources to meet the state’s pressing deadline.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee estimated that an ethnic studies requirement would cost taxpayers a staggering $276 million a year — for a subject rife with controversy and concern.

    California’s decision not to trigger AB 101 was undoubtedly made easier given the turmoil wracking school districts that had already prepared this coursework, including Newsom’s alma mater, Tamalpais Union. Heated school board meetings extended into the night when ethnic studies landed on board agendas. Parents statewide were distraught to see their districts selecting “liberated” ethnic studies like in Tamalpais, centered on race-based resentment that seemed to encourage armed militancy.

    Attorney General Bonta, in a rare Legal Alert sent to all local superintendents and school board members, obliquely signaled the state’s hesitation to move forward. This public alarm and skittishness followed state leaders’ receipt of a detailed June 2023 policy paper from the non-partisan Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, cc’d to 3,000 school board superintendents and trustees, alerting them that the California Legislature did not appear to require ethnic studies after all. The Los Angeles Times and EdSource confirmed it, EdSource reporting that state officials agreed — “no money, no requirement to develop or offer classes.”

    The California Department of Education’s (CDE) years of silence on this funding caveat, pertaining to the first change in the state’s graduation requirements in decades, is not what local education leaders and taxpaying parents should expect from a state agency with a $300 million annual administrative budget and a duty to help districts operate their schools. 

    This silence was not just consequential for California’s 430 school districts with high schools. It became a recurring issue for the University of California’s Academic Senate and its governing bodies as they contemplated making passing an ethnic studies course a UC admissions requirement, grounded largely in the mistaken belief that the state requires high school students to enroll in it. The Academic Senate rejected that proposal in April after a letter signed by hundreds of UC faculty members pointed out its many flaws, including this faulty premise.

    It appears that CDE’s silence about this funding caveat was intentional. Believing for years that ethnic studies was mandated, school districts developed courses expecting the state to cover their expenses. Neither the CDE nor the State Board of Education advised school districts differently. In fact, CDE’s website states that students must take ethnic studies to graduate. The state board’s comment that ethnic studies is not required was in 2025, and directed only to the University of California’s Academic Senate. 

    Over one-quarter of California school districts with high schools now offer ethnic studies, 85% employing the controversial liberated ethnic studies framework according to my recent sampling. Liberated Ethnic Studies is political education, teaching students to view the world through the narrow lenses of skin color and oppression, often so they will try to change it with anti-Western activism.

    School districts just now learning about this reprieve are reversing course or pausing their ethnic studies work. In January, San Dieguito Union turned its new required 9th-grade Ethnic Studies English course into an elective, only to discover that student interest in the course was so low that it might not offer the class at all its high schools. This spring, Ramona Unified, Glendora Unified, Chino Valley Unified, and others paused their work mid-stream. Parents in San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Newsom’s Tamalpais Union are pressing their school boards to do the same.

    The lesson here for local school leaders: verify narratives before acting, including those advanced by California state education officials.

    •••

    Lauren Janov is a California lawyer, education policy analyst, and political strategist. She is a legal consultant for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, advised the University of California faculty team which opposed a proposed Ethnic Studies admissions requirement, and co-founded the Palo Alto Parent Alliance. The opinions expressed are her own.

    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

  • Advocates, education leaders speak out on Newsom’s initial plan for state budget

    Advocates, education leaders speak out on Newsom’s initial plan for state budget


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom presented the first pass on the 2024-25 state budget.

    It includes his ideas for addressing an $11 billion drop in funding for TK-12 and community colleges and a larger projected general fund deficit affecting child care and higher education.

    We asked a cross-section of education leaders and advocates for their initial impressions of the governor’s proposals.

    Their contributions reflect diverse perspectives on education, from preschool through CSU and UC.

    What follows are excerpts of conversations and public statements. We will seek other voices as budget negotiations between Newsom and the Legislature, tempered by revenue updates, continue through the budget’s passage in June.

    — John Fensterwald, Editor-At-Large

    Yolie Flores, CEO and president, Families in Schools

    “We are deeply concerned about the governor’s proposal to lower teacher requirements to address teacher shortages. Parents want, and their children deserve, highly qualified educators, especially in the face of pandemic-related learning loss and alarming literacy rates among third graders. 

    Lowering standards would be inconceivable in addressing shortages in the nursing and medical professions. Instead of lowering standards, parents would support better incentives for teachers, improved working conditions, and investments in teacher training programs so that “lowering requirements” stops being the go-to measure. 

    We urge the governor to prioritize the long-term well-being of our students by maintaining rigorous qualifications for educators.”

    Jeff Freitas, president, California Federation of Teachers

    “The governor’s budget presented a $38 billion deficit over a three-year span, and he has staved off steep cuts. Not saying that there aren’t some cuts to education, but steep cuts to education didn’t happen, demonstrating that public education is a priority for him, which we appreciate.

    The budget doesn’t address some of the issues that we need to address in education — the staffing crisis, as well as student services that we need to increase in support of all of our education system. And when I talk about public education, I’m talking early childhood through the university system. So we have housing issues for our students at the higher ed level as well as other student support services at the K-12 level.

