اینترنت

برچسب: Million

  • LAUSD agrees to issue $500 million in bonds to settle sexual abuse claims

    LAUSD agrees to issue $500 million in bonds to settle sexual abuse claims


    The Los Angeles Unified school board did not discuss the bonds for settling sexual abuse claims before members authorized them on June 3.

    Credit: Livestream recordings of LAUSD board meetings

    The article was updated on June 18 to include LAUSD’s previously undisclosed information revising total costs of the bonds it authorized to settle sexual abuse claims against it.

    Top Takeaways
    • School trustees authorize bonds without comment or public explanation.
    • The total cost of $500 million in bonds could reach $765 million.
    • Other districts also face massive costs in response to a 2019 state law.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board has quietly authorized issuing a half-billion dollars in bonds to settle decades-old sexual abuse cases involving former students. 

    And that will likely not be enough to settle all the claims the nation’s second-largest school district is facing under 2019 legislation that allows victims of abuse by school employees to seek damages for incidents dating back decades.

    Since Jan. 1, 2020, LAUSD has received approximately 370 child abuse claims under Assembly Bill 218, of which 81 cases have been settled or dismissed, according to data that LAUSD released this week. The district stated it is currently defending against more than 275 claims; approximately 76 allege abuses dating back to the 1940s through 1970s, while 45 to 50 claims allege abuses in the 1980s. 

    Board members approved the expenditure on June 3 without comment or a public presentation, agreeing to borrow up to $500 million through judgment obligation bonds.  Unlike bonds for school construction, they did not require voter approval. The claims are not covered by insurance carriers. 

    The scant information in the meeting agenda estimated the total cost of the bonds, including principal and interest, at $899 million. It assumed a now outdated 6.10% interest rate, documents show (see Page 3).

    On Monday, the district lowered its estimate. It said it would initially issue $303 million in 15-year bonds, instead of 20-year bonds, at the current interest rate of 5.6%. At that rate, the total cost of $500 million in bonds would be $765 million.

    “The board has been talking about judgment obligation bonds for, I would say, about a year and a half,” board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said in an interview. Spreading out the payments means “the district’s current students aren’t punished by depleting resources,” she said.

    No public hearings were held. Board members were briefed about the matter in small groups, she said. “We also had several conversations in closed sessions, as we typically do with legal cases.” She did not disclose the number of claims made against the district or how many were settled.

    The district administration will likely ask the board to approve more borrowing next year to settle additional claims, Ortiz Franklin said. 

    The district is far from alone in facing massive payouts to victims who have filed claims under the legislation, Assembly Bill 218, which experts say is impacting local public agencies throughout the state.

    Los Angeles County alone is facing $4 billion in settlements involving formerly incarcerated juveniles and foster youth.

    By taking on long-term debt to deal with the AB 218 cases, LAUSD is “lessening any potential impacts to (its) core education programs in the near term,” by spreading out the settlement costs, supporting documents provided to board members stated. Nonetheless, issuing $500 million in bonds would reduce spending on students by tens of millions of dollars annually from the district’s general fund during the years it takes to pay off the bonds. 

    In a statement this week that pointed to potential costs that could “bankrupt entire school systems,” LAUSD urged state leaders and advocates to work with districts “to ensure we can meet our moral obligation to survivors while still protecting the essential right to a free, high-quality public education for all students.”

    “Los Angeles Unified unequivocally believes that survivors of sexual abuse deserve to be heard, supported, and empowered to pursue justice on their own terms. AB 218 has enabled victims of childhood sexual assault to seek justice with less legal limitations,” it stated. 

    “However, we must also acknowledge the very real and unintended consequences”  on  school districts that “may face lawsuits from decades past, even when current leadership, policies, and practices have changed dramatically,” it continued.

    AB 218, brought by then-Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, rolled back the statute of limitations for abuse claims involving public employees like teachers to “22 years from the date the plaintiff” becomes an adult “or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after” reaching adulthood was caused by sexual assault. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill on Oct. 13, 2019.

    Messages left at Gonzalez’s office were not returned. 

    Legislative records show that proponents of AB 218 argued that sexual assault scandals involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts showed that victims of child sexual abuse sometimes took years to come forward, often after the statute of limitations to seek damages had expired. 

    “Victims who are ready to come forward today deserve an opportunity to expose their perpetrators and those who covered up the abuse,” members of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Victim Policy Institute told lawmakers, records show.

    Opponents of the bill, including the California Association of School Business Officials and other groups, expressed concerns about cost.

    “It will be impossible for employers to effectively defend against these claims when evidence is likely gone, witnesses have moved or passed away, and there has been a turnover of staff,” a summary of opponents’ concerns in legislative archives stated. “With these barriers, schools will be unable to adequately respond to these claims. This failure will result in diversion of funding intended to educate students and serve communities to financing increased legal costs, whether or not the claim is valid.”

    A Senate staff analysis warned of “unknown, potentially major out-year costs to local entities and school districts to the extent litigation is successfully brought outside the current statute of limitations and/or the entities are liable for damages.”  The bill was unanimously passed by both the Senate and the Assembly.

    Last week, in an interview, an advocate for taxpayers was critical of the debts the legislation created for school districts and other agencies. 

    “These bonds are going to hang around the necks of school districts for decades,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “There has to be a statute of limitations,” he said. “Witnesses are probably gone. All cases have to be time-barred at some point. This is bad policy.”

    School districts across the state are facing similar claims allowed by AB 218 and facing crises of how to pay for settlements, according to a January report by the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, or FCMAT. As the matter evolves, there is no firm number of the number of claims so far brought against districts, “but the best estimate is $2 billion to $3 billion.” 

    “A comprehensive analysis of claims is not available,” the report states. “But what we can conclude is that the impact is significant.” 

