اینترنت

برچسب: mandate

  • The clock is ticking, ethnic studies remains an unfunded mandate; what will Newsom do?

    The clock is ticking, ethnic studies remains an unfunded mandate; what will Newsom do?


    A high school student listens to a presentation by her classmate.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / American Education

    The article was updated on Dec., 12 to clarify that the anti-bias protections in AB 101’s “guardrails” were copied from existing state statutes.

    Three years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation mandating that high schools offer ethnic studies “upon appropriation,” starting in 2025-26.

    Now, those two words — upon appropriation — loom large. The deadline to offer a semester of ethnic studies in 2025-26 is only seven months away, and requiring the course for graduation is due to begin with the graduating class of 2029-30. 

    Since 2022, the California Department of Finance has taken the position that there has been no appropriation to implement the course, and some other legislators agree — no money, no requirement to develop or offer classes. As a result, school districts might conclude that the law’s “guardrails” intended to prevent bias, bigotry, and discrimination from seeping into instruction could be ignored. However, the guardrails language was copied from existing state education statutes (Education Code 220), which would still prevail.  

    That lack of funding is creating uncertainty about the future of ethnic studies and suspense about whether Newsom will deliver the money next month when he proposes his 2025-26 budget — and, as importantly, whether he will condition funding on amendments to the law (Assembly Bill 101), including those championed by the Jewish Legislative Caucus.

    “I come at this with a fresh set of eyes. It’s pretty clear that the law only really takes effect if there is funding for this during the budgetary process. There has been no budget allocated for that,” said Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, who was elected to the Legislature in 2022 and chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance while serving on the Assembly Budget and Education committees.

    “But that doesn’t mean that that won’t happen in the budget that’s to be released in January, which then funds the 2025-26 school year, which is when this would take effect,” he said. “I would expect it would” be funded.

    Options ‘upon appropriation’

    There is no statutory definition of “upon appropriation,” which is sometimes inserted in bills requiring significant funding. That leaves the governor and Legislature several options, according to legislative staff. One would be a significant one-time investment with dedicated funding in subsequent years. Another would be to eliminate “upon appropriation” by amending the bill — although that wouldn’t eliminate the state’s obligation to fund the mandate. The Legislature could then leave it to the Commission on State Mandates to decide how much should be reimbursed annually. Districts have complained that the commission tends to lowball reimbursements.

    Advisers to and spokespeople for Newsom refused to discuss the unfunded mandate or what to expect in January, and leaders of one of the strongest advocates of ethnic studies, the controversial Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, aren’t answering requests for comment. An administrator of the San Diego County Office of Education, which is coordinating state grants to develop ethnic studies course curriculums, also declined to comment.

    Finance Dept. states its position

    A spokesperson for Newsom referred EdSource to the Department of Finance, which, in turn, pointed to a link to a Feb. 22, 2022, webcast of Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance hearing (watch between 2:57 to 3:07).

    At the hearing, then-Assemblymember Kevin McCarthy, D-Sacramento, a strong proponent of ethnic studies, noted that the 2021-22 state budget included $50 million that would be disbursed to school districts to “launch this work.”

    “Do we think that’s the adequate amount we need to make sure we have a successful ethnic studies requirement for high schools throughout California?” he asked state officials.

    Amber Alexander, representing the Department of Finance, clarified that the $50 million was one-time funding for districts to create, not implement, the graduation mandate. “Nor,” she added, “does the Finance Department believe the $50 million would be sufficient, should the mandate progress.”

    “I know that we have some debate about that, and I’m not sure why you need an appropriation because you’re going to have that class taught in a high school anyway, and you’ll have a teacher teaching that class as opposed to another class,” McCarthy responded. “Just simple mathematics; I don’t get it yet.”

    Turning to Mike Torres, director of the curriculum frameworks division of the California Department of Education, McCarthy asked, “Do we think that we need, uh, any other resources? Um, on the lead-up to, uh, ethnic studies throughout California?”