    We’re the fifth-largest economy in the world. We should have an equivalent education system that matches being the fifth largest economy in the world. We don’t have that. And so we believe that legislators and the leaders and the governor need to be bold and take action. Taxes or revenue should not be taken off the table. That’s the only way to achieve what we think is a fully funded education in California.”

    Manny Rodriguez, director of policy and advocacy for California, The Institute for College Access & Success

    (Rodriguez is addressing the proposal to eliminate the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Program and the failure of the budget to act on reforming the Cal Grant program.)

    “We see housing investments, especially affordable student housing investment programs, as the different side of the same coin on college affordability. On one side, you have those direct drivers of cost — housing, books, supplies. On the other side, there is financial aid: how to get dollars into the pockets of students to pay for the drivers of cost.

    If we can’t guarantee investments to help students with housing now or into the future because of the budget situation, and we’re not investing in financial aid, it will be harder for students to afford the continually rising cost of attending college.”

    Scott Moore, CEO, Kidango, a nonprofit operator of child care and preschool centers  

    “Overall, the proposed budget stays true to the historic investments California has made in pre-K and child care. Yet schools and child care providers are struggling to expand due to a lack of staff, facilities funding, and post-pandemic challenges.  We must do more now to support this growth, otherwise, low income babies and preschoolers will be left out.”

    John Gray,  president and CEO, School Services of California, a consulting firm

     “Although still somewhat skeptical, many in the education world must be sighing in relief with the governor’s budget. We had been expecting the worst since the (Legislative Analyst’s Office’s) economic forecast. The governor’s budget would benefit from historic rainy day funds to address spending levels exceeding revenues generated in 2022-23.

    While they won’t experience mid-year cuts, deferrals, or unfunded COLAs, many districts will nonetheless face the combination of a COLA below 1% and significant declining enrollment. Their reprieve may be short-lived.”

    Lance Christensen, vice president of education policy, California Policy Center

    “The governor presented a budget that is delusional, because he calls for a budget emergency to be declared without declaring the budget emergency. It will require the Legislature to do a bunch of things he’s not willing to do himself. The budget will require further, deeper cuts in Proposition 98 funding, and I don’t believe that when the April personal income tax revenues come out, the state situation’s going to be any better. 

    It will be fascinating to watch what will happen in the Legislature, where nearly one-quarter of the legislators have not had to deal with a budget problem yet. We have a new speaker and new Senate president pro tem, too. We will see what their priorities are. Unfortunately, I think legislators will leave a lot of the hard choices to the local school boards, especially if they have to go back to temporary revenue anticipation notes and other borrowing while the state defers payments.”

    Sara Noguchi, superintendent of Modesto City Schools

    “As California faces a deep revenue shortfall, I’m encouraged that the proposal continues to prioritize the investments that we’ve made over the last five years. Maintaining the Local Control Funding Formula is also encouraging.

    I am interested in the career education master plan and am encouraged by what might come out of that as we expand opportunities for our students to learn about and prepare for the jobs of the future that will fuel our economy in California and beyond. I am pleased that the governor promised to continue the commitment to work with the Legislature for a facilities bond. It is greatly needed, especially as we add another grade with transitional kindergarten.”

    Anya Hurwitz, executive director, SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language)

    “Everybody is pleasantly surprised that, at least at this stage, education overall seems to be at less of a dark and awful cliff than what was predicted. I’m appreciative for the governor and his commitment to education and particularly the focus on equity.

    We want to continue to underscore the need to invest in and recognize that multilingual education requires specific attention and focus, and so will continue to beat the drum around the need to prioritize multilingual education and understand that it requires commitment and investment. If we’re ever going to get to the vision of the English Learner Roadmap or certainly the Global California 2030 Initiative, that’s going to require a concerted effort. There’s a lot more work to be done.”

    Josh Hagen, policy director, Campaign for College Opportunity

    “The governor has largely protected higher education from funding cuts. The bottom line is that the funding will be there. It may be through a deferral, it may be coming next year, but that work can ultimately continue, and we’re really grateful for that.” 

    The theme for us (in negotiating with the Legislature) is going to be promoting stability and maintaining those investments.”

    Martha Hernandez, executive director, Californians Together

    “We’re applauding the governor’s commitment to education. We did see a commitment to universal TK, before- and after-school programs and, of course, the equity multiplier.

    There’s a commitment to expanding the teacher pipeline, and we’re hopeful that this also includes the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development grant. We got funding, but we know that with the budget deficit, things can get scooped up, so we’re hoping that it remains in the budget.

    We’re very focused on the math framework. We want to make sure that materials and professional development related to the math framework include access and equity to the math content.”

    Alberto Carlvaho, superintendent, Los Angeles Unified

    “We thank Governor Gavin Newsom for proposing a state budget that protects school funding and continues the course of implementing recent initiatives such as Universal Transitional Kindergarten and universal school meals.

