اینترنت

برچسب: Newsoms

  • Newsom’s veto enables charters to remain close to the communities they serve

    Newsom’s veto enables charters to remain close to the communities they serve


    Courtesy: Lighthouse Community Public Schools

    On Oct. 7, Gov. Gavin Newsom boldly vetoed a bill that purported to increase accountability for charter schools in high-needs communities that receive funding from the Charter School Facility Grant Program. The bill’s labor sponsors, the California School Employees Association and Assemblymember Mia Bonta claimed that this bill “will safeguard hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from wasteful and improper spending by charter schools.”

    Despite passing through the Democratic party’s supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, Gov. Newsom thoughtfully centered the needs of students and families in historically underserved communities over party politics and labor endorsements, and vetoed this bill, noting in his veto message of Assembly Bill 1604 that “provisions could have unintended consequences, including increasing facilities costs or limiting financial options for charter schools.”

    Unlike school districts, charter schools cannot pass general obligation bonds to finance their facilities. Instead, charter schools that serve a majority low-income student population can access funding through the Charter School Facility Grant Program to invest in facilities in the communities they serve and secure necessary financing to modernize classrooms and make campus safety improvements. Assemblymember Bonta’s bill would have increased their facilities costs and limited their long-term financing capacity — and prevented students from having access to safe and equitable facilities. This was her second failed attempt at legislation against the charter school facilities program alongside her partners at CSEA (AB 2484 in 2022 was a similar bill that died in Senate Appropriations).

    Under the current system, thoughtfully and thoroughly managed by the state treasury, charter schools can borrow money through the bond market for their facilities. The report from a 2022 audit of the Charter School Facility Grant Program noted the positive effect of the existing bond program and that the programs are “generally achieving their purpose of increasing charter schools’ access to facility funding” and did not find any improper use of the program. However, Bonta wanted to increase accountability and recoup public facilities funding in the event a charter school were to close.

    Had this bill passed, charter schools would have faced the unfair burden of increased borrowing rates for facilities in high-needs communities, or it could have even made access to financing untenable. In Oakland specifically, the district Bonta represents, charter schools, unfortunately, do not have access to high-quality, safe and equitable facilities, and require access to these bonds for long-term community investment. Oakland’s charters already face barriers, often political, to getting Proposition 39 offers (a state law requiring districts to allow charters to share space in their unused facilities or classrooms) or funding under Proposition 51 to improve existing facilities (a grant program that allows for bond-funded improvements at available district facilities for charter schools).

    Newsom’s veto should signal to Bonta and her labor partners that they should focus on more pressing educational issues that public school families care about, like increasing literacy rates, aligning investments in community school programming, improving public and school safety, and ensuring college readiness and career pathway completion.

    It is not surprising that about half of the students in East Oakland, from the Fruitvale to the San Leandro border, choose charter schools. Over the last three years, Oakland’s charter high schools have had college readiness A-G completion rates of 67% for African American and Latino students, compared with 34% at district high schools. Bonta is well aware of this, given her previous role as CEO of the Oakland Promise, an organization that provides college scholarships to Oakland Unified and charter school graduates. Many in the Oakland community were confused as to why she was attacking charter schools and their access to facilities financing given the positive college readiness rates that charter high schools have shifted locally.

    Many charter schools in Oakland exist to counter the systemic challenges of educational redlining — as children attending schools in the affluent hills receive a dramatically different educational experience and set of outcomes than children in the flatlands — and to give students and families quality public school options.  A third of Oakland’s families exercise this choice and choose charter schools for their children. According to Oakland Enrolls, a nonprofit that helps families choose the best school for their child, in each of the last three years, there have been an average of 8,000 unique student applications to charter schools in Oakland.

    The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the educational inequities that existed before the pandemic. Assemblymember Bonta’s repeated attempts to pass legislation that could harm charter schools are out of touch with the needs of students and families in Oakland and of high needs communities across California. However, the governor’s strong veto of AB 1604 is a welcome sign that he is committed to educational equity and to providing all students with access to high-quality educational opportunities, and recognizes that charter schools are a vital part of the educational landscape in California.

    •••

    Rich Harrison is CEO of Lighthouse Community Public Schools, which operates two K-12 public charter schools serving more than 1,600 students in East Oakland.