    Torres answered, “Gearing up for this requirement is likely to be a multi-year process with costs exceeding $50 million statewide (for districts) to make that happen.”

    In an analysis of the financial impact of AB 101, the Finance Department estimated the implementation cost of ethnic studies at $272 million. Alvares said that the 2021 ballpark estimate would need to be recalculated, and he wouldn’t hazard a guess of the cost other than to say it would be well over $100 million annually to reimburse districts.

    Jewish caucus finds an ally in Newsom

    Despite uncertainty over funding, intense work continues on developing ethnic studies curricula and piloting courses throughout the state. This week, the California Department of Education launched a website dedicated to Southeast Asian ethnic studies, including separate K-12 lesson plans exploring Vietnamese, Cambodian and Hmong histories and experiences. Chapters on Native American studies are planned for next fall. 

    The site was developed by the county education offices in Orange, Humboldt and San Diego counties, with $14 million in state funding from the 2021-22 budget. San Diego County has also hosted multiple series of ethnic studies webinars for teachers.  

    Meanwhile, the spread of the liberated ethnic studies curriculum developed as an alternative to the state’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Framework has escalated tensions between its creator and promoter, the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium and the Jewish Legislative Caucus. The “liberated” version has been a focus of several lawsuits (see here, here and here) brought by Jewish families and supportive law firms charging that its one-sided, ideological opposition to the state of Israel and its ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza has fostered antisemitism in schools.

    Critics say that “liberated” ethnic studies view race relations in America as a continuing struggle against white supremacy and its oppression of people of color. It stresses the importance for students to challenge capitalism and the forces of imperialism, including Israel, which the curriculum calls a modern outpost of “settler colonialism.”

    At the urging of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, the Legislature wrote into AB 101 that school districts should not use unadopted portions of earlier drafts of the model curriculum — an oblique reference to the elements of the liberated curriculum that were excised from the first draft. Advocates of liberated ethnic studies charged that the clause and other “guardrails” seek to squelch their free speech.

    But the Jewish caucus has found an ally in Newsom. In August 2023, Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and a Newsom adviser, wrote in a memo to school districts, “We have been advised, however, that some vendors are offering materials that may not meet the requirements of AB 101, particularly the second requirement (not reflecting or promoting any bias, bigotry, or discrimination), an important guardrail highlighted when the bill was signed. Accordingly, before any curriculum or instructional materials for ethnic studies courses are selected, we strongly encourage you to closely scrutinize them to ensure that they meet the above requirements.”

    Newsom cites the need to include lessons about Jewish Americans in the ethnic studies curriculum in his 17-page Golden State Plan to Combat Antisemitism, issued in April 2024. It also includes, “The Governor will work with the Jewish Caucus and Legislature to pursue legislation strengthening the guardrails established by AB 101 to ensure all ethnic studies courses are free from bias, bigotry, and discriminatory content.”

    Second attempt at tighter guardrails

    That is the intent of Assembly Bill 2918, authored by Assemblymembers Rick Zbur, D-Los Angeles, and Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay. Introduced late in the last legislative session, it ran aground amid opposition from the liberated consortium and the California Teachers Association as well as criticism that it short-circuited the full legislative process. Addis and Zbur promised to start from scratch and confer with opponents and Latino, Black, and Asian legislative caucuses.

    The bill called for strengthening vague wording of the guardrails as well as requirements that more opportunities for the public to weigh in on the development of local ethnic studies courses be created before a final vote for adoption by school boards. This has not been the case in some districts and is central to a lawsuit against Santa Ana Unified.

    Newsom has not given any sign of whether he would treat funding and amending AB 101 separately or use funding as leverage for added protections. Zbur, a member of the Jewish caucus, said he’s not calling for that approach.