    The revised 2024-25 cost-of-living-adjustment is significantly lower than currently reflected in Los Angeles Unified’s multiyear projection, which will make it more challenging as school districts transition away from the one-time Covid-relief federal funding.  We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and the Legislature to implement fiscal solutions that recognize varying economic realities across the state such as cost of living and inflation, and minimize the impact and disruption to our school communities.”

    Vincent Stewart, vice president, policy and programs, Children Now

    “While we recognize the deficit affecting the governor’s budget proposal, we can’t continue the decades-long trend of de-prioritizing California’s kids that has led to alarmingly poor outcomes. Education and early care, from preschool to post-secondary, should be first in line for any increases and last for any decreases. 

    We applaud the governor’s prioritization of child care rate reform, youth mental health, and educational equity through continued investment in LCFF, TK, and higher education compacts. We are, however, concerned with eliminating the 24/7 hotline for youth in foster care, taking back dollars from state preschool, and a low COLA triggering possible teacher layoffs. We look forward to working with the governor and Legislature to restore these cuts and secure California’s investment in its future.”

    Mala Batra, CEO, Aspire Public Schools 

    “We serve some of the state’s most vulnerable students and always favor bringing an equity lens to funding. We are pleased funding for community schools and expanded learning opportunities, especially following the height of the Covid pandemic, are preserved.  

    There’s a lot of public facilities funding that we’re not eligible for. It would be really helpful to see that SB 740 in particular (establishing annual grants to offset facility costs for charter schools that service a high percentage of low-income students) remains intact.  Not having access to many of the public facilities, bond offerings and various funding streams makes that a critical funding stream for us.”

    Eric Premack, executive director, Charter Schools Development Center 

    “I’d call the governor’s budget proposal “blessedly boring.” We would like to see more on the teacher supply front, especially to streamline California’s Byzantine teacher credentialing mandates in lieu of nickel-and-dime programs that don’t address the needless complexity. 

    We also look forward to seeing the details of his instructional-time proposals. California is stuck in the Stone Age regarding attendance accounting and punishes schools for making efforts to provide more instruction. There are a number of things in current law that make it really hard to provide extra instruction for students. 

    The state is spending a tremendous amount of money funding what we call phantom kids for declaring enrollment protection. In our view, money is increasingly being used to delay inevitable cuts rather than to prepare for action and make the changes needed to adjust to a smaller student population. That money should be redirected into providing additional instruction.”

    Sarah Lillis, executive director, Teach Plus California

    “We understand that this is just the beginning of the budget process, but we are pleased and appreciate the governor’s ongoing commitment to our students and transforming TK-12. As the conversation continues and the understanding of resources may change, we hope that that commitment continues. It becomes harder and harder to ensure that we’re protecting and serving our students, in particular our most marginalized students, when it comes to making cuts or deferrals or belt-tightening.

    Our teachers are pleased about the ongoing commitment to invest in a sustainable and diverse educational workforce. And in particular, we are pleased there is a pot of funds for professional development around the new math frameworks. The transformational potential of some of these policy changes requires ongoing investment in the training of support of teachers and educators to implement that change.”

    Rachel Ruffalo, senior director of Strategic Advocacy, Education Trust-West 

    “We are relieved that Governor Newsom isn’t addressing the state budget deficit by mortgaging the futures of our students of color and multilingual learners. Instead, we appreciate that he has chosen to protect and, in some cases, expand recent leaps forward in educational justice. 

    We appreciate that the governor has chosen to shield and even accelerate several promising TK-12 programs that are on the cusp of benefiting students of color. We are especially glad to see that his budget proposal would rightfully protect the rollout of key TK-12 initiatives (e.g. transitional kindergarten, expanded learning opportunities, and the Golden State Pathways Program) and expand the implementation of the new math framework. We will continue to work with lawmakers to ensure that these equity-centered programs are prioritized. “

    Mike Fong (D-Alhambra), chair, Assembly Higher Education Committee 

    “I appreciate the work on this draft budget and understand the difficulty and challenges that the 2024-25 fiscal year presents; however, I am disappointed in the governor’s proposal to eliminate the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and provide no allocation to implement the 2022 Cal Grant Reform Act. We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education.

    I avidly support the governor’s goal to ensure our students are prepared to enter the workforce. Developing a Master Plan for Career Education will require collaboration with diverse stakeholders and the Legislature.  I look forward to working with the governor’s office and all parties on this critical issue.”

    Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

    “I am grateful to Governor Newsom that there are no major reductions or pullbacks in vital education programs. By preserving our Educator Workforce Investments, Community Schools Investments, and Learning Recovery Investments, we ensure that our students, families, and educators have what they need to improve literacy, math proficiency, and social–emotional wellness. We are pleased to see the Proposition 98 guarantee slightly up from its projected value but disappointed in the Average Daily Attendance decline, with COLA at .76 percent when it was projected to be at 3.5 percent.

    Even as we tighten our belts in a tough budget year, we refuse to return to the days when children went hungry at school simply due to missing paperwork or a lack of lunch money. We must show moral clarity about the resources our children need to learn, grow, and thrive, and this budget reflects that clarity.” 