    FCMAT concluded that “the goal should be to completely eliminate childhood sexual assault in public schools” and to “increase mandated training to build awareness of, and reporting options for, childhood sexual assault.”

    Other recommendations, such as creating a victim compensation fund to eliminate claims brought against individual public agencies, have received little support in the Legislature and were opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the FCMAT’s chief executive officer, Michael Fine, said in an interview.

    The claims and settlements, Fine said, continue to pile up. “The data changes daily.”





    Source link

  • Arizona: Cost of Universal Vouchers Reaches $872 Million per Year

    Arizona: Cost of Universal Vouchers Reaches $872 Million per Year


    The Grand Canyon Institute has been tracking the growth and cost of vouchers and charter schools in Arizona for several years. The vast majority of students who take vouchers (almost 3/4). But this year, a larger share were drawn from district schools and charter schools.

    The report contains a number of excellent graphics. Open the lin to see them.

    This is the Grand Canyon Institute release:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Cost of Universal ESA Vouchers

    Contact: Dave Wells, Research Director, dwells@azgci.org or 602.595.1025 ex. 2.

    Summary of Findings

    • 73% of Universal ESA voucher enrollees have never attended district or charter schools (including adjustments for students entering Kindergarten).
    • In FY2025, however, net new Universal ESA voucher enrollees primarily came from charter and district schools.
    • While the total cost of the overall ESA program in FY2025 is expected to be $872 million, the net cost after adjusting for where students would have otherwise attended is $350 million for those in the universal ESA voucher program. This represents a slight increase from the $332 million estimated by the Grand Canyon Institute last year.

    The Grand Canyon Institute (GCI) estimates a $350 million net cost to the state’s General Fund in FY2025 (July 2024-June 2025) for the universal component of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) voucher program based on a student’s school of origin. This represents a slight increase over the estimated FY2024 cost of $332 million. The estimate assumes basic student funding weights. 

    The Joint Legislative  Budget Committee currently estimates the total annual cost of the ESA program to be $872 million, which includes the original targeted program and the universal component. Because student-level data on the universal program is not separated out by the Arizona Dept. of Education, GCI must estimate the origin of universal program enrollees. GCI’s estimate reflects the net cost the state would have incurred if the universal ESA voucher program did not exist. Almost every single child in the original targeted program had to attend a district or charter school for at least 45 days before enrolling in the program. GCI uses historical data on where the targeted students had come from previously, dating back to FY2017, along with current data on where all ESA students have left district or charter schools to estimate the distribution of students across district and charter schools for the original targeted program and the remainder are allocated to the universal program. 

    In FY2025, the net growth in the universal ESA vouchers was 7,660 of the total enrollment of 61,688. GCI estimates that 73% of ESA universal voucher recipients never attended a district or charter school, slightly lower than the rate of 80% in FY2025. This includes estimates for kindergarten students using ESA universal vouchers. 

    The primary driver of the change in FY2025 was a significant increase in the portion of net new enrollees from district and charter schools. GCI examined the marginal changes since last year and estimates that nearly half the net gain in universal participants of 7,660 from FY2024Q2 to FY2025Q2 came via Kindergarten. Analyzing changes in the portion of students previously attending a district or charter school, GCI estimates that less than 10% never attended (or would have never attended for Kindergarten) while half came from charter schools and just over 40% came from districts.

    This change helped lessen the growth of the net cost of the program. GCI presumes that Kindergarten students do not have a record of prior attendance but would mirror the same distribution.  Given that charter school enrollment is about one-fourth of district enrollment, charter schools have been significantly disproportionately impacted by the Universal ESA program.

    Despite the change in FY2025, the majority of participants in the universal ESA program never attended a district or charter school should be self-evident. For FY2025, the Quarter 3 Executive and Legislative ESA report identifies that of the total 87,602 students enrolled in the ESA voucher program (targeted and universal), regardless of when they first enrolled, only 33,942 students  moved from charter or district schools to an ESA. Virtually all targeted participants must first enroll in a district or charter school first. The universal program does not require prior attendance. 

    Access the full report here.

    The Grand Canyon Institute, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization, is a centrist think tank led by a bipartisan group of former state lawmakers, economists, community leaders and academicians. The Grand Canyon Institute serves as an independent voice reflecting a pragmatic approach to addressing economic, fiscal, budgetary and taxation issues confronting Arizona.



    Source link

  • LAUSD agrees to fund $900 million to settle sexual assault lawsuits

    LAUSD agrees to fund $900 million to settle sexual assault lawsuits


    The Los Angeles Unified school board did not discuss the bonds for settling sexual assault lawsuits before members authorized them on June 3.

    Source: Livestream recordings of Los Angeles Unified board meetings

    Top Takeaways
    • School trustees authorize bonds without comment or public explanation.
    • Lawmakers were warned of the financial impact of erasing the statute of limitations.
    • Other districts also face massive costs in response to a 2019 state law.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board has quietly approved borrowing nearly $900 million — including interest — to settle decades-old sexual assault cases involving former students. 

    And that will likely not be enough to settle all the claims the nation’s second-largest school district is facing under 2019 legislation that allows victims of abuse by school employees to seek damages for incidents dating back to the 1970s. District spokesperson Britt Vaughan would not say how many claims the district faces, the number that have been settled and what they have cost to date.

    Board members approved the expenditure on June 3 without comment, agreeing to borrow up to $500 million through judgment obligation bonds with an estimated 6.10% interest rate, documents show. Unlike bonds for school construction, they did not require voter approval. The debt is due to be paid off in 15 years. The claims are not covered by insurance carriers. 

    This fiscal year, the district’s undisclosed number of settlement claims was roughly $302 million, Vaughan said.

    “The board has been talking about judgment obligation bonds for, I would say, about a year and a half,” board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said in an interview. Spreading out the payments means “the district’s current students aren’t punished by depleting resources,” she said.