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





    Source link

  • Districts groan as state board sets in motion Newsom’s big changes to funding formula

    Districts groan as state board sets in motion Newsom’s big changes to funding formula


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

     In pursuit of narrowing cavernous gaps in student achievement, Gov. Gavin Newsom this year made changes to the Local Control Funding Formula, the state’s school funding law, that are among the most far-reaching since the law’s adoption a decade ago. School districts are bracing for the extra paperwork and demands. 

    Newsom’s directive requires that starting in 2024-25, districts and charter schools spell out how they will address poor performance and target funding for improvements in every school where one or more of the state’s 13 student groups rank red — the lowest of five performance bands on the California School Dashboard. Until now, state law required only improvement efforts for districts as a whole. 

    The revision was made in the language of the governor’s proposed state budget in January. It was discussed in legislative budget subcommittees as one of many items in the education budget but didn’t receive a separate and detailed review.

    Last week, the State Board of Education implemented the changes with regulations on what school districts must do to raise the achievement of the schools’ lowest-performing students. They include setting specific goals, committing to actions and spending to achieve them, and a new requirement — determining how to measure if those strategies are effective by the end of three years and what to do if they aren’t. 

    Before they voted, board members heard repeated warnings from dozens of superintendents and school district administrators that piling on more extensive documentation would make districts’ three-year strategic plans, called the Local Control and Accountability Plans, unbearably long and unreadable. 

    “In smaller school districts, where time and resources are already significantly limited, the current requirements of the LCAP add an undue burden,” Helio Brasil, superintendent of Keys Union School District, a two-school district in Stanislaus County, wrote to the board. 

    “In my experience, every addition of a new table or box or check box or prompt to the LCAP makes it less and less useful as the tool to promote equity-focused, locally informed strategic resource allocation,” Joshua Schultz, deputy superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, testified. “Already, practitioners in the field will tell you that the LCAP document is not useful for informing and engaging educational partners because of its length and complexity.”

    Equity multiplier schools

    Included in the revisions is a new category of “equity multiplier” schools serving many of the state’s most vulnerable students. Among the factors for their selection are the proportions of students from low-income families and parents lacking a high school diploma, and school stability — the rate of student transience.  Many will likely be small alternative high schools serving students who have been expelled, bullied and struggled at standard high schools or are at risk of dropping out.

    The idea was initially proposed by Black educators through a bill authored by Assemblymember Akilah Weber, D-San Diego, to dedicate $300 million to improve the achievement of Black students as the lowest-scoring student group on the dashboard. Newsom agreed to the new level of funding, but, concerned about violating Proposition 209, the 1996 voter initiative that bans affirmative action in public schools, he broadened the idea. The money will require districts to address and fund the specific needs of any lowest-performing student group on any dashboard indicator — whether math scores or absenteeism and graduation rates — and create overall goals for a school. Weber and the California Association of African American School Administrators endorsed the final plan.

    The schools have yet to be designated, but the California Department of Education is projecting there could be 1,000 schools. Many will likely have student groups performing in the red and will have to address them like other schools. But equity multiplier schools additionally will be eligible for technical help from designated county offices of education and their share of the extra $300 million, based on student enrollment. 

    Intense focus on school spending

    While not providing explicit funding for each student group, districts are held accountable for their performance. Student groups are determined by race and ethnicity, family income, students learning English, students with disabilities, and foster and homeless youth. Next month, the California Department of Education will release the 2023 dashboard, with color ratings for the first time since Covid interrupted testing in March 2020.

    The statutory revisions will mark a major shift in attention and accountability for the billions of dollars in extra “supplemental” and “concentration” money that the funding formula provides to districts annually based on the enrollment numbers of English learners and low-income, homeless and foster students. 

    The state already reports in the dashboard every school’s test scores and other indicators of student performance. Some districts funnel supplemental and concentration dollars directly to high-needs schools, as Los Angeles Unified does through its Student Needs and Equity Index. But the state steers funding formula dollars only to districts, which in turn determine how the funds are spent: which schools get tutors, extra counselors, teacher training or additional aides. Districts determine whether supplemental and concentration dollars are given to schools or through the central office. Districts are not required to track supplemental and concentration funding by school.  

    Stepped up accountability

    The revisions indicate Newsom agrees that either not enough funding reached the schools where high-needs students attended or funds were spent ineffectively.