    Albert Gonzalez, president, California School Boards Association

    “The governor reinforced his commitment to education by funding schools above the Proposition 98 Minimum Guarantee, maintaining the Local Control Funding Formula at existing levels, providing for the full rollout of universal transitional kindergarten, preserving resources for student mental health, safeguarding previous gains in special education funding and signaling support for a potential school facilities bond on the November 2024 ballot. 

    The budget proposal isn’t perfect — we’re concerned to see a cost-of-living adjustment below 1%, reduced school facilities funding, the continued use of unfunded mandates, and a lack of consideration for the unique challenges faced by small, rural and basic aid school districts. Yet, overall, the governor’s decision to tap into the Proposition 98 Reserve and avoid cuts to critical funding for TK-12 schools and early education demonstrates a fairly prudent approach during a difficult budget year.”





    Source link

  • ‘Looking at the whole child’: State leaders discuss ways to improve students’ mental health

    ‘Looking at the whole child’: State leaders discuss ways to improve students’ mental health


    Credit: Alison Yin/EdSource

    Bringing more mental health professionals onto campuses, training teachers and reducing negative stigmas surrounding mental illness are critical to students’ wellbeing, according to experts at Friday’s Select Committee on School Climate and Student Safety meeting. 

    From kindergarteners to high school seniors, students across California are still struggling with mental health challenges in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic — and districts across the state have come up with various strategies to provide support. 

    “We need to shed light on the current state of student mental health, identify key challenges and explore potential solutions,” said State Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), who led the discussion. 

    Mental health challenges

    While most of society has moved on from the Covid-19 pandemic, a large proportion of students have not. 

    “A lot of us —  not only children, but adults as well — we became a lot more isolated,” said Jonathan Wicks, a social worker at YWCA San Gabriel Valley, at Friday’s hearing. “Now that we’re all reintegrating back into social spaces, a lot of times, it’s not as easy to connect, and so that connectedness that belongingness isn’t always there.” 

    Most mental health conditions start to manifest when someone is in their youth or young adulthood; Jeannine Topalian, former president of California Association of School Psychologists, who also serves on the California’s Advisory Commission on Special Education, cited an ACLU report which found that more than 63% of students reported experiencing an emotional meltdown, while nearly half said they were depressed.

    Wicks added that over the past few years, young people have increasingly turned to marijuana and other substances to cope, which has led some to “over indulging and going into psychosis.”

    Mental health staff

    Schools often don’t have the staffing and resources to support struggling students.

    According to Topalian, there are 1,041 students for every school psychologist in California and  7,308 students for every social worker. 

    “There are six year olds out there who are in crisis today, who are in need of a lot of support from mental health professionals,” she said. “And what better place than a school where that’s the hub of the community to provide these services.”

    Mental health professionals at schools are overwhelmed with hefty caseloads which makes it harder to pay attention to students’ individual needs or to take a more preventative approach. 

    Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors, said that some progress has been made in California’s counselor-to-student ratio. In the 2012-13 academic year, the ratio was 826 students to one counselor. Now, it’s roughly half that. 

    “I think 800 would be more like urgent care. We’re responding to crises,” she said. “….When you have 400, then you are able to do comprehensive strategic work.”

    The national suggestion is a 250:1 ratio, she added. 

    “We’re not where we want to be…., but we’re moving in the right direction,” Whitson said, adding that there are more counseling services in elementary schools now, where students start learning social skills and ways to cope. 

    Fifty percent of all school counselors nationwide in California, and 33 university programs in the state are turning out new counselors, Whitson added. 

    A ‘first line of defense’: involving teachers

    Involving teachers is a critical support for students in their mental health challenges, the speakers agreed. 

    Kim Griffin Esperon, a project director of Mental Health & School Counseling at the Los Angeles County Office of Education, emphasized the importance of creating step-by-step protocols that teachers and staff can be trained to implement. 

    Teachers should also be provided with guidelines to help them spot signs of depression, and their input should always be considered, Topalian said. 

    “We often tell teachers or staff what to do. It’s very important to think about asking them what they need and where their skill set is before we implement or develop programs,” she said. “They need to be part of the process rather than being the people who are in the frontline trying to do this work for our students.”

    Off campus 

    Reducing the stigma around mental illness is also critical to students accessing support, the speakers agreed. 

    “Traditionally, schools and communities have understood mental health supports and services to be necessarily only for those students who have been identified as having a mental health disorder, or they have assumed that all students experiencing mental health challenges require intensive mental health interventions,” Esperon said. 

    “Fortunately, our understanding has evolved to refocus our attention on prevention and earlier identification of students who are struggling as well as referral to the appropriate level of services to meet students’ needs.” 

    Wicks said there are several intergenerational families in the San Gabriel Valley — which can make it harder for students to access support because of varied attitudes toward mental health support and counseling. 

    “I could see the challenge, you know, for the youth to hear the information and maybe want to move in that direction [of seeking help],” Wicks said. “But when they would go home and have those discussions, they would kind of come back with a ‘No thank you.’” 

