برچسب: Newsom

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

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


    Just in: as reported by The New York Times:

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

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

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

    From the Los Angeles Times:

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


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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

  • Governor Gavin Newsom: Do Not Give In to a Lawless President

    Governor Gavin Newsom: Do Not Give In to a Lawless President


    Governor Gavin Newsom spoke to the situation in Los Angeles, which Trump is using as a target in his campaign to distract the public from his incompetence. In his hateful way, Trump always refers to Governor Newsom as “Newscum.”

    Governor Newsom said, as transcribed by The New York Times:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom of California delivered a speech on Tuesday, titled “Democracy at a Crossroads.” The following is a transcript of his remarks as broadcast online and on television channels:

    I want to say a few words about the events of the last few days.

    This past weekend, federal agents conducted large-scale workplace raids in and around Los Angeles. Those raids continue as I speak.

    California is no stranger to immigration enforcement. But instead of focusing on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records and people with final deportation orders, a strategy both parties have long supported, this administration is pushing mass deportations, indiscriminately targeting hardworking immigrant families, regardless of their roots or risk.

    What’s happening right now is very different than anything we’ve seen before. On Saturday morning, when federal agents jumped out of an unmarked van near a Home Depot parking lot, they began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb. A similar scene also played out when a clothing company was raided downtown.

    In other actions, a U.S. citizen, nine months pregnant, was arrested; a 4-year-old girl, taken; families separated; friends, quite literally, disappearing.

    In response, everyday Angelinos came out to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech and assembly, to protest their government’s actions. In turn, the State of California and the City and County of Los Angeles sent our police officers to help keep the peace and, with some exceptions, they were successful.

    Like many states, California is no stranger to this sort of unrest. We manage it regularly, and with our own law enforcement. But this, again, was different.

    What then ensued was the use of tear gas, flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets, federal agents detaining people and undermining their due process rights.

    Donald Trump, without consulting California law enforcement leaders, commandeered 2,000 of our state’s National Guard members to deploy on our streets, illegally and for no reason.

    This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers and even our National Guard at risk.

    That’s when the downward spiral began. He doubled down on his dangerous National Guard deployment by fanning the flames even harder. And the president, he did it on purpose. As the news spread throughout L.A., anxiety for family and friends ramped up. Protests started again.

    By night, several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive. They vandalized property. They tried to assault police officers. Many of you have seen video clips of cars burning on cable news.

    If you incite violence — I want to be clear about this — if you incite violence or destroy our communities, you are going to be held to account. That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.

    Already, more than 220 people have been arrested. And we’re reviewing tapes to build additional cases and people will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Again, thanks to our law enforcement officers and the majority of Angelenos who protested peacefully, this situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown.

    But that, that’s not what Donald Trump wanted. He again chose escalation, he chose more force. He chose theatrics over public safety. He federalized another 2,000 Guard members.

    He deployed more than 700 active U.S. Marines. These are men and women trained in foreign combat, not domestic law enforcement. We honor their service. We honor their bravery. But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere.

    We’re seeing unmarked cars, unmarked cars in school parking lots. Kids afraid of attending their own graduation. Trump is pulling a military dragnet all across Los Angeles, well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals. His agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses.

    That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. Donald Trump’s government isn’t protecting our communities. They are traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the entire point.

    California will keep fighting. We’ll keep fighting on behalf of our people, all of our people, including in the courts.

    Yesterday, we filed a legal challenge to President Trump’s reckless deployment of American troops to a major American city. Today, we sought an emergency court order to stop the use of the American military to engage in law enforcement activities across Los Angeles.

    If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there.

    Trump and his loyalists, they thrive on division because it allows them to take more power and exert even more control.

    And by the way, Trump, he’s not opposed to lawlessness and violence as long as it serves him. What more evidence do we need than January 6th.

    I ask everyone: Take time, reflect on this perilous moment. A president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetuating a unified assault on American traditions.

    This is a president who, in just over 140 days, has fired government watchdogs that could hold him accountable, accountable for corruption and fraud. He’s declared a war, a war on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself. Databases quite literally are vanishing.

    He’s delegitimizing news organizations and he’s assaulting the First Amendment. And the threat of defunding them. At threat, he’s dictating what universities themselves can teach. He’s targeting law firms and the judicial branch that are the foundations of an orderly and civil society. He’s calling for a sitting governor to be arrested for no other reason than to, in his own words, “for getting elected.”

    And we all know, this Saturday, he’s ordering our American heroes, the United States military, and forcing them to put on a vulgar display to celebrate his birthday, just as other failed dictators have done in the past.

    Look, this isn’t just about protests here in Los Angeles. When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard. he made that order apply to every state in this nation.

    This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next.

    Democracy is next.

    Democracy is under assault right before our eyes, this moment we have feared has arrived. He’s taking a wrecking ball, a wrecking ball to our founding fathers’ historic project: three coequal branches of independent government.

    There are no longer any checks and balances. Congress is nowhere to be found. Speaker Johnson has completely abdicated that responsibility.

    The rule of law has increasingly been given way to the rule of Don.