    No public hearings were held. Board members were briefed about the matter in small groups, she said. “We also had several conversations in closed sessions, as we typically do with legal cases.” She did not disclose the number of claims made against the district or how many were settled.

    The district administration will likely ask the board to approve more borrowing next year to settle additional claims, Ortiz Franklin said. 

    The district is far from alone in facing massive payouts to victims who have filed claims under the legislation, Assembly Bill 218, which experts say is impacting local public agencies throughout the state.

    Los Angeles County alone is facing $4 billion in settlements involving formerly incarcerated juveniles and foster youth.

    By taking on long-term debt to deal with the AB 218 cases, LAUSD is “lessening any potential impacts to (its) core education programs in the near term,” by spreading out the settlement costs, supporting documents provided to board members stated. Nonetheless, the cost of paying down the bonds will reduce spending on students from the district’s general fund by tens of millions of dollars annually for the 15 years after the bond is issued. 

    AB 218, brought by then-Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, rolled back the statute of limitations for abuse claims involving public employees like teachers to “22 years from the date the plaintiff” becomes an adult “or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after” reaching adulthood was caused by sexual assault. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill on Oct. 13, 2019.

    Messages left at Gonzalez’s office were not returned. 

    Legislative records show that proponents of AB 218 argued that sexual assault scandals involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts showed that victims of child sexual abuse sometimes took years to come forward, often after the statute of limitations to seek damages had expired. 

    “Victims who are ready to come forward today deserve an opportunity to expose their perpetrators and those who covered up the abuse,” members of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Victim Policy Institute told lawmakers, records show.

    Opponents of the bill, including the California Association of School Business Officials and other groups, expressed concerns about cost.

    “It will be impossible for employers to effectively defend against these claims when evidence is likely gone, witnesses have moved or passed away, and there has been a turnover of staff,” a summary of opponents’ concerns in legislative archives stated. “With these barriers, schools will be unable to adequately respond to these claims. This failure will result in diversion of funding intended to educate students and serve communities to financing increased legal costs, whether or not the claim is valid.”

    A Senate staff analysis warned of “unknown, potentially major out-year costs to local entities and school districts to the extent litigation is successfully brought outside the current statute of limitations and/or the entities are liable for damages.”  The bill was unanimously passed by both the Senate and the Assembly.

    Last week, in an interview, an advocate for taxpayers was critical of the debts the legislation created for school districts and other agencies. 

    “These bonds are going to hang around the necks of school districts for decades,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “There has to be a statute of limitations,” he said. “Witnesses are probably gone. All cases have to be time-barred at some point. This is bad policy.”

    School districts across the state are facing similar claims allowed by AB 218 and facing crises of how to pay for settlements, according to a January report by the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, or FCMAT. As the matter evolves, there is no firm number of the number of claims so far brought against districts, “but the best estimate is $2 billion to $3 billion.” 

    “A comprehensive analysis of claims is not available,” the report states. “But what we can conclude is that the impact is significant.” 

    FCMAT concluded that “the goal should be to completely eliminate childhood sexual assault in public schools” and to “increase mandated training to build awareness of, and reporting options for, childhood sexual assault.”

    Other recommendations, such as creating a victim compensation fund to eliminate claims brought against individual public agencies, have received little support in the Legislature and were opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the FCMAT’s chief executive officer, Michael Fine, said in an interview.

    The claims and settlements, Fine said, continue to pile up. “The data changes daily.”





    Source link

  • California releases $470 million to put students on track for college and career

    California releases $470 million to put students on track for college and career


    Students at Skyline High School in Oakland discuss coursework in one of four career-themed pathways.

    Photo by Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    California has made good on a promise in the 2022 budget to invest in programs that simultaneously prepare students for both college and career. 

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office announced Friday that the state has released $470 million to 302 school districts, charters and county offices of education to fund the Golden State Pathways program.

    The program allows students to “advance seamlessly from high school to college and career and provides the workforce needed for economic growth.”

    “It’s an incredibly historic investment for the state,” said Anne Stanton, president of the Linked Learning Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates giving youth opportunities to learn about careers.

    Both the state and federal governments previously made big investments in preparing students for college or career at the K-12 level, but the Golden State Pathways program is different in that it challenges school districts, colleges, employers and other community groups to create “pathways” — or a focused series of courses — that prepare K-12 students for college and career at the same time. These pathways aim to prepare students for well-paying careers in fields such as health care, education and technology, while also ensuring that they take 12 college credits through dual enrollment courses and the A-G classes needed to apply to public four-year universities.

    “By establishing career technical pathways that are also college preparatory, the Golden State Pathways Program provides a game-changing opportunity for California’s young people,” State Superintendent of Public Instruction Thurmond said in a statement.

    The Golden State Pathways are an important part of the new master plan for education — Newsom’s vision to transform career education in California — which is expected by the year’s end.

    The state is distributing the vast majority of the funding — $422 million — to enable schools to implement their plans in partnership with higher education and other community partners. The remaining $48 million will assist those who still need grants for planning.

    All sorts of schools throughout the state — rural and urban, large and small — benefited from the funding.

    Schools in the rural Northern California counties of Tehama and Humboldt — whose K-12 enrollment is under 30,000 students — jointly received about $30 million to implement and plan pathways to help students stay on track for college and careers with livable wages.

    “That’s a big deal to have that kind of influx going to that many small schools,” said Jim Southwick, assistant superintendent of the Tehama County Office of Education, which plans to expand career pathways in education, health care, construction, manufacturing and agriculture.

    Schools in Tehama had previously begun to implement career pathways at the high school level in concert with local employers and Shasta College. However, many students struggled to complete the pathways because they were ill-prepared in middle school, Southwick said. 

    But one middle school pilot program did successfully introduce students to career education, he added, leading to an influx of funding through the Golden State Pathways that will expand the program to other middle schools. 