    He added that youth advisory opportunities, where students can interact with one another, can be particularly helpful. And some districts have explored peer-to-peer counseling, which can also reduce students’ feelings of isolation. 

    Other ways to expand access 

    The Los Angeles Unified School District has attempted to expand community outreach to reduce stigmas around mental illness — while using Telehealth options to provide students with mental health supports, according to the district’s Administrator of Student Health and Human Services Joel Cisneros. 

    He said LAUSD also has its own psychiatric emergency response team, which intervenes in crises where students could harm themselves or someone else. 

    “[It’s] going beyond the idea that we’re just producing students to an academic process in order to graduate and to be successful,” Whitson said. “It’s also looking at the whole child. And that shift in perspective, I think, is really contributing to some of the changes that we’re trying to do.”





    Source link

  • Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive

    Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive


    School officials said they are currently working on dealing with the wave of new students coming from the Villages of Patterson development under construction. School officials and community members and school officials worry that the schools will not be able to handle another large-scale wave of development without a mitigation agreement.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    Education and housing are often inextricably linked, but policy decisions made in the two sectors are generally siloed, at times shaped and passed without considering how a housing policy might impact education and vice versa.

    Megan Gallagher’s research bridges the two, focusing on housing and educational collaborations that support students’ academic outcomes. Some of her latest work as a principal research associate at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on public policy, provides school officials and housing developers with ideas on how to partner together to desegregate schools by desegregating neighborhoods.

    Gallagher has also co-authored a report that compiled a list of key housing characteristics that impact children’s educational outcomes:

    • Housing quality
    • Housing affordability
    • Housing stability
    • Neighborhood quality
    • Housing that builds wealth

    In this Q&A, Gallagher details why those housing characteristics matter in a child’s education and the collaborations that can help children have a fair chance at achieving academic success. The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    How does housing policy impact children’s educational outcomes?
    It’s really important when we try to understand the influence that housing has on kids’ educational outcomes, that (we look at) its unique contribution.

    You could have families with the same income levels, (but) one is in a high-quality house and one is in a low-quality house. A low-quality house can influence a child’s health, ability to sleep, and feeling safe. And so, you could have a very different outcome for that child if they are in a lower-quality home.

    You have outlined five characteristics of housing that have an impact on children’s educational outcomes. Why are those five characteristics so important?
    Those five characteristics have been studied a decent amount in housing policy literature. I didn’t conduct all the original research that went into these findings, I just sort of pulled it all together into one place. It is possible that there are aspects of housing that have not been measured historically that could also have an influence on education.

    We know that low-quality housing — housing that has mold or electrical issues — is associated with lower kindergarten readiness scores. That causal relationship has been established. The relationship between spending too much on rent is connected to increased behavioral problems. Housing instability, and I would really put homelessness and housing insecurity into the housing instability bucket, really affects school stability and then has an effect on math and reading scores. We know that successful homeownership, so homeownership that allows families to build equity, increases the likelihood of attending college. We also know that neighborhood context, like violence, can disrupt academic progress and prevent children from succeeding in school.

    So there is evidence that connects each one of these housing conditions to a variety of aspects of kids’ well-being and educational outcomes.

    One of the things that we have not really done a very good job on is which of these aspects of housing matter the most or have the most influence. If we have a million dollars, what would we want to put that million dollars on to improve educational outcomes? I don’t think we have enough evidence right now to know exactly what would be the right pathway for that.

    Do all five characteristics need to be in place for children to have the best possible educational outcomes?
    There’s not enough data right now for us to understand which of the five need to be in place or what the likelihood of succeeding is if you have one or two or three or four of them in place.

    This is an area where we continue to need more understanding, more evidence, but I don’t think that we can wait to make policy decisions until we have all of that evidence.

    Is the lack of sufficient research one of the outcomes of the disconnect between housing and education policy?
    Absolutely. I think the sectors are so siloed, many of the giant data collection investments that have happened at HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) or at the U.S. Department of Education have not had data elements that capture aspects of the other sector.

    When we are looking at housing data in housing policy, there hasn’t been really detailed data collected about the children in the family — which schools they attend and how they’re doing — which could potentially allow data to be connected, likewise in the education world.

    We run into lots of challenges in research with privacy where just because you can connect data, should you? Is that what program participants have agreed to when they’ve decided to enroll their children in public school or when they’ve decided to enroll in a housing subsidy program? In a lot of cases, the answer is no.

    Some of the best data is really connected at the local level, where you have local policymakers that are working with local agencies that have asked permission and are connecting data to kind of fine-tune programs on the ground.

    How do we reach a point where we have the information necessary to ensure academic success for all children?
    It has to happen at multiple levels. The federal government needs to encourage the Department of Ed and HUD to collaborate and to really support or incentivize collaboration in their discretionary grant programs. I really see it as the feds have an opportunity to lead and really support this kind of work.

    But I also think that there are so many local organizations that are leading. I think a lot of the case study work that I have done can help to illustrate how flexibility and collaboration can really translate into a set of programs or practices that support kids’ education and stable, high-quality housing.