    The founding fathers didn’t live and die to see this kind of moment. It’s time for all of us to stand up. Justice Brandeis, he said it best. In a democracy, the most important office — with all due respect, Mr. President — is not the presidency, and it’s certainly not governor. The most important office is office of citizen.

    At this moment, at this moment, we all need to stand up and be held to account, a higher level of accountability. If you exercise your First Amendment rights, please, please do it peacefully.

    I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear. But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and that anxiety. What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence, to be complicit in this moment.

    Do not give into him.



    Source link

  • Newsom promises funding to jump-start early literacy

    Newsom promises funding to jump-start early literacy


    Gov. Gavin Newsom displays the Golden State Literacy Plan, a compilation of actions he has taken to improve reading in early grades, during an appearance at Clinton Elementary School in Compton on June 5.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom confirmed Thursday that the state budget will include hundreds of millions of dollars to fund legislation needed to achieve a comprehensive statewide approach to early literacy.

    Assembly Bill 1454, which passed the Assembly on Thursday with a unanimous 75-0 vote, would move the state’s schools toward adopting evidence-based literacy instruction, also known as the science of reading or structured literacy. 

    Although phonics, the ability to connect letters to sounds, has drawn the most attention, the science of reading focuses on four other pillars of literacy instruction: phonemic awareness, identifying distinct units of sounds; vocabulary; comprehension; and fluency. It is based on research on how the brain connects letters with sounds when learning to read.

    “Learning to read is life-changing for a child,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, said in a statement. “And strong reading skills are the gateway to academic success, lifelong confidence, and opportunity. With this legislation, we take a clear and necessary step toward ensuring every child in California learns to read, and read well. This bill is supported by a broad and growing coalition all united in one belief: That we can and must do better for our students.”

    Rivas forged a deal for AB 1454 after ordering the sponsors of the bill, which included advocacy groups Decoding Dyslexia CA, EdVoice, and Families In Schools, to settle their differences with advocates for English learners and the California Teachers Association.

    The compromise legislation would provide funding for optional teacher training in evidence-based practices, require that all TK-5 textbooks that districts adopt be aligned to in this approach, and ensure all newly credentialed administrators are trained to support evidence-based instruction.

    Assemblymembers Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, and Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, co-authored the bill. 

    “We attached that bill to the budget, so we mean business,” Newsom said during a press conference at Clinton Elementary School in Compton. “We wanted to get that done, and we got it done. We hope we’ll get it done with an additional $200 million attached to it.”

    Advocates of a comprehensive statewide approach to early literacy say the bill would fill in significant gaps in the state’s current policy of local control over instructional decisions. It completes a comprehensive plan to improve literacy in the state, said Newsom, introducing the Golden State Literacy Plan.

    “This Golden State Literacy Plan is a step-by-step plan to make real what we are promoting,” Newsom said, holding up the nine-page document — a compilation of actions the state has taken, culminating with additional funding for literacy-related programs and actions.

    While states like Mississippi, Tennessee and Colorado have started with a framework grounded in the science of reading and a comprehensive plan for early literacy, California, over the past five years, adopted disparate parts: new evidenced-based reading standards for teacher preparation programs, state funding of an early grade diagnostic screening system for reading challenges like dyslexia, and funding reading coaches in the state’s lowest-performing schools. It also included the expansion of transitional kindergarten and expanded bilingual programs.

    Newson talked about his personal experience with dyslexia and how it has motivated him to improve literacy in the state.

    “There’s not a day where my dyslexia does not expose itself,” he said. “If anyone’s seen my writing, they can attest to how it exposes itself. So this has been an imperative for me to do more and do better in this space.”

    Newsom also took the opportunity Thursday to talk about some of the state’s successes, including improved scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading in both fourth and eighth grades between 2011 and 2022.

    The Compton Unified School District was selected for the press conference to highlight the district’s increased test scores and graduation rates. 

    “Today’s event reflects a shared purpose, ensuring literacy for all,” said Compton Unified Superintendent Darin Brawley. “The governor’s emphasis on literacy is both timely and essential. Research and experience tells us that if students are not reading by grade three, it’s going to be a struggle. Thereafter, their academic path becomes increasingly difficult.”

    Compton Unified has worked to eliminate the opportunity gap by expanding access to early literacy programs, multilingual education and STEAM pathways, he said.

    “Compton Unified is proof that demographics do not determine destiny,” Brawley said. “With the right investments, the right leadership, the right vision, the right partnerships, we can transform outcomes and unlock the full potential of every single child.”

    Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, which advocates for English learners, said the state literacy plan supports a diverse student population. The organization, which had opposed the original bill, was satisfied that the materials and training in the new bill would incorporate the specific literacy needs of English learners.  

    “The recently launched literacy and biliteracy resources, the literacy content blocks and the preschool through third-grade learning progressions provide critical guidance to help educators support young learners in both English and their home language,” Hernandez said. “Thank you, Governor Newsom, for ensuring that multilingual learners are at the center of California’s literacy promise.”