    Long Beach Unified, the fourth-largest district in the state, received about $12 million through the Golden State Pathways program. District spokesperson Elvia Cano said the funding will provide counseling and extra support for students navigating dual enrollment, Advanced Placement courses, college aid, externships and other work-based learning opportunities.

    The district also plans to increase access to dual enrollment through partner Long Beach Community College and to create a new pathway in arts, media and entertainment at select high schools.

    Advocates are celebrating the governor’s commitment to the program despite the uncertainty surrounding the budget this year.

    Linda Collins, founder and executive director of Career Ladders Project, which supports redesigning community colleges to support students, said, “It’s an impressive commitment at a time that it’s desperately needed.” 

    Newsom said in a statement that this funding will help students even if they don’t go to college , saying it “will be a game-changer for thousands of students as the state invests in pathways to good-paying, high-need careers — including those that don’t require college degrees.”





    Source link

  • California wants to accelerate schools’ efforts to build 2.3 million units of housing

    California wants to accelerate schools’ efforts to build 2.3 million units of housing


    A view of the courtyard from the third floor of a housing complex for teachers and education staff of Jefferson Union High School District in Daly City on July 8, 2022.

    Credit: Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo

    Jefferson Union High School District used to lose a quarter of its staff every year, which meant that it began every school year scrambling to fill vacancies. That changed in 2022 when the Daly City-based district developed affordable housing for its staff.

    The district built 122 units on school district-owned land that is now fully occupied by 25% of the district’s staff. Board member Andy Lie said the district is beginning the new school year with zero vacancies, a transformation he calls “remarkable” and “unheard of in public education.”

    In January, legislation to ease zoning requirements for school districts interested in building affordable housing took effect. Jefferson Union High and a handful of other districts in the state are ahead of others in providing housing for both teachers and classified staff.

    Districts with success stories, as well as local and state leaders, will be at an Aug. 14 housing summit convened by the California Department of Education (CDE). During a news conference Tuesday at department headquarters, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said schools own 75,000 acres of undeveloped land that could be used to build 2.3 million units. Thurmond wants to see these units built over the next eight years as a way to address California’s teacher shortage.

    Citing overwhelming interest in this matter, the California School Boards Association’s presentation on the topic this month noted that 158 of about 1,000 school districts have expressed interest in providing affordable housing for education staff. Eight districts already provide housing or have housing under construction, while the vast majority of the rest are in the early stages of exploring it.

    The California School Boards Association (CSBA) has created a map showing the status of housing projects across the state. To access more information expand the map to full screen:

    Recruiting and retaining school staff

    State and local officials say that building housing goes a long way toward solving many of the problems both schools and other Californians face. Salaries of school staff are often far below the median rent in many areas, which creates difficulties finding or retaining staff. That leads to long commutes for staff whose household budgets are already stretched thin.

    Many districts dealing with declining enrollment and associated financial woes consider selling off some of their land, a valuable resource in California, for short-term gain, according to Andrew Keller, senior director of operations and strategic initiatives for CSBA.

    Developing housing on that land instead makes a dent in California’s affordability crisis and helps retain teachers, while also offering school districts a new stream of no-strings-attached funding. Schools can typically rent far below market value while still earning income that can support them long-term, Keller said.

    Jefferson Union High School District found no shortage of staff members interested in their affordable housing. The district currently has a waitlist of 30 members. Thurmond would also like to see legislation that would allow districts to open their units to the wider community because students and their families are also struggling with the affordability of California.

    In Los Angeles, LAUSD has three projects with 185 units that serve its employees — and Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the district is surveying employees and considering opening more affordable housing on 10 sites. But the district has also launched a project aimed at helping local families in concert with Many Mansions, a local nonprofit. The Sun King Apartments is a 25-unit facility that offers permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless families with children enrolled in LAUSD schools.

    Even school districts that led the trend said it was a struggle to make the pitch to the community. Richard Barrera, a San Diego Unified School District board member, said community members would be confused about why the district would need to get into the housing business.

    “If we don’t recruit and retain educators, we can’t do our job as educators,” Barrera said.

    San Diego Unified has a goal of opening up 1,500 affordable units to house 10% of its staff, thanks to a school bond measure that passed in 2022, Barrera said.

    Thurmond would like to see legislation that creates even more financial incentives for districts to build housing, which might help those seeking bond measures to fund projects. He noted that educator housing is also eligible for the $500 million in available annual housing tax credits from the state.

    Some school districts have had trouble convincing voters that building housing for teachers and staff is worth it. In 2020, school bond measures for staff housing failed at Patterson Joint Unified School District in Stanislaus County, Soledad Unified in Monterey County and East Side Union High School District in Santa Clara County. 

    Even Jefferson Union High School District eked out a narrow win with just over the 55% requirement needed to pass.

    “The community didn’t quite understand what it was that we were doing,” Lie said, “but it passed.”

    Lie said that staff morale has improved, and the district can now rely on veterans to stick around and build on their success in Jefferson Union High School District, demonstrating why affordable housing for staff is so important to student success. 

    “We can’t give our best to our students if our educators are struggling with housing insecurity,” he said.

    Resources for districts

    CSBA has joined forces with researchers to create resources for districts interested in building housing — to help overcome one of the biggest concerns about school districts lacking expertise in building housing, Keller said. 

    Researchers want to make the process as easy as possible for schools, said Manos Proussaloglou, assistant director at UCLA’s cityLAB, including preparing guides, based on lessons learned both from both successful and unsuccessful projects. 

    “We’re really interested in learning why some educational workforce housing projects start but then stall — and see if we can learn from those,” Proussaloglou said.

    To expedite the process of building, researchers from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley have created a map that homes in on the communities that will most benefit.

    “Ultimately, those are the districts we really want to work with and make sure they understand that it is an opportunity to address those challenges,” said Sara Hinkley, the California program manager at the Center for Cities + Schools.