    “I want ethnic studies to move forward. The entire Jewish caucus supported ethnic studies when it came up (for a vote). We (he and Addis) don’t view this in a context of leverage,” he said. “We actually have faith that the education unions and our colleagues want to ensure that we meet the goals of ethnic studies in a manner that’s appropriate for all students, including Jewish students.”

    But Alvarez, who said he is “fully supportive of ensuring that the guardrails exist from the Jewish caucus perspective,” added that it’s appropriate to revise AB 101 while discussing how to fund it.  

    “We have an opportunity to ensure we get this right,” he said. “And so as we go forward and implement, we need to make sure that we do so in the best way possible. It’s germane to the requirement that it needs to be funded.” 





    Source link

  • UC faculty to consider its own high school ethnic studies mandate

    UC faculty to consider its own high school ethnic studies mandate


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    KEY TAKEAWAYS
    • The UC course criteria would promote the Liberated Ethnic Studies perspective.
    • It would likely become the default ethnic studies course in K-12 districts.
    • It would contradict the state’s own voluntary, open-ended model curriculum.

    School districts are looking to the May revision of the state budget to learn if Gov. Gavin Newsom will press ahead with a mandate to offer a high school ethnic studies course whose implementation is contingent on state funding. That will be unlikely.

    Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and a Newsom adviser, confirmed Tuesday that, given current revenue forecasts, Newsom will not be funding the mandate. He conveyed that message to a representative of the UC Academic Senate, he said.

    On Wednesday, however, representatives of the University of California faculty will decide whether to recommend that U.C. regents not wait for state funding and instead independently mandate a course. They’ll vote on a proposal (see pages 39 to 57) to require an ethnic studies course, incorporating criteria and content that Newsom and the State Board of Education have already rejected as politically extreme, for admissions to UC campuses. 

    Opponents said that adopting the proposal, which had been nearly five years in the making, would be unwise and probably illegal. 

    “Requiring such a course would entangle the university in the sorts of political and ideological disputes over ethnic studies course content that are currently roiling school districts across the state and the nation,” wrote Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA, and Matt Malkan, an astronomy professor at UCLA, in a letter to the UC Faculty Assembly of the Senate, the body that will take up the issue on Wednesday. An earlier version was signed by 440 members of the UC faculty.

    Sander and Malkan also said that the proposal “would effectively force hundreds of schools to invest large sums in creating the mandated curriculum and finding or hiring teachers to teach it”  – a step that “would probably ultimately be found to be illegal” if UC acted unilaterally.

    If the Assembly passes the proposal, it would be forwarded to UC President Michael Drake and then to the UC Regents this summer for final approval. 

    Ethnic studies faculty at UC campuses pushed for including ethnic studies among the 15 courses required for admissions, known as “A-G.” It would be satisfied through an English, history or an elective course taught through an ethnic studies lens, as UC defines it.  Ethnic studies would become “H”, a new area of concentration.  

    When adopting legislation in 2016 authorizing the creation of a voluntary, model ethnic studies curriculum, the Legislature was vague about what it intended for an ethnic studies course. It said the objective was to prepare pupils to be “global citizens with an appreciation for the contributions of multiple cultures”; school districts could “adapt courses to reflect the pupil demographics in their communities.”

    UC’s proposed criteria for high schools would take a more directive and controversial approach, reflecting the content of many college-level courses. 

    “Ethnic studies is aimed at producing critical knowledge about power, inequality, and inequity as well as the efforts of marginalized and oppressed racialized peoples to challenge systemic violence and the institutional structures that perpetuate racial injustice,” wrote the co-lead writers, UC Riverside teaching professor Wallace Cleaves and UC Santa Cruz critical race and ethnic studies and literature professor Christine Hong, in a preface explaining the intent of the criteria.

    Hong and Cleaves say it is appropriate to set rigorous course criteria for students entering UC because ethnic studies faculty created the foundational theories and instructional strategies for the academic discipline, and the State Board and local district teachers lack their expertise. 