    The Golden State Literacy Plan also highlights the state’s investments in literacy in the governor’s upcoming budget, including $1.7 billion for a block grant to fund professional development for teachers, $500 million for TK-12 literacy and math coaches, $387.6 million for additional Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant funding, $40 million to support literacy screenings, and $25 million to support implementation of math and literacy initiatives, elevate best practices, and establish a clearinghouse for state-developed math and literacy resources.

    The increased state funding for literacy comes amid criticism of Newsom’s spending plan for education, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office has said will create new debt and rely on one-time funding to pay for ongoing operations.

    John Fensterwald contributed to this report.





    Source link

  • Newsom again pledges to spare cuts for TK-12 and community colleges, but not for CSU and UC

    Newsom again pledges to spare cuts for TK-12 and community colleges, but not for CSU and UC


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

    Credit: AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli

    Despite a further deterioration in state revenues, Gov. Gavin Newsom again pledged Friday to protect ongoing funding and the large-scale initiatives for TK-12 schools that he has set in motion.

    “I just don’t want to see education cuts,” Newsom said during a news conference on the revision to the proposed 2024-25 state budget he presented in January. “Right now, I want to see us preserve the progress we have made on community schools, on preschool, on after-school-for-all, summer school — all the work we’ve been doing.”

    Newsom’s comment during a two-hour session with reporters reflected the challenge of writing annual budgets subject to volatile revenue fluctuations dependent on the incomes of the top 1% of earners. Receipts from capital gains taxes that soared to $349 billion in 2021-22 dropped to $137 billion in 2023-24. The current fiscal year ends June 30.

    As a result of the projected shortfall, other state operations could face additional cuts. Newsom didn’t make the same promise he made for schools to higher education, leaving California State University system officials on edge. In a statement, CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia said she was “deeply concerned” about a revised state budget that would grant no increase next year, then a 2% increase in 2025-26, instead of a 10% increase over two years as promised in January.   

    “As the institution that educates the evolving workforce of California, this budget places us in a position of making difficult decisions,” Garcia said.

    It was not clear whether the University of California would face similar cuts, although Newsom typically treats both systems similarly. UC officials would not comment on the issue. In a statement Friday, UC President Michael Drake said that the system is hoping to “finalize a budget that sustains the University’s research, public service, and education mission.”  

    The summary of revenue reductions and spending cuts Newsom released lacked the details that usually accompany a May budget revision; however, more information is expected by Tuesday, the deadline for statutory budget language. 

    Some TK-12 advocates expressed relief, nonetheless. 

    “Given the magnitude of the fiscal crisis, that the governor could put together a budget that largely protects K-12 is remarkable,” said education consultant Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors.

    Derick Lennox, senior director of governmental relations and legal affairs with the California County Superintendents, was more cautious. “We can appreciate the governor’s commitment to hold schools harmless to the extent he can, but so much will all depend on the details for Proposition 98 and what is available,” he said, referring to the portion of the general fund that determines funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges. 

    Newsom said general fund revenues were expected to decline an additional $7 billion for a total of $27.6 billion for the three-year period from 2022-23 through 2024-25. The total deficit would be nearly twice as big, but the Legislature has made a combination of cuts, savings, and deferred spending since January.

    The shortfall for TK-12 and community colleges, due to lower Proposition 98 funding, would be about $4.2 billion. Although details are scant, Newsom would make up for it mostly by emptying nearly all the remaining $9 billion rainy day fund for schools and community colleges.

    Newsom said the average TK-12 per-student funding for 2024-25 would be $17,502 — $151 per student less than proposed in January. Despite that, funding would include a 1% cost of living increase, a smidge higher than in January. 

    The May revision lists about $1 billion in cuts for early education through high school. Most of the programs are funded by the general fund, not Proposition 98. It would preserve ongoing funding for the expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and long-awaited pay raises for child care providers.

    Cuts would include:

    • $425 million to the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative out of a $4 billion investment, which Newsom said would reflect directing more funding to wellness centers at school sites. Carl Pinkston of the Black Parallel School Board expressed concern. “In the aftermath of the pandemic, many students continue to display signs of trauma, adversely affecting their academic performance and overall well-being,” he said. The initiative “is a critical program that champions equity, aiming to improve behavioral health outcomes for children and youth.”  
    • Delayed funding for additional slots for state-funded child care. Instead of funding 146,000 as planned, the state will continue funding 119,000 new slots funded so far. “Delaying access to child care for the next two years to our youngest Californians is deeply troubling,” said Mary Ignatius, executive director of Parent Voices CA, an advocacy group. “Their childhoods do not pause. Their undiagnosed speech or other developmental delays will make it harder for them two years from now.” 
    • Elimination of $550 million in facilities funding for preschools, transitional kindergarten and full-day kindergarten programs. Newsom suggested funding could be included in a statewide school facilities bond. He said Friday that negotiations were continuing with legislative leaders for a bond on the statewide ballot in November.
    • A cut of $60.2 million to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, which pays up to $20,000 to teacher candidates enrolled in credential programs who commit to working for years in priority schools. 
    • Elimination of $48 million in 2025-26 and $98 million in 2026-27 for increased payments for state preschools that serve additional students with disabilities.  
    • A cut of all but $100 million in ongoing funding for the Middle Class Scholarship Program, which previously received more than $600 million annually. In past years, more than 300,000 students across UC and CSU have received scholarships, which are available to students whose families earn up to $217,000. 