    The calculations behind the map by UC Berkeley are where Thurmond got the number of 2.3 million potential units in the state. That figure assumes that every extra acre of developable land a school district owns could support 30 units.

    The map tallies the surplus property California school districts own, considering factors such as how many are on school campuses or completely undeveloped sites and whether those sites are close to amenities like public transit, while also accounting for annual teacher turnover rate, the demographics of the school, enrollment and the gap between staff salaries and median rents.

    “We know that until we can pay teachers and classified staff better — which is our priority, that building affordable housing for them is an important tool for educator recruitment and retention,” said Thurmond.





    Source link

  • ‘Something went wrong’: state reconsiders who will get $470 million for college and career grants

    ‘Something went wrong’: state reconsiders who will get $470 million for college and career grants


    A student in Oakland’s Skyline High School Education and Community Health Pathway sculpts a clay model of the endocrine system.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    UPDATE: The California Department of Education has announced a new timeline for the Golden State Pathways Program. Learn more.

    In June 2022, the California Legislature decided to invest a half billion dollars into the Golden State Pathways Program, a career and college preparation program that Gov. Gavin Newsom called a “game-changer” for high school students. But two years later, frustration is rising among school leaders who have begun another school year without the promised funding.

    Advocates say the vision of the Golden State Pathways Program laid out by the Legislature is both progressive and practical. Career pathways aim to prepare high school students with both college preparatory courses and career education in fields such as STEM, education or health care. But those same advocates are frustrated by the program’s rollout, which they say has been beset by late deadlines, a confusing application process and delayed funding.

    “We are approaching a third budget cycle, and to not have the money out the door is derelict,” said Kevin Gordon, president of the education consultancy Capitol Advisors Group. He lobbies on behalf of clients that include school districts that were promised funding.

    The most recent snafu came to light when the California Department of Education announced in July that it was again reviewing the way it would dole out grant money — two months after Newsom and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced the 302 districts and education entities that would be recipients of $470 million.

    Previously announced Golden State Pathways Program grant recipients include school districts large and small, charters, regional occupational centers and county offices of education. Recipients could receive up to $500,000 to implement one career pathway, and $200,000 to plan a pathway. Districts with many high schools and pathways could expect millions or even tens of millions of dollars in grants.

    Schools plan to use the grant money to expand dual enrollment, increase exposure to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers through programs like job shadowing, and to hire support staff to help students with their college and career plans.

    Administrators counting on that funding said the news that the California Department of Education (CDE) was reviewing grant awards has thrown their plans and budgets for this school year into disarray.

    One administrator at a midsize school district said the prospect of not receiving the expected grants, especially in the wake of sunsetting pandemic funds, is difficult. This administrator asked to speak on background, citing a concern that CDE could hold it against the district during the ongoing grant review process.

    “Our district had an implementation plan that we are continuing to move forward with, and we are hopeful that the funding will materialize,” the administrator said. “The unfortunate part is that there are other resources that students will not receive if the funding doesn’t come through.”

    A group of organizations penned a letter asking state leaders to do everything in their power to get the promised funds flowing by November for a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” Signatories included advocacy groups such EdTrust-West, school districts in Los Angeles, Oakland and Sacramento and even businesses such as the port of Long Beach. The letter to Newsom, Thurmond and Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education, referred to delays that have affected the competitive grant program.

    “We are extremely concerned, as this is not the first time processes have been delayed without a stated resolution date,” the letter stated.

    Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Tim Hire said he hopes to work with the state to find a swift resolution for the sake of students. The Tulare County Office of Education was selected as the lead agency for the state in November.

    “When there’s a delay, that means kids aren’t accessing those experiences and resources,” Hire said.

    Schools are in limbo

    There were signs during May’s announcement of grant awards that something went awry, according to school administrators.

    One school district was awarded three times the funding it requested, and others were awarded 1.5 times what they applied for, according to a countywide administrator. This administrator also asked for anonymity over a concern about CDE’s possible reaction to speaking out. 

    These local education agencies (LEAs) “don’t have the capacity to do three times as much work, even if they were awarded three times as much money,” the countrywide administrator said. This problem left school leaders “frustrated and a bit confused.”

    Hire confirmed that “overallocation” of grants was a problem across the state. Some schools received more than they asked, while others received none, but it wasn’t clear why.

    “Why did a district receive more than they requested?” he stated. “That’s a legitimate question to ask.”

    Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the department, said last May’s announcement was “preliminary.” The reconsideration of the recipients resulted from a “substantial” number of appeals, according to a July 16 statement.

    “Upon receiving appeals for Golden State Pathways Grant awards, the CDE determined that it was necessary to review all awards allocations in order to ensure that allocations are distributed consistently and fairly,” Roark wrote in a statement. The review will conclude by the end of September, he added. There will be a window for further appeals before funds are released.

    Many schools believed the announcement was official and included the awards in annual school budgets passed before July 1, according to an administrator who also declined to be identified by name, and who assisted schools with their grant applications.

    Roark said that the department received appeals for a “range of reasons” but declined to say what those reasons were.

    The review of $470 million in funds, now stretching well beyond the beginning of the school year, has put districts in an uneasy position. 

    Some school districts have put their plans on hold amid the uncertainty. By the time the grant funding is actually released, “it will likely be too late to hire,” said the administrator at a mid-sized district. “That puts the program launch another year behind.”

    Long Beach Unified is splitting the difference by moving forward with only a portion of the initiatives the district outlined in its grant application. In the initial announcement, the district was awarded $10.7 million in implementation grants and $335,523 in planning grants.

    Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was initially awarded $37.8 million in implementation grants and $200,000 in planning grants. A district spokesperson said it will be difficult to understand the effect of the revised awards until they’re announced.

    “We will have a better sense of its impact at that time,” said Britt Vaughan, a spokesperson for LAUSD.