    I know that philanthropy is really supporting a lot of exploration around sector alignment.

    I feel really hopeful about this sort of broader vision for how we create policy that thinks about the way that multiple systems can influence how well a child is doing. But I also think that it’s not like there’s just all of this housing sitting there and kids are not living in it. A big part of this work is making sure that there continues to be a housing production pipeline that is developing housing to ensure that there’s enough housing at various price points so that everybody has the opportunity to live where they’d like to live.





    Source link

  • California education leaders try to reassure students of protections against Trump policies

    California education leaders try to reassure students of protections against Trump policies


    In this Jan. 25, 2017, file photo, protesters rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco in the wake of Donald Trump’s first election as president..

    Credit: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu,file

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    When Alejandra Lopez saw swing states that had gone for Joe Biden in 2020 leaning red for Donald Trump on Tuesday night, it felt like déjà vu.

    “I was really distraught. Honestly, I really would have never thought I would see him having a second term in office,” said Lopez, who is a second-year political science student at Cal Poly Pomona.

    For Lopez, the stakes were personal. Both of her parents are undocumented immigrants from Mexico who have lived in the U.S. for almost 20 years. Trump has pledged to enact mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

    When Trump won for the first time in 2016, Lopez was 11 years old. She remembers feeling scared that her parents — or even she, a U.S. citizen — would be deported and crying all day in class. Now, she feels more angry.

    “I’m angry that he was elected into office again, that he has promised the same thing again, and that people keep perpetuating it and moving it forward, not recognizing how harmful it can be,” she said. “You look back, and you see that time and time again, he’s just rephrased the same hate that he’s spewed.”

    Many California children and their families, including immigrants, transgender students and Black and Latino students, among others, are feeling similar fear and uncertainty, after the election of a candidate who has threatened to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, and to cut school funding to states that protect transgender students and promote diversity, equity and inclusion in their schools.

    California education leaders and advocates said the fear is palpable and justifiable, but they also urged TK-12 schools, colleges and universities to make sure students and families know about policies to protect their rights, some of which were enacted during the first Trump administration.

    An estimated 1 million California children — about 1 in 10 — have an undocumented immigrant parent, the state estimates. Many more have undocumented family members. About 165,000 California students are recent immigrants themselves.

    “If we thought teaching was hard yesterday, wait for today’s questions like, “Is Trump going to send me back to the gangs?” and “Is he going to deport my mother/father/brother/cousin?” wrote teacher Larry Ferlazzo on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday.

    Xilonin Cruz-González, deputy director of the advocacy organization Californians Together, said schools must reach out now to immigrant families to ensure they feel welcome and safe in school.

    “Even though it feels scary, especially for immigrant families, because of the rhetoric we’ve heard through the election cycle and we anticipate we will continue to hear, it’s important to remember, especially in California, we have legal protections for immigrant students,” Cruz-González said. “We have federal protections that require us to make sure our schools are safe and welcoming for all students. And we have California laws, especially AB 699, that was passed in 2017, that requires school districts to ensure that our immigrant students are welcomed into our public schools.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court established in 1982, in the case Plyler vs. Doe, that all children have a right to a free public education, regardless of their immigration status.

    California’s Assembly Bill 699 was passed in response to the previous Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and the fear it caused among immigrant families in California. The bill instructs schools not to collect information about families’ immigration status unless required by law, and requires schools to pass policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, among other things.

    Lindsey Bird was a newcomer teacher, working with recent immigrant students in 2016 when Trump was first elected. She said she had Syrian refugee students in tears that day.

    “They felt like their humanity was on the ballot, and they lost,” she said.

    Bird now works with Teach Plus California, coaching teachers throughout the state on how best to teach English learners. She said teachers are “heartbroken” for their students after Tuesday’s election and eager to share information with their students about their rights.

    “One teacher told me, ‘I’ll let myself grieve for the remainder of the week, but then I feel like my mama bear mode has been activated because I feel like I have to protect my students,’” Bird said. “So she was asking, ‘How can I protect them? What are my rights? What are their rights?’”

    Megan Stanton-Trehan, a senior attorney at Disability Rights California who represents students with disabilities, said she saw many students with disabilities and students of color struggle during the last Trump presidency.

    “I am really concerned about my clients who have disabilities, who are students of color, who are transgender,” said Stanton-Trehan. “In California, we may have a state that is protecting those students to some degree. We have laws that protect them here that are not dependent upon the way the federal government interprets the law, but that’s a lot of burden to put on the state.”

    She said that the lessons of that first term, however, are in the power of people standing up to such policies.

    “I think it’s definitely more than ever a time to really center those students and their needs and, really, their voices too,” Stanton-Trehan said. “They’re the next generation, and they’re living through this as well. They’re the ones at the forefront. If there’s any silver lining, it’s perhaps how galvanizing this can be for young people to say enough is enough.”

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta has said that his team is preparing to protect immigrants, transgender students and others, with possible litigation against Trump’s expected policies.