    Criticism of a key fix to the shortfall

    Newsom’s solution for minimizing cuts to schools and community colleges would rely on a controversial maneuver. He would fill in the biggest piece of the shortfall — $8 billion in an unanticipated drop in Proposition 98 revenue in 2022-23 — by treating it as an overpayment of the state’s funding obligation.  Since schools and community colleges have already spent the money, he’d fill in the gap by cutting the general fund — but not until 2028-29, when the state’s revenue picture presumably would have improved. Since Newsom announced the idea in January, the repayment obligation has grown to $8.8 billion.

    An accounting move of that magnitude hasn‘t been done before. The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) has questioned the tactic, and so did the California School Boards Association in a statement Friday in which it implied it might sue.

    The association’s logic reflects the complexity of the Proposition 98 formula for determining funding. The school boards association asserts that the 2022-23 funding level was not a voluntary overpayment but rather a constitutional obligation on which subsequent years’ levels of funding are set.

    “This accounting gimmick would lower the baseline for calculating education funding in subsequent years, subjecting California schools to lower revenue for the foreseeable future,” school boards association President Albert Gonzalez said. “This sets a terrible precedent that potentially destabilizes education funding and undermines the voters’ intent when they passed Proposition 98 more than 35 years ago.”

    The California Department of Finance has insisted that the solution is legal. However, on Friday, Newsom did acknowledge that Proposition 98 is complicated.

    “You need not only a Ph.D., but a physics degree, an engineering degree and everything else to unpack its complexities,” he said.





    Source link

  • Newsom prioritizes electric school buses over preschool for children with disabilities

    Newsom prioritizes electric school buses over preschool for children with disabilities


    Marysville Joint Unified School District runs preschool for children with and without disabilities.

    Courtesy of Marysville Joint Unified School District

    Gov. Gavin Newsom invested millions into expanding preschool for children with disabilities. Now, he’s proposing to scale it back, to invest more in electric school buses.

    The move is causing an uproar among leaders of county offices of education and school districts, and advocates for early education and special education.

    “While I appreciate the governor’s dedication to climate change, as a special education administrator and somebody who’s been in the special education field, I think students with disabilities are more important than electric buses,” said Anthony Rebelo, director of the Trinity County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) and chair of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education.

    Two programs that aim to expand access to preschool for children with disabilities are proposed to be slashed in Newsom’s May revision of his budget proposal.

    The first is an increase in the number of slots in state-subsidized preschool programs that are set aside for children with disabilities. Beginning in 2022, the state began to require these preschool programs to set aside at least 5% of their space to enroll children with disabilities. The percentage of space set aside was to increase to 7.5% in 2025-26, and to 10% in 2026-27. Facing a massive budget shortfall, Newsom is now proposing to cancel that increase and leave the number of slots for children with disabilities at 5%. This move would save the state $47.9 million in 2025-26 and $97.9 million ongoing, beginning in 2026–27.

    The second program the governor plans to cut is the Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program, a program that was set to fund $250 million in grants to help school districts and county offices of education adapt facilities and playground equipment and train preschool teachers to meet the needs of children with disabilities. The state funded a first round of grants in 2020. School districts and county offices of education had applied in April for a second round of grants. The California Department of Education sent out award letters this week to some applicants specifying how much funding they can expect to receive.

    During a May 16 hearing before the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee on Education, Alex Shoap, finance budget analyst from the California Department of Finance, made it clear Newsom is proposing “pulling back $250 million in currently unallocated Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program funding to instead support the electric school bus grant investment.”

    H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the Department of Finance, said the state Legislature had committed to putting $500 million toward electric school buses in 2024-25 and another $500 million in 2025-26. Newsom now aims to spend $395 million more on the buses in 2024-25, most of which would come from the Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program.

    Palmer said spending more now on electric school buses would reduce the amount the state would have to pay in 2025-26 to $105 million.

    In response to criticism of cuts to preschool for children with disabilities, Palmer pointed to the following comment from Newsom on May 10 when he announced his new budget proposals.

    “You will ask me, I’m sure, in the Q and A, ‘Why this cut?’ I will undoubtedly say, ‘I prefer not to make this cut.’ These are programs, these are propositions that I’ve long advanced, many of them. These are things that I’ve supported. These are things we worked closely with the Legislature to advance. None of this is the kind of work you enjoy doing, but you’ve got to do it,” Newsom said.

    School district and county leaders, as well as other preschool providers across the state expressed dismay that these programs would be cut at a time when preschool programs were just beginning to include more children with disabilities in their classrooms.

    “It really is a breach of promise,” said Dave Gordon, Sacramento County superintendent of schools. “People have been planning for these services to go forward for several years. They’re ready to go. I have several people on my staff who are broken-hearted that this is not going to go forward, because they feel it’s been long delayed.”