    Regional leaders don’t have contracts

    It’s not just schools that have been left in financial limbo by the delayed rollout. 

    Up to 5% of $500 million for the program is set aside for grant administration, mostly through county offices of education. But that funding has yet to go out to the state lead and eight regional agencies for work they have been doing since January.

    Hire said that not having a contractual agreement yet with CDE has put the Tulare County Office of Education in an “uncomfortable position,” especially during a tight budget year.

    “We delayed hiring and just spread the workload among our current staff, which is challenging and probably not the best delivery of service,” Hire said.

    Colby Smart, deputy superintendent for the Humboldt County Office of Education, said this program is vital for California’s workforce, not just a “nice-to- have.” He expects the state will ultimately send funding to the regional lead office for Northern California, but the office has faced many “roadblocks,” including finalizing its contract and nailing down the scope of work.

    The administrator of one regional lead, who declined to use their name, said, “I’ve never in my life seen such dysfunction.”

    Rollout was ‘set up to fail’

    The rollout of the grant funding has faced hiccups along the way.

    The legislation behind the Golden State Pathways Program passed during the 2022-23 legislative session. Requests for proposals didn’t go out that year, but the program survived a massive budget cut in the next legislative session. In January, the department put out its request for proposals.

    Originally, March 19 was the deadline for grant proposals for programs that would begin in April. But due to “overwhelming interest,” the department said it needed extra time to complete the reviews. The awards were announced May 31.

    Administrators who worked on the proposal said that the application process itself was fraught. CDE revised the grant application several times.

    “They created something that was so complex from the get-go that it was set up to fail,” said Kathy Goodacre, the CEO of CTE Foundation, a nonprofit that works with school districts in Sonoma County. “But still, something went wrong.”

    CDE denied that a review of this magnitude was unprecedented.

    “Though we work to avoid significant review when possible, a review is not highly unusual and has occurred in the past,” Roark wrote in a statement.

    Both the federal and state governments have made big investments in preparing high school students for college and career at the K-12 level. The Golden State Pathways Program is a key piece of the governor’s plan for career education — a broad vision to ensure that all the agencies in the state are working together coherently.

    The countywide administrator said the problems with the rollout of the Golden State Pathways Program is an example of what happens when the funding for career and technical education (CTE) is not coherent. Funding for career pathways comes from over a dozen grants, some of which require applications every year. That creates a burden for both local education agencies and CDE, the administrator said.

    “Funding CTE is like buying programs on gift cards,” the countywide administrator stated. “We never know what we will get.”

    Even though the rollout of the Golden State Pathways Program has been frustrating, educators say that the program is critical for the state.

    “Half a billion is important for our students and our future,” the countywide administrator stated. “We want students to have economic mobility and make more than their parents did.”





    Source link

  • Grant rollout fiasco: CDE announces $470 million in Golden State Pathways awards for a third time

    Grant rollout fiasco: CDE announces $470 million in Golden State Pathways awards for a third time


    Students in a Linked Learning Engineering Pathway.

    Photo: Linked Learning Alliance

    This story has been updated to include the news that the California Department of Education announced the awards for a third time.

    Will the third time be a charm?

    The California Department of Education announced the recipients of $470 million in grants for the Golden State Pathways Program, for a third time on Friday.

    The ambitious effort is aimed at high schools creating career pathways in fields such as STEM, education and health care, but it has faced a troubled rollout.

    CDE first announced the grant awards in May and then pulled them back in July. The announcement that the grants were revoked once again came on Oct. 1.

    CDE said the agency temporarily removed the September grants results after school districts “questioned the funding results,” according to a statement from CDE spokesperson Scott Roark. This decision was made to “ensure the integrity of the grant distribution process, so that all [Local Educational Agencies] receive their allocated funds based on correct and verified data.”

    Advocates call the Golden State Pathways an important investment to improve the economic mobility for the next generation of Californians. But they are frustrated that more than two years after the legislature approved the program, money has not begun to roll out.

    “To our knowledge, the CDE hasn’t been forthcoming about why they’ve recalled these latest results, nor why we’re seeing yet another delay, which we find alarming,” said Denise Luna, the higher ed policy director for EdTrust-West. “What we need to see as soon as possible is grant award information that the CDE can stand by and for those monies to flow to districts immediately.”

    The advocacy group was one of the signatories of a September letter calling on state leaders to release the promised funds by November.

    The Golden State Pathways Program was approved by the legislature in 2022. The application called for grant proposals for programs that would begin in April. But the CDE didn’t announce the grant results until May 31. In July, CDE announced it was recalling and reviewing those grants.

    CDE has offered no explanations about what caused the problems that led to the recall of the May grant results or those results announced Sept. 20.

    After the July recall, administrators told EdSource that there were some clear red flags: some school districts had been awarded up to three times the amount of funding that they had applied for. Schools were counting on that money for this school year. 

    Roark acknowledged that this delay is “frustrating” but stated that the reevaluation was done to “ensure the integrity of the grant distribution process.” 

    “The review of these results is a top priority for CDE as we work to expedite the process and deliver final outcomes as quickly as possible,” he wrote, in a statement.

    Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Tim Hire, who is heading the lead agency for the state, said that he is not sure what kind of technical issues the CDE is facing in rolling out these grants. However, he has seen the CDE take additional steps to ensure the grants are rolled out more smoothly, such as bringing on Erika Torres, deputy superintendent of strategy, policy and special projects.

    “I think there’s been some movement and some effort by the CDE to improve the process,” he said.

    Right now, everyone is in a “holding pattern,” said Hire, but these regional agencies are doing everything they can to prepare for the grants to be disbursed — and ultimately help students to have unique experiences and opportunities that prepare them for fulfilling careers.

    “We’re continuing to plan and try to do everything we can to prepare the regional leads,” he said, “so that when the allocations come — and everyone agrees that they’re appropriate and accurate — they can fast-track the work of the districts.”