    “Fortunately, and unfortunately, we have four years of Trump 1.0 under our belts. We know what to expect, and we won’t be caught flat-footed,” said a Bonta spokesperson. “California’s Legislature has enacted strong protections for the rights of all students in California, and the Department of Justice will ensure those protections are enforced across the state. We are paying attention to what Trump and his advisers have said about their plans for a second administration, and we will be prepared to defend California’s values.”

    U.C. Berkeley political science professor Dan Schnur said Gov. Gavin Newsom has battled Trump before, but faces a new reality with Harris’ loss.

    “Newsom’s challenge is going to be balancing what’s best for him as governor and what’s best for him as a potential presidential candidate,” Schnur said.

    And Trump recognizes, Schnur said, “how much he can benefit politically with his base by beating up on California. The question is how he decides how much of that political benefit can be realized by threats and how much can be realized through follow-up on those threats.”

    Trump’s campaign promise of shutting down the U.S. Department of Education is an example.

    Such a move “is a long, long, long shot,” Schnur said “Even if Republicans do win a House majority, he’s going to have a lot of members here who are reluctant to cast that vote.”

    But Trump’s railing against transgender people and false claims that children receive gender reassignment surgeries at public schools may keep political traction, Schnur said.

    “I think that debate is much more likely to be central to his agenda.”

    LGBTQ+ youth were a major focus of this election season up and down the ballot, according to Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Equality California. 

    Trump attacked transgender women playing sports and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Local school board candidates promoted policies that outed transgender students to their parents, in opposition to a new state law. Anti-bullying policies at local school districts that specifically name LGBTQ youth have become a flash point.

    California already has laws on the books that protect these communities, and Salinas noted that voters supported Proposition 3, which enshrines the right to same-sex marriage.

    “I think being in California does provide a peace of mind,” Salinas said.

    Equality California will be working with other organizations to ensure that there are no gaps in protecting LGBTQ+ youth in California, and that state laws that do support them are implemented. 

    Some school districts, including Los Angeles Unified, sent messages out to parents prior to or during Election Day, highlighting protections for students and offering mental health support for students experiencing anxiety or fear after the election.

    The union representing teachers in LAUSD, United Teachers Los Angeles, issued a statement saying that “Ensuring that students and their families are informed and safe will always be our top priority. We are committed to ensuring that every LAUSD student, especially BIPOC, immigrant, and LGBTQIA+ students, has access to the education, resources, and support they deserve.”

    Some colleges and universities sent similar messages to students. Santa Monica College sent a message to students before the election to offer counseling and “debriefing” spaces for all students, but particularly for LGBTQ students, undocumented students and “racially minoritized communities.” In a Nov. 6 message, San Francisco State University President Lynn Mahoney encouraged students to seek support from campus counseling services as well as groups including the Dream Resource Center and the Queer & Trans Resource Center.

    Higher education officials in California are well aware they could face legal and funding challenges from the Trump administration on such issues as enrolling undocumented students, free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a rare move Wednesday, the leaders of California’s three public higher education systems shared a joint statement emphasizing that their campuses are welcoming to students and staff from all backgrounds.

    “Following the presidential election results, we understand that there is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety within California’s higher education community,” reads the statement, which was signed by Michael Drake, president of the University of California; Mildred García, chancellor of the California State University; and Sonya Christian, chancellor of California Community Colleges.

    “The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges remain steadfast and committed to our values of diversity and inclusivity,” they added.

    Ju Hong, director of the UCLA Dream Resource Center, said Trump’s call for mass deportation is stoking fear among undocumented students and students who are citizens but have family members who are undocumented.

    Hong said there’s also concern that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program could get terminated by the courts during Trump’s presidency. Hong himself is a DACA recipient. If the program gets terminated, he wouldn’t be able to keep his job and would be at risk of deportation. 

    Hong called on UC leaders, including the system’s board of regents, to support immigrant students and staff, both with public statements of support and by advocating for more funding for programs like the Dream Resource Center.

    “Hopefully they think through what are some creative ways to proactively support immigrant students on and off campus,” Hong said.

    Kevin R. Johnson, professor and former dean of the UC Davis School of Law, said he is concerned that the election of Trump to a second presidency could deter undocumented students from attending public universities, even in California, where they are eligible for in-state tuition and where all three public college and university systems have legal services for undocumented students and family members.

    “I do think that over the next few months, we will see a great deal of fear and consternation in the immigrant community, including the immigrant student community,” Johnson said. “I fear that the general tenor and thrust of President Trump and some others about immigrants can chill undocumented students from attending a public university and be worried that any appearance in public places could lead to their removal.”





    Source link

  • Big decisions ahead for new leaders at West Contra Costa Unified 

    Big decisions ahead for new leaders at West Contra Costa Unified 


    Guadalupe Enllana, 43, was sworn in as the new West Contra Costa Unified board member in Area 2.

    Andrew Whitmore/Richmondside

    In a ritual similar to ones happening in school districts across California, two new board members in the West Contra Costa Unified School District along with a reelected incumbent were sworn in at the board’s final meeting of the year — as it braced itself to take on the numerous challenges that await it in 2025. 