    Preschoolers with and without disabilities learn and play together in Marysville Joint Unified School District.
    Courtesy of Marysville Joint Unified School District

    Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, children as young as 3 years old with disabilities must be provided special education. The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have stated that children with disabilities should have access to preschool and child care programs where they can participate alongside their peers without disabilities. California also made expanding access to inclusive preschool programs a goal in its Master Plan for Early Learning and Care, released in 2020.

    “We’re woefully behind most states,” said Elizabeth Engelken, chair of the association SELPA Administrators of California. “We were relying on this … support to begin to shift the environment in schools to be more developmentally appropriate.”

    Jolie Critchfield, director of child development for Marysville Joint Unified School District in Yuba County, said her district used funding from the Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program to train staff and completely revamp their preschool programs with new materials and playground equipment, like swings built for children with disabilities. The district also moved all “special day classrooms” alongside general preschool classrooms, so that children with disabilities are able to interact with other children on the playground and spend time in class with them as well.

    She said the district planned to use future funding to increase coaching for teachers and to include more children with disabilities in general education preschool classrooms.

    “It literally brings tears to your eyes, seeing the kids in the program with wheelchairs and scooters. Kids that you just would not think could be OK in a general education setting, because it would be too overwhelming, are going in there and doing so well,” Critchfield said. “I can’t believe we ever did it any differently.”

    One mother, Stella Goodnough, said she is grateful her daughter was able to attend preschool in Marysville alongside children with disabilities. 

    “I was always afraid to approach special-needs children because I didn’t know what to say or do. Now I see my daughter make friends, especially a best friend, with a special-needs child,” said Goodnough. “She often talks about him at home, which creates opportunities to talk about how wonderful we all are with our differences.”

    The Kings County Early Learning Center playground includes a swing for children in wheelchairs and other equipment for children with disabilities.
    Courtesy of Kings County Office of Education

    The Kings County Office of Education in the Central San Joaquin Valley used funding from the first round of grants to transform an old school building into an early learning center, with many services available for children with disabilities. The center, in Hanford, currently has one classroom where children with and without disabilities are taught together. The county office applied for another grant this year to open two more inclusion classrooms. 

    “Without this funding, our goals are once again relegated to a far-off future when we can’t ever guarantee when that might happen,” said Todd Barlow, Kings County superintendent of schools.

    Several special education administrators said cutting the program would end up costing the state more in the future, because children who have had early education and services at a young age may not need as much intervention in later years.

    “If we identify a student much earlier, get them in that school routine of what it’s like to have group instruction, they’re going to be much more prepared by the time they’re in kindergarten or TK,” Rebelo said. “This just feels like a huge step backwards.”

    The budget proposal would cut about 200 children with disabilities from attending preschool at Kidango, a nonprofit organization that runs dozens of child care centers in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to the organization’s director, Scott Moore.

    “This budget cut is not only harmful to children, but research shows it will result in higher special education costs in the future,” Moore said. “So it’s bad for kids and bad for the state budget.”

    The state budget is still in negotiations until the Legislature passes a final bill in June.





    Source link

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

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


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

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2022-23

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

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

    2023-24

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

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

    2024-25

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

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

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

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





    Source link

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

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


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

    Credit: YouTube / Office of the Governor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over

    Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over


    A big crowd was on hand when the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board voted last August to mandate that parents be told if their child shows any indication at school of being transgender.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    A trailblazing state law prohibiting California school boards from passing resolutions that require teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender isn’t likely to put an end to this polarizing issue. 

    The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday. It will prohibit school districts from requiring staff to disclose to parents information related to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and will protect school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which will go into effect Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    “California is the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting school districts from enacting forced outing policies in the nation,” said Mike Blount, spokesperson for the author of the bill, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

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

    First lawsuit filed

    By Tuesday evening, the conservative nonprofit Liberty Justice Center said it had filed a lawsuit challenging the new law on behalf of Chino Valley Unified, which passed a parental notification policy last year.

    “School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have a constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school,” said Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center in a press release. “Parents are the legal guardians of their children, not Governor Newsom, Attorney General (Rob) Bonta, or Superintendent (Tony) Thurmond. We will continue to defend parents’ rights and children’s well-being by challenging invasive laws like AB 1955 in court, at no cost to taxpayers.”

    Other opponents, including Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, indicated that the issue will be settled in court. He is “committed to challenging the bill in court, and he’s confident he’s on the right side constitutionally,” said Shawn Lewis, Essayli’s chief of staff. Essayli plans to work with a coalition of advocates to challenge the bill, Lewis said.

    Election issue

    Parental rights is the overarching issue for the Republican Party, but right now it is focused on the parental notification issue, Essayli said in an August interview with EdSource. “This is an issue we want to run on in 2024,” he said.

    The newly passed legislation also resulted in a flurry of press releases and social media comments from opponents and supporters. Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk weighed in, calling the new law the “final straw” in his decision to move the headquarters for X, formerly known as Twitter, to Texas.

    “I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” Musk wrote on X.

    Proponents of the parental notification policies have said that parents have the right to know what is going on with their children at school and that minors do not have a right to privacy. Opponents say these policies could endanger already vulnerable students who should be able to decide when they want to come out to their parents.

    Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, Murrieta Valley Unified and Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County, Orange Unified in Orange County, Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County, and Rocklin Unified and Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Placer County are among the districts that have passed parental notification policies.

    California’s parental notification board policies have their origin in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Essayli, which was denied a committee hearing at the state Capitol last year. After that, Essayli, parents’ rights groups and attorneys wrote a model board policy for school boards.

    On Monday, Essayli released a statement about the new law: “Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955 which codifies the government’s authority to keep secrets from parents,” he said. “AB 1955 endangers children by excluding parents from important matters impacting their child’s health and welfare at school. Governor Newsom signing AB 1955 is both immoral and unconstitutional, and we will challenge it in court to stop the government from keeping secrets from parents.”

    Eight states have passed laws requiring school districts to inform parents if their children ask to use names or pronouns associated with another gender, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

    LGBTQ+ rights threatened

    School parental notification policies have impacted the mental health of LGBTQ+ students and can lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination, according to a press release from Ward’s office.

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

    “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family,” he said. “As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.”

    The California Teachers Association and its members have been major opponents of parental notification policies, saying that they drive a wedge between educators and students, and endanger already vulnerable students. Teachers working in districts with parental notification policies have worried they could lose their jobs if they do not comply with the district requirement or end up in court if they disobey federal and state laws and policies.

    “This historic legislation will strengthen existing protections against forced outing and allow educators to continue to create a safe learning environment where all students feel accepted, nurtured, and encouraged to pursue their dreams,” said California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    “As educators, we are charged with providing a high-quality education to every student. No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students.”

    Policies spawn lawsuits

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said parental notification policies break California state law and violate students’ civil rights and their right to privacy. He issued warnings to districts and filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County last year.

    A lawsuit was also filed against Temecula Valley Unified by a coalition of students, teachers and parents who oppose the district’s parental notification policy, along with a policy that bans “critical race theory.”

    California courts have had differing opinions. In San Diego, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez last year ruled that Escondido Union School District violated parents’ rights when it followed California state policy and allowed students to decide whether to tell their parents they identify as transgender.

    In Sacramento earlier that year, U.S. District Judge John Mendez dismissed a lawsuit against Chico Unified. The suit claimed that district policies allowed school staff “to socially transition” students and prohibited staff from informing parents of the change. Mendez said students have a right to tell their parents about their gender and sexuality on their own terms.

    The new law will also require districts to provide support or affinity groups and safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students; anti-bullying and harassment policies and complaint procedures; counseling services; anti-bias or other training to support LGBTQ+ students and their families; suicide prevention policies and procedures; and access to community-based organizations to support LGBTQ+ students as well as local physical and mental health providers with experience in treating and supporting families of LGBTQ+ youth.

    California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman said the legislation reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth.

    “I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill,” Eggman said. “Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day, that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify.”





    Source link

  • 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

  • Gov. Newsom proposes stable California school funding in 2025-26 with an ominous warning

    Gov. Newsom proposes stable California school funding in 2025-26 with an ominous warning


    Gov. Gavin Newsom outlines his proposed 2025-26 $322 billion state budget during a news conference at California State University, Stanislaus in Turlock on Jan. 6..

    Credit: AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli

    The article was updated on Jan, 10 to include more reactions to the budget proposal and note that Newsom did not include funding for ethnic studies.

    California school districts would receive $2.5 billion through a small cost-of-living increase, plus additional funding to train math and reading coaches, expand summer and after-school programs, and help launch the state’s Master Plan for Career Education in the proposed 2025-26 state budget that Gov. Gavin Newsom released Friday.

    But countering a stable funding forecast for schools and community colleges, Newsom said both the University of California and California State University should expect as deep as an 8% cut in ongoing state money.

    Newsom’s budget included a strong caution. He warned that revenues could change between now and May, when he revises his budget proposal, because of potential global financial instability, volatility in stock market prices, and likely conflicts with President Donald Trump that could jeopardize federal funding.

    “California is facing a new federal administration that has expressed unalloyed and uninformed hostility toward the state, threatening the funding of essential services for political stunts,” Newsom stated in the introduction to the 2025-26 budget. The governor, who previewed the budget Monday, was in Los Angeles responding to the wildfires and not at a news conferenceFriday by the Department of Finance.

    Christopher J. Nellum,  executive director of the advocacy no-profit Education Trust-West, urged Newsom and the Legislature to stand firm on behalf of “many students of color and multilingual learners (who) are feeling uncertain and concerned.”

    “We’re glad to see Gov. Newsom affirming that California is a state that believes in and invests in educational equity,” he said. “If the incoming federal administration does what it says it will, state policymakers will find themselves standing between harm and the people of California”.

    The bulk of state funding for the state’s nearly 1,000 school districts, 1,300 charter schools and community colleges is through Proposition 98, a 1988 voter-approved formula. The budget projected that Proposition 98 funding will be flat in 2025-26 at $118.9 billion, $300 million less than $119.2 billion in 2024-25. To avoid overfunding, the state, for now, will assume 2024-25 funding will end up $1.6 billion less, according to the budget.