    But the effect of adopting their course for entry into UC would be an end-run around the state board’s open-ended guidance. It would also deviate from many legislators’ vision of ethnic studies as the study of the cultures and achievements of minority groups, as well as their past and ongoing struggles with racism and discrimination. 

    The UC criteria would become the standard version that high schools would offer. In turn, UC and CSU  ethnic studies faculty would become the go-to private consultants for creating districts’ curricula and training teachers. 

    Emergence of Liberated Ethnic Studies

    UC and CSU ethnic studies faculty were primary writers of the first draft of the state’s model curriculum in 2019, but President Linda Darling-Hammond and other members of the State Board rejected it as biased, and the board hired new writers. The California Legislative Jewish Caucus objected to its characterization of Israel as an oppressive white colonial state and the call for a boycott of companies doing business with Israel.  

    “A model curriculum should be accurate, free of bias, appropriate for all learners in our diverse state and align with Governor Newsom’s vision of a California for all,” Darling-Hammond’s statement said. 

    The writers of the initial draft disavowed the final, revised model curriculum that the State Board passed in 2021. They then formed the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium and have encouraged school districts to adopt the original draft as the true alternative. More than two dozen districts have. Both Hong and Cleaves are affiliated with the consortium.

    Having gone through five revisions, the final proposal before the Assembly (pages 10 to 18)  is a toned-down version, but its purpose and guidelines for developing skills are clear. For example, toward the goal of “Applying critical analysis,” it reads, “Study histories of imperialism, dehumanization, and genocide to expose their continuity to present-day laws, ideologies, knowledge systems, dominant cultures, institutions, and structures that perpetuate racial violence, white supremacy, and other forms of oppression.”

    Sander said,  “It’s still very clearly a liberated course by which I mean it’s very ideological. It has a particular point of view on various controversial issues.”

    Under Assembly Bill 1010, the 2021 state law, high schools would have to offer a one-semester ethnic studies course starting in fall 2025 and students would have to take it for a high school diploma starting in 2029-30. Legislators explicitly referenced the rejected first draft in the law. “It is the intent of the Legislature that (districts) not use the portions of the draft model curriculum that were not adopted … due to concerns related to bias, bigotry, and discrimination,” it reads.

    Since then, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Newsom administration have reminded school districts to follow the law’s requirements for “inclusivity, sensitivity, and accuracy.”

    “We have been advised, however, that some vendors are offering materials that may not meet the requirements of AB 101,” Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and an education adviser to Newsom, wrote in a memo to districts in 2023. 

    The “liberated” version has prompted several lawsuits (see here, here and here) by Jewish families and supportive law firms charging that its one-sided perspective fosters discrimination.  

    A “target” for President Trump?

    The vote Wednesday coincides with fraught relations with the Trump administration. The president has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding from school districts and California universities that fail to curb antisemitism and teach undefined “woke” ideology on race, including critical race theory.

    “Passing the course criteria now would be like putting a target on our back,” Sander said in an interview, and undermine the university’s best defense against Trump’s effort to dictate who to hire and what ideas can be taught.

    “It is fundamentally wrong, and inconsistent with the very spirit of a university, to mandate courses that are framed by an ideology – whether that ideology comes from the left or from the right,” he said.





    Source link

  • Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate

    Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate


    Alison Yin / EdSource

    Members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus recently introduced a new bill (AB 1468) to address concerns that the state’s new ethnic studies mandate has been and will continue to be used as a vehicle for sneaking dangerous antisemitism and anti-Israel content into our classrooms. Unfortunately, AB 1468 will only serve to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, these concerns.

    In 2021, California became the first state to require an ethnic studies course for high school graduation with the passage of AB 101. Despite good intentions, this mandate has been plagued by fundamental and unresolved problems. Chief among them is that it allows school districts to choose their own curriculum, leading many to adopt materials and training from consulting groups such as the Liberated Ethnic Studies Consortium, which promote a highly politicized approach to ethnic studies, exacerbating concerns about classroom bias and antisemitism.