    “The experience of the past decade is that we haven’t seen districts consistently identify schools with specific needs and take actions tailored to those needs,” said Brooks Allen, an adviser to Newsom and executive director of the State Board of Education.

    There has been overall progress in raising graduation rates and cutting suspension rates statewide. But the vast differences in proficiency rates on state test scores between Black (17% in math in 2023), white (48.2% in math) and Asian students (70% in math) have not narrowed, and absenteeism rates remain disproportionately high among Black and Hispanic students.

    “Newsom is saying we should move faster and stronger to close gaps in outcomes,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney for Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, one of the advocacy groups that called for the changes that Newsom adopted.

    The latest iteration of the LCAP template is at least the sixth in the past nine years. The state board designed the LCAP both as a strategic plan for district improvement and as an accountability tool to verify that districts are directing the $13 billion in supplemental and concentration funding to students for whom it was intended.

    Over time, the goals of accessibility and transparency have worked at cross-purposes. A previous iteration, for example, eliminated a potentially huge spending loophole, which the California State Auditor and Public Advocates identified, allowing districts to dump unspent supplemental and concentration dollars into their next year’s general fund to spend for any purpose on all students. Fixing it required adding yet another section to the LCAP accounting for the unspent money from year to year.

    A challenge to follow the money

    The Legislature hasn’t dedicated funding for research or evaluations to determine whether the funding formula was working. Consistent with his view that legislators should not meddle with local control, former Gov. Jerry Brown, the funding formula’s architect, made it difficult to compare districts’ spending from the funding formula and fought proposals to standardize spending through accounting codes.

    Despite the obstacles of limited data, researchers have persisted and found evidence for optimism and skepticism. In separate research studies, both UC Berkeley labor economist Rucker Johnson and Public Policy of Institute of California research fellow Julien Lafortune concluded that the funding formula succeeded in creating a much more equitable finance system and worked as designed for those districts getting the most extra money — those in which low-income students and English learners account for at least 95% of enrollment. Johnson calculated that a $1,000 increase in per-student funding, sustained for three consecutive years in the highest-poverty districts, produced significant increases in math and reading scores.

    But Lafortune, in an analysis he co-authored this year, also found that 60% of districts do not report spending on high-need students at or above the level of supplemental and concentration funding they receive. His 2021 research found that statewide only about 55% of supplemental and concentration dollars reached school sites whose students generated the funding, although some of the remaining money could have funded districtwide activities benefiting those schools. 

    Thus, there have been increasing calls from advocates for low-income students for more fine-grained reporting on spending.

    “We don’t report in a standardized way how much we spent at a school site. Getting that would go a long way to build trust that districts are doing what the policy intended,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser for Children Now.

    Despite efforts by California Department of Education staff to eliminate redundancies, combine goals for multiple equity multiplier schools, and convert spending listings into data tables, the latest version will undoubtedly lengthen LCAPs that already are often several hundred pages for medium and large school districts, and will take extra labor to complete.

    The LCAP instructions will increase from 45 to 57 pages. Districts will have to engage parents, students, and teachers in every equity multiplier school and document how the engagement shaped goals and actions. Districts will add dozens to hundreds of entries for schools with student groups in the red.

    “No one wants to fill out paperwork for the sake of it,” said Allen. “But if the result leads districts to conduct further needs and data analyses, and not a compliance exercise, the result could lead to positive change and better support for kids who need it most.”

    Representatives of advocacy groups who had been calling for more transparency in the LCAP expressed support for the revised template. “The governor’s proposal,  combined with other improvements, would get California closer to ensuring equitable educational opportunities and outcomes,” wrote Guillermo Mayer, president and CEO of Public Advocates, and Christopher Nellum, executive director of The Education Trust-West, a nonprofit organization, in an EdSource commentary earlier this year.

    In letters and comments to the state board, no superintendent or lobbyist for school groups commended Newsom’s decision to strengthen the funding formula law and add a new category of highest-need schools. Instead, celebrating seemingly small victories, many praised Department of Education administrators for holding the line by making only those changes to the template that were required by law. They also called for additional efforts to slim down the LCAP.

    Advocates and school administrators are hoping that software engineers from Silicon Valley and artificial intelligence will somehow resolve their differences. They’re assuming an interactive, electronic template can reduce confusion and duplication with links to both AI-generated LCAP summaries for curious parents and detailed financial data for accountability hawks. 