    Per-pupil funding from Proposition 98 would rise to $18,918 and to $24,764 per pupil, including federal funding and other state money, such as pension contributions for teachers and other school employees.

    Bad news for UC and CSU

    Both the University of California and California State University should expect as deep as an 8% decrease in ongoing general fund dollars under Newsom’s proposed budget for 2025-26. That’s a decline of $396.6 million at UC and $375.2 million at CSU, which officials say would affect academics and student services.

    UC President Michael Drake said he’s concerned about the impact that the cuts would have “on our students and campus services.”

    CSU Chancellor Mildred García expressed disappointment that the governor’s budget maintains plans for a 7.95% cut in light of a rosier state budget outlook than previously projected — and said she hopes that ongoing funding will be restored if state revenues improve.

    “The impact of such deep funding cuts will have significant real-world consequences, both in and out of the classroom,” García said in a statement. “Larger class sizes, fewer course offerings and a reduced workforce will hinder students’ ability to graduate on time and weaken California’s ability to meet its increasing demands for a diverse and highly educated workforce.”

    The two four-year systems were each due to receive a 5% base increase in 2025-26, but the state would also defer that commitment until 2027-28, a move that was telegraphed in the 2024 budget agreement. UC additionally would have to wait until 2027-28 for a $31 million commitment offsetting revenue it lost by enrolling fewer out-of-state undergraduates and more in-state students.

    The State budget Process

    Governor’s initial budget proposal:

    • Must be released by Jan. 10.
    • Assumes an estimate of revenues the state will collect over the next 18 months (by June 30, 2026). Actual revenues are often significantly different based on economic conditions, federal policy and unforeseen events, like the destructive fires in Los Angeles.

    May revision: In mid-May, Newsom will submit a revised budget with an updated revenue forecast.

    Legislature’s response: The Assembly and Senate have until June 15 to hold hearings and respond with their own version.

    Negotiation: Behind closed doors, Legislative leaders and the governor settle differences. Lawmakers sign off, and the governor signs the final version.

    • About 40% of the state’s general fund will go to schools and community colleges. The bulk goes to keeping schools running, but in some years new money is spent on new programs, like, in recent years, transitional kindergarten and community schools.
    • Governors increasingly have used the budget to rewrite statutes outside of the legislative process. That’s why it’s important to read the fine print in massive “budget trailer bills” written after the budget is passed.

    New programs for schools

    The expiration of about $3 billion for spending in 2024-25, will free up money for one-time funding beyond the 2.4% cost of living increase for transitional kindergarten through grade 12.

    These include:

    Transitional kindergarten (TK): The budget completes the four-year phase-in for the new program, which serves as a bridge between preschool and kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. In fulfilling a commitment, Newsom is also providing $1.5 billion to lower the student-to-teacher ratio from 12:1 to 10:1 in every transitional kindergarten classroom. This is key to maintaining quality because younger children need more personal attention, experts say.

    “This is great news,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers. “With this move to a smaller class size, TK takes an important step to becoming the high quality pre-k experience all children deserve.”

    Literacy instruction: The budget would double the $500 million for literacy coaches appropriated in two recent budgets and enable the funding to include math coaches. It also includes:

    •  $40 million for training and materials to inaugurate annual universal screening of kindergartners through second-graders for potential learning challenges, including dyslexia.      
    • $5 million to launch Literacy Network, a clearinghouse for state-developed literacy resources and support to districts with persistent performance challenges.

    Summer and after-school programs: The state will extend the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program for grades TK-6 for districts in which 55% of students are low-income students, English learners, or students in foster care. That will require an additional $435 million. Until now, funding was for only districts with 75% or more of qualifying students.

    Teacher recruitment: The budget proposal includes $300 million for teacher recruitment, including $150 million in financial assistance to teacher candidates. With $50 million, it would revive dwindling funding in the Golden State Teacher Grant program, which awards up to $20,000 to students enrolled in teacher preparation programs who commit to work in priority schools or in the California State Preschool Program.

    A $1.8 billion discretionary funding: Districts will have discretion over a new Student Support and Discretionary Block Grant, but will be encouraged to spend it on professional development for teachers in reading instruction, especially for English learners; teacher training in the new math standards; and additional efforts to address the teacher shortage.

    Career education: In multiple ways, the budget supports Newsom’s proposed Master Plan for Career Education, whose goal is to make it easier for Californians of all ages and backgrounds to find jobs in high-wage, high-growth fields.

    • $100 million to support community colleges in validating the experience students bring from their jobs, the military, internships or even volunteering.
    • $5 million in ongoing funding to establish a planning agency to put the master plan into practice and $4 million to support regional coordination for career education and training.

    The budget would also allow districts to use funding from the $1.8 billion discretionary block grant to expand career pathways and dual enrollment. 

    Funding for career education comes through many different programs, which school leaders describe as both a blessing and a curse. The budget directs the Department of Education to examine how it could consolidate applications for all these different grants into one single application process.