    Source link

  • Professor, community college reach $2.4 million settlement in free speech case

    Professor, community college reach $2.4 million settlement in free speech case


    Matthew Garrett, a former professor at Bakersfield College, recently settled a lawsuit with his former employer.

    Credit: Bakersfield College / Facebook

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    A long-running saga involving a Kern County community college professor — hailed as a defender of free speech by some but by others as a source of campus strife — has ended with a $2.4 million payment from the community college district and the professor’s resignation. 

    Matthew Garrett, who was a tenured professor of history at Bakersfield College, resigned from his position and agreed to drop all claims against the Kern Community College District, according to settlement terms reached in July.

    That includes the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, claiming that the community college district violated Garrett’s First Amendment rights. Garrett also agreed to drop an administrative challenge to the district’s board, which had voted in favor of firing Garrett on April 13, 2023.

    The federal suit alleging free speech violations will continue with Erin Miller, also a history professor at Bakersfield College, as lead plaintiff. The next hearing is set for Nov. 7 at the Robert E. Coyle U.S. Courthouse in Fresno in front of presiding Judge Kirk E. Sheriff. Miller declined to comment on the case, deferring to her attorney.

    In turn, the district has dropped the claims it made against Garrett. In a letter recommending Garrett’s termination on April 14, 2023, Zav Dadabhoy, then-interim president of Bakersfield College, stated that the board should consider Garrett’s “immoral conduct, unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, evident unfitness for service.”

    The district will distribute $2.2 million for “alleged general and emotional distress damages” through an annuity and another $154,520 for back pay and medical benefits. The settlement outlines that neither the district nor Garrett are admitting to any wrongdoing or liability. 

    Garrett, 46, was a vocal critic of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that were being rolled out in the Kern Community College District. He claimed the district was supporting “highly partisan propaganda.” He wrote a piece in 2023 on a site called Minding the Campus that criticized the administration for turning Bakersfield College into what he called “a place of implicit bias and microaggression training; racial quotas and affirmative action preferences; racially segregated programming emphasizing ethno-nationalist rhetoric.”

    Garrett said that he ultimately decided to settle because the case was draining him financially. He was also concerned that the college district would continue to appeal and prolong the case, even if he initially won.

    Despite the settlement, both sides — Garrett and spokespersons for the community college district — still do not agree on the details of the dispute.

    According to the district, the dispute stemmed from Garrett’s “unprofessional” conduct toward other faculty and students, according to a statement issued by the district shortly after the settlement.

    “The dispute with Matthew Garrett was a disciplinary matter due to his disruptive actions on campus, none of which concerned freedom of speech,” read the district statement.

    Garrett counters that the problems started because the district violated his First Amendment rights and retaliated against him for criticizing an administration that he claims inappropriately promoted a “one-sided partisan political agenda” focused on “social justice.” He disputes the list of charges that the district made in its recommendation to terminate him, which include “baseless attacks” on the district and his colleagues. 

    “I’m tired of this lie,” Garrett told EdSource.  “All I asked is, ‘Why is money going here?’”

    Disputing Garrett’s claim about the violation of his free speech rights, the district said in its statement to the media after the settlement, “Kern Community College District unequivocally supports the right for our students and faculty to share their views and opinions on campus and elsewhere.”

    Free speech in academia

    Garrett’s case attracted the attention of free speech advocates nationwide, especially those who believe college campuses are suppressing conservative viewpoints. 

    Garrett’s attorney Arthur Willner said he took on the case because he believes free speech is under assault on college campuses nationally. He is a partner with Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein, a part of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) network, a free speech advocacy group.

    “When you start restricting faculty and students, it not only punishes the speaker, but it also cheats the students in the classroom, who might hear a nice robust debate that interests them,” Wilner said.

    Courts tend to interpret free speech broadly for professors, because they are expected to “speak out and take controversial positions,” stated David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that promotes freedom of expression. He declined to take a position on Garrett’s case, but noted that colleges and universities are a “unique kind of workplace,” compared with other positions in government, such as in a planning or park department.

    “The concept of what is ‘duly disruptive’ is different than it is in other settings,” he said, adding that being offended or not liking what a professor has to say is generally not enough to justify cracking down on speech.

    Even untruths can be considered protected speech, Loy said, because the government is not a referee in the debate over what is or is not true. He said it would require “extreme circumstances” for an academic to lose their position by making outrageously false and defamatory statements, such as falsely claiming that a department chair is kidnapping children and stealing from the budget.

    The controversy

    The controversy began with a debate in the op-ed pages of The Bakersfield Californian that led to a public presentation Garrett made at Bakersfield College. The debate spilled over onto a local radio show hosted by conservative Terry Maxwell.  

    Miller introduced Garrett in 2019 when he gave the presentation called “A Tale of Two Protests” that contrasted how the Bakersfield College administration responded to two incidents on campus. The first involved chalkings that referred to Christopher Columbus as a “murderer” and “genocidal maniac.” In the other, stickers with phrases such as “never apologize for being white” and “smash cultural Marxism” were placed on bulletin boards, primarily those of Chicano studies-related events. The stickers were created by the Hundred Handers and promoted on a Telegram social media channel by a leader who was jailed earlier this year in the United Kingdom for “inciting racial hatred” with stickering campaigns, according to the BBC.

    Garrett defended the free speech of both incidents, but decried the administration for making a campuswide announcement that characterized the latter as “hate speech.” Garrett argued that the stickers may be a protest against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on campus.

    “I am neither endorsing the sticker campaign’s methods nor its messages, but I am asking that we take them seriously,” he wrote in his op-ed in The Bakersfield Californian. “Does our community’s college devote disproportionate attention and resources to certain groups at the expense of others? Does that marginalize some students? To what extent is that appropriate?” 