    Not unlike its larger neighbors in Oakland and San Francisco, these challenges include declining enrollments, budget deficits, and threatened deportation of undocumented immigrants affecting an unknown number of families in the district.  

    The district, which includes Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo and several other East Bay communities, was able to traverse its most immediate challenge — finding school board members to fill the three seats that were on the November ballot. Only one of the seats was contested, and in the other two, the candidates had no opponent, and didn’t even have to appear on the ballot. 

    Guadalupe Enllana, a Richmond native and community advocate, was sworn in Wednesday night to represent Area 2, which covers the Richmond area, one of the nearly dozen cities in the East Bay communities within the district’s boundaries. She beat incumbent Otheree Christian, running for his second term, with nearly 55% of the vote.

    Cinthia Hernandez, who ran unopposed, replaced eight-year incumbent Mister Phillips in Area 3, which covers the San Pablo area. Incumbent Jamela Smith-Folds, who represents Pinole and Hercules in Area 1, was also sworn in for her second term, after running unopposed for the seat. 

    The pattern of unopposed school board seats is one that is occurring across the state. An EdSource analysis found that out of 1,510 school board races it analyzed, in nearly half of them a candidate’s name did not appear on last November’s ballot, either because no one was running for the seat or because a single candidate was running unopposed — making that person an instant winner. 

    One of the biggest decisions the West Contra Costa board will make is hiring a permanent superintendent. At Wednesday night’s meeting, longtime district employee Kim Moses attended her first meeting as interim superintendent, after being appointed by the board in October shortly after  Superintendent Kenneth “Chris” Hurst announced he would be retiring in December after more than three years in the job. Hurst said he was leaving to take care of his mother-law, who he said was facing “serious health challenges.”

    Moses, a West Contra Costa alumna who graduated from Kennedy High School in Richmond, worked in the district for 18 out of the more than 30 years she’s been in education, most recently as its superintendent of business services. She worked for years as a teacher in Oakland, and then as vice principal and principal in the district.

    “I welcome our new trustees. I actually really look forward to working with both of you,” said current board member Demetrio Gonzalez Hoy. “You’re coming in at a time when the board was fairly divided, as you both know. My hope is that with this change of two new board members that it would lead to us working in collaboration.” 

    One of the biggest rifts this year was during a June meeting when the board failed to pass the district’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) by the end of the fiscal year in June. The LCAP is a required document that describes how funds from the state will be spent, especially on low-income students and English learners. Because the board did not approve the LCAP, they could not vote on its annual budget as the accountability plan must pass first.

    It is believed to be the first time that a district has failed to approve its LCAP by the state-imposed deadline.  As then-Superintendent Hurst said at the time, “This is an unprecedented event in the state of California.”

    In a frenzy of activity district, county and state leaders had to work together to figure out the next steps, complicated by the fact that the state’s education code doesn’t spell out clearly what happens when a board doesn’t approve its accountability plan before June 30. After making revisions, the board was able to approve the updated plan on Aug. 28, nearly two months after the usual deadline.

    At Wednesday’s meeting, the newly constituted board was able to resolve its first split vote, this one for board president. Gonzalez Hoy and another incumbent board member, Leslie Reckler, were both nominated for the position, to replace outgoing board President Smith-Folds, whose term as president had expired. Reckler was elected to the position, voting for herself along with Enllana and Hernandez.  She will serve for one year.

    As a mother of four children, first-time board member Enllana said she had to figure out how to navigate different programs in the district and advocate especially for her child who has special needs. It is what motivated her to run a second time to be on the board after running unsuccessfully in 2020.

    “As parents, we are really left in the dark sometimes about decisions being made on the board that directly affect their children,” she said in an interview with EdSource. “I was a teen mom and at the time (and my child), having special needs, made it really difficult to navigate the (special education) department, how to advocate, and how to get the information I needed and how to ask for it.”

    Enllana said her top priority is to hire a superintendent who values transparency, communicates well with the board and community, and prioritizes data-driven solutions. 

    “We have to make sure that every decision that we’re making on the board is student-focused, because if the students aren’t here, then we have no seat at the table,” Enllana said. “We really need to learn how to communicate with parents, and it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach.”

    As a daughter of Mexican immigrants, Enllana said she’s also hoping to better reach the Spanish-speaking community and engage them in what’s happening at the district level as well as their children’s schools. 

    At Wednesday’s meeting, newly inducted board member Hernandez said she grew up going to West Contra Costa schools and is focused on offering more transparency to families.

    “I’m also dedicated to creating more access to our families and creating resources and making sure our families are walking with us every step of the way,” Hernandez said.

    The defeat of Otheree Christian means there is now only one Black member on the board, in contrast to the three on the previous board. Of its approximately 30,000 students, nearly 60% are Latino, 14% are Asian, 11.5% are Black, and 9.1% are white. Two decades ago, nearly 30% of the student body was Black.

    Louis Freedberg contributed to this story.





    Source link