    Barring a big drop in revenue, the 2025-26 proposal would mark a return to normal following the current year’s jury-rigged budget. To avoid education cuts and deal with the hangover from pandemic revenue complications, in the past two budgets, Newsom and the Legislature drained the $8.4 billion Proposition 98 rainy day fund and withheld hundreds of millions of dollars, called deferrals, from districts. The proposed budget would eliminate the deferrals and rebuild the rainy day fund to $1.5 billion.

    No money for ethnic studies

    One much anticipated question was whether Newsom would include funding to implement a high school ethnic studies course. He did not. A spokesperson from the Department of Finance said that there were many demands for spending with limited resources. Ethnic studies was not among the priorities.

    A lack of funding to pay for teachers’ time and materials would delay the Legislature’s 2021 mandate for all high schools to offer a semester course in ethnic studies, starting in 2025-26 and to require that all students take it in order to graduate from high school, starting in 2029-30.

    After multiple drafts and thousands of public comments, the State Board of Education adopted a voluntary framework for teaching ethnic studies in 2021. Since then, there have been conflicts and lawsuits over districts that have adoped curriculums promoted by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. Without naming the Liberated version, the ethnic studies law said that districts should not adopt elements of it “due to concerns related to bias, bigotry, and discrimination.” Without funding, that warning also would not take effect.

    A lack of funding also might short-circuit a proposal pushed by UC ethnic studies faculty to require a high school ethnic studies course as an admission requirement with course criteria that UC would create. In December, the UC Academic Senate postponed a vote on the proposal until April; one reason was the uncertain status of California’s ethnic studies mandate.

    More budget reactions

    Other responses to the budget proposal were mixed.

    Vernon Billy, CEO of the California School Boards Association, said the proposed budget appears to avoid direct cuts, while spending more for transitional kindergarten. “But before we offer unqualified praise, we’ll need to evaluate the actual language in the education budget trailer bill to be released in February — especially since the budget summary contains provisions that seem to open the door for shortchanging Proposition 98 under certain conditions.”

    Lance Izumi, senior director of education studies at the conservative Pacific Research Institute, said, “Governor Newsom said that education is ‘all about human capital.’  It is revealing, then, that the governor discussed his proposed 2025-25 education budget only in terms of inputs — the increase in Prop. 98 and total education funding, the increase in per-pupil funding, and the increase in spending directed at particular education programs such as before/after-school and summer school.”

    “Human capital,” he added, ”is about improving the knowledge and skills of students. The fact that he did not include any evidence that the increased education spending during his administration has raised student achievement and therefore increased their human capital is a glaring omission.” 

    Ted Lempert, president of the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, said, “We applaud the governor’s focus on continued support for kids in his proposed budget, including TK, community schools, after-school, and career education.  But much more is needed.” Noting that California ranks at the bottom of states in terms of the ratio of teachers, counselors and nurses to students, he added, “We look forward to working on increasing support for child care, education, mental health, youth homelessness and youth in foster care.”

    Jessie Ryan, the president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, said it’s likely that K-12 school districts in the Los Angeles area will decide to dedicate new block grant funding to wildfire recovery, rather than investments in services for undocumented students or other vulnerable populations. 

    “That is a very real possibility,” she said. “We’re moving towards financial stability, but we’re not at restoration, and we’re going to have to continue to do everything in our power to protect our most vulnerable students, recognizing that we still have limited resources to do just that.”

    David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, said he also is concerned that the state might not fund its full obligation to Proposition 98. “We are excited to see so many transformative education initiatives supported by CTA members come to fruition in this state budget, including investments in transitional kindergarten, school nutrition and professional development. However, we are concerned that the proposed budget does not allocate the full funding guaranteed by Proposition 98. In the coming months, our union will carefully monitor the required funding levels for schools and community colleges to ensure full funding is provided to our students in a timely manner, without unnecessary delay.”

    Mary Vixie Sandy, executive director of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, said the commission is grateful for continued investments in addressing the teacher shortage. “Funding for teacher recruitment helps to improve affordability and access to teacher preparation programs and helps to ensure that students receive the high-quality education they deserve,” she said. 

    Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, which advocates for English learners, said, “We are encouraged to see the governor prioritizing key areas of importance, including a $10 million one-time allocation for statewide English language proficiency screeners to support multilingual learners in transitional kindergarten. Additionally, we applaud the emphasis on the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework as the foundational guide for literacy instruction—an essential focus that we strongly support.”

    Max Arias, chief spokesperson and chair of Child Care Providers United, a union that is negotiating with the state to increase reimbursements for its 40,000 child care workers, said the union is disappointed with Newsom’s proposed budget for child care.

    “Continuing on the path proposed in this budget — poverty wages with untimely payments — doesn’t just hurt providers and their families, it hurts the parents with essential jobs like grocery clerks, janitors and delivery drivers who can’t go to work without quality, affordable child care,” he said.

    Emmanuel Rodriguez, the senior director of policy and advocacy for California at The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), called on the state to use programs like the Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship to help students from mixed-status families, who may decide not to apply for federal financial aid. Rodriguez said the state must also ensure the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education has an adequate budget framework “to shield Californians from anticipated federal regulatory changes that will leave students more vulnerable than ever to predatory, low-quality colleges.”





    Source link