    Recognizing this looming threat and knowing that content standards are required for all other California courses required for high school graduation, the Jewish legislators have introduced a bill to establish state-approved standards to prevent antisemitic content and ensure ethnic studies is taught in a way that respects all communities.

    The lack of content standards, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more troubling is the absence of any consensus on what kind of subject ethnic studies even is. Some proponents view it as an inclusive, objective examination of the history, culture and contributions of various ethnic groups in the state. This understanding appears to have guided California legislators in passing the ethnic studies mandate with AB 101, whose author stated, “California is one of the most diverse states in the country, and we should celebrate that diversity by teaching a curriculum that is inclusive of all of our cultures and backgrounds.”

    Others, however, hold a radically different view. They believe high school ethnic studies should replicate the university-level discipline, which focuses primarily on four racial groups and is rooted in ideologically driven frameworks that emphasize systemic oppression and promote political activism, often incorporating antisemitic content. This approach, championed by state university ethnic studies faculty, teachers unions and Liberated consulting groups, has infiltrated many school districts.

    The lack of consensus about the very nature of ethnic studies has led to fierce battles over curricula, which have played out in contentious school board meetings and costly legal challenges, underscoring the folly of implementing a mandatory ethnic studies course without any common understanding of the subject.

    The folly becomes even graver when considering that the primary justification for an ethnic studies mandate — its supposed improvement of student outcomes — is wholly unfounded. The single empirical study claiming to demonstrate the academic benefits of ethnic studies was thoroughly debunked by scholars at the University of California and the University of Pennsylvania, who warned that “no conclusion” could be drawn from its data. Worse, an ethnic studies mandate forces students to take a controversial course with no demonstrable academic benefits in place of one with clear value, such as world history.

    The mandate’s serious flaws were well-known before the passage of AB 101, which raises the question: How could state legislators establish a law requiring all students to take a course with no agreed-upon subject matter, content standards or proven academic benefits and, under the Liberated approach to ethnic studies, that was likely to sow divisiveness and incite antisemitism?

    Unfortunately, the Jewish Caucus’ idea of adding standards to a deeply flawed mandate, though well-intentioned, will not fix the problem. Given the entrenched influence of teachers unions, university ethnic studies faculty and Liberated consultants over who teaches high school ethnic studies and how it’s taught, any attempt to add standards will inevitably be co-opted by these groups, further entrenching an ideological version of ethnic studies that is divisive, controversial and harmful to Jewish students. Moreover, AB 1468 risks giving a false sense of security to concerned parents and community members while failing to address deeper issues.

    Now is the time to reconsider — not reinforce — the ethnic studies mandate.

    Thankfully, a critical provision in AB 101 has been largely overlooked: The mandate is only operative when the Legislature provides funding for it, which has not yet occurred. And given California’s current financial crisis and the fact that the mandate is estimated to cost the state a whopping $275 million annually, it’s unlikely to become operational anytime soon. This presents an opportunity for legislators to do what is best for all California students: Instead of trying to salvage a foolhardy mandate that is beyond repair, legislators must work to repeal it.

    Without a state-funded graduation requirement, school districts could still offer ethnic studies as an elective or even a local graduation requirement, allowing communities to decide whether the course serves their students’ needs. However, given the cost, controversy and administrative burden involved with implementing an ethnic studies requirement without state support, it is doubtful many districts will proceed with it on their own. As a result, the ethnic studies industry — especially consulting groups like Liberated and university-based teacher training programs —will lose their primary source of demand and begin to wither, removing a major driver of politicized and antisemitic content in California classrooms.

    Legislators now face a clear choice: double down on a mandate that divides communities, burdens schools, and fails students, or take this opportunity to end it before it does further harm. Repealing AB 101 isn’t just prudent policy — it’s a necessary course correction.

    •••

    Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is the director of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating antisemitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.

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





    Source link