    Garrett, a white man, is a vocal critic of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, particularly those aimed at specific racial groups on campus. For instance, he calls Umoja — a program that offers courses and club activities aimed at improving the success of African American students throughout California community colleges — a “racially segregated class” that he told EdSource should produce data to show that it is not a “crutch” that actually undermines students’ self-sufficiency.

    Professors Andrew Bond and Oliver Rosales, Garrett’s colleagues at Bakersfield College, took issue with some of the claims in Garrett’s September 2019 presentation, which they said were repeated on Terry Maxwell’s radio show. The professors filed a complaint against Garrett with the college’s human resources department, claiming that he acted unprofessionally by accusing them of financial impropriety. The district said it hired an independent investigator who corroborated those charges against Garrett.

    Garrett said the district mischaracterized him. He said he was not accusing the college or any professor of anything illegal; he was just criticizing the college’s affiliations with what he called “partisan” groups. Garrett characterized a noncredit course covering the history of Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworker Movement in Kern County, which was created by Rosales, as “partisan indoctrination.”

    Paige Atkinson, then a journalism student at Bakersfield College, weighed in through a piece that ran in The Bakersfield Californian and a local site called South Kern Sol. In the piece, she praised college staff for “protecting its minority students by alerting them to the vandalism — even if it means ruffling the feathers of apologists on campus.” The piece criticized Garrett as one of those apologists. Atkinson said that the Hundred Handers was not simply a “conservative” group exercising its right to free speech, as Garrett wrote, but a “blatantly hateful” group that promoted “white supremacy and the inevitable violence it brings.”

    Garrett responded, calling South Kern Sol a “propaganda site” for the United Farm Workers and activist Dolores Huerta. He said the publication was partisan and that it was inappropriate for the Kern Community College District to donate to them. He accused Atkinson, then editor-in-chief of Bakersfield College’s student paper, of writing a “hit piece” on him in coordination with the district.

    “I said, ‘Why is the college paying for this smear piece?’” Garrett said, in an interview with EdSource.

    District spokesperson Norma Rojas said Bakersfield College faculty and programs sometimes obtain grants, which may be maintained in district accounts but will not commingle with other district or college funds. Grant funds donated to South Kern Sol came from a student journalism grant from the Virginia and Alfred Harrell Foundation in partnership with California Humanities and administered through the Bakersfield College Foundation, Rojas said in a statement. 

    The district denied that it otherwise had a relationship with South Kern Sol “outside of their traditional outreach to a wide variety of local media to inform of news and happenings,” according to a recent statement from the district. 

    John Harte, a retired professor of journalism at Bakersfield College, praised his former student, Atkinson, and defended her against Garrett’s charge that she had coordinated her piece with district leadership — which would be considered a serious breach of journalism ethics.

    The conflict widened beyond the topic of campus protest to include more students and many more professors. Garrett founded the Renegade Institute for Liberty (RIFL), a group of faculty members that aimed to promote “open discourse of diverse political ideas with an emphasis on American ideals and western historical values.” The group’s posts on Facebook became a lightning rod for criticism — and the subject of the recommendation to terminate Garrett by then-interim President Dadabhoy.

    That recommendation said that Garrett, as faculty lead of RIFL, failed to restrict its “baseless attacks” on the district and colleagues. It took issue with one Facebook post that called the “chronic mismanagement” of a local bond measure a “consistent embarrassment” for the college and another post that said the college’s curriculum committee were giving away the equivalent of participation trophies by approving Rosales’ course that covered farmworker history.

    Conflict over diversity, equity and inclusion

    The implementation of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives has divided faculty and staff at Kern Community College District, particularly its largest campus in Bakersfield, where Garrett worked, according to a workplace survey conducted last spring.

    One Bakersfield College faculty member quoted anonymously in the survey called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives “an ideological religion” and complained that the debate over DEI has “led to a social and political divide that is disrupting the ability of employees to collaborate.”

    In a lengthier version of the survey, another college faculty member praised the district’s leadership for understanding the value of diversity, equity and inclusion but noted that there is “significant” opposition to DEI, especially in the faculty ranks. This faculty member pointed to Garrett and RIFL as a source of discord on campus and for promoting “agenda, politics and hate” on every college committee and that they had “successfully halted almost all inclusive and equity based work on this campus.”

    The Kern Community College District pointed to Garrett’s public accusations as a cause of internal strife in the district.

    “Garrett’s pursuit of notoriety devolved the sincere efforts by the District and the community to create an environment where students can thrive into an environment of hostility and anger,” the district’s statement after the lawsuit said. 

    Harte agreed and said that he’s happy to see Garrett go.

    “I think Garrett’s settlement and his resignation in the long-run is best for the students,” Harte said. “He is really divisive.”

    Garrett pointed to the workplace survey as evidence that district leadership is to blame for that dysfunction. The word “retaliation” came up in 75 out of 423 employee surveys. “Social and political agendas” came up in 131 surveys.

    “It’s not just ‘crazy disgruntled Matt Garrett’,” Garrett said.

    The Kern Community College District’s new chancellor, Steven Bloomberg, said in a statement to EdSource that he has begun addressing the concerns outlined in the workplace survey, such as creating a leadership development program for supervisors.

    “We have heard the concerns from faculty and staff and are actively working to address them,” Bloomberg wrote. “I am committed to fostering a culture of continuous improvement.”

    The settlement doesn’t mean that Garrett has stopped criticizing the Kern Community College District. Since the settlement was announced, he has spoken out, through his personal Facebook page, against the contract renewal of the vice chancellor of human resources, who he claims targeted him and is responsible for the district’s poor workplace climate. Both he and RIFL have posted about the board members who voted to dismiss him, demanding accountability.

    “I didn’t want to be an activist,” Garrett said. “But I’m going to keep pointing out the problems.”

    Disclosure: Emma Gallegos was an independent freelancer who wrote pieces for South Kern Sol between 2017 and 2019.





    Source link