    “I’m sure there’s technology out there that can help to take that large document that’s now being streamlined and put it into an even more user-friendly format for those who desire (it),” said state board Vice President Cynthia Glover Woods, who, she said, had read more than her share of LCAPs as chief academic officer of the Riverside County Office of Education.

    The idea of an electronic fix has been mentioned for several years — so far to no avail. 





    Source link

  • Rainy day fund would bail out schools, community colleges in Newsom’s 2024-25 state budget

    Rainy day fund would bail out schools, community colleges in Newsom’s 2024-25 state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom discusses his proposed state budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, during a news conference in Sacramento on Jan. 10, 2024.

    Credit: Office of the Governor

    Gov. Gavin Newsom would protect schools and community colleges from the brunt of an $11.3 billion projected drop in state revenue for education, under a proposed 2024-25 state budget he released on Wednesday. The budget calls for covering all current levels of funding and existing commitments for new and expanded programs, plus a less than 1% cost-of-living increase for next year.

    The three-year decline in revenue, both for schools and the overall $38.7 billion in the state general fund, is $30 billion less than the Legislative Analyst’s Office had projected a month ago, easing the burden of balancing the budget and avoiding the possibility of drastic budget cuts or late payments — at least for community colleges and TK-12.

    However, Newsom is proposing to defer the promised 5% increases in revenue to both the University of California and California State University systems. UC and CSU would borrow that funding this year and get reimbursed in next year’s budget.

    “We are deferring but not delaying, and there’s a distinction in the law that will allow UC and CSU just for one year to be able to borrow against that commitment,” Newsom said.

    Newsom would protect schools and community colleges by withdrawing about $7 billion from the $10.8 billion TK-14 rainy day fund to cover the current year’s shortfall and meet the minimum obligation in 2024-25. The state would not seek reimbursement for what turned out to be funding above the minimum Proposition 98 statutory obligation for the prior two years.

    Proposition 98 is the funding formula determining the portion of the state’s general fund that must be spent on TK-12 and community colleges. With the addition of transitional kindergarten, that share will rise about one percentage point to 39.5% of the general fund. In 2024-25, Proposition 98 funds will be $109.1 billion. That would be about $3.5 billion more than the revised projection for 2023-24, reflecting expectations of improved state revenues in the next fiscal year.

    The Legislature was handicapped when it passed the 2023-24 budget last June. There were indications but no hard numbers that economic conditions were worsening, because the deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16 in response to massive flooding last winter. As it turned out, state revenues had fallen sharply from slower home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.

    But with the stock market rebounding since then, Newsom said more optimistic revenue projections for next year and savings in state government operations would account for two-thirds of the difference between the state Department of Finance revenue projections and the legislative analyst’s forecast. A remedy for dealing with a two-year, $10-plus billion drop in Proposition 98 funding would account for the rest of the disparity. In a news conference, Newsom chided the “ready, fire, aim” projections of the news media and others for assuming a more dire financial outlook without the latest data.

    Many districts, nonetheless, will face financial stress. More than two-thirds are facing declining enrollment, which will lower their share of state funding. And the 1% inflation adjustment for 2024-25 will not cover cost increases and, for some districts, negotiated staff raises. Districts are receiving an 8% cost-of-living adjustment this year, down from a 13% bump in 2022-23.

    Newsom’s January budget will now undergo six months of negotiations with the Legislature over their priorities. Revenue updates by June will reveal whether his optimism will hold up, and what the Legislature must do if it doesn’t.

    Newsom reiterated that the state would uphold its education commitments to schools using record post-Covid revenues. These include the addition of transitional kindergarten and appropriating $8 billion combined to create community schools and add summer programs and after-school hours for low-income students.  These would continue to be funded at promised levels.

    Also surviving is an additional $300 million for the state’s poorest schools. The governor said that this proposal, known as an “equity multiplier,” is also a high priority by the California Legislative Black Caucus. Another priority that Newsom mentioned is funding for the UCLA Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.

    “In the face of a large deficit, it’s reassuring that the governor committed to maintaining his transformative investments in education, including community schools, universal TK, and the equity multiplier,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney for the student advocacy nonprofit Public Advocates. “That the governor particularly called them out with a ‘don’t touch’ message to the Legislature indicates he’ll fight hard to maintain them.”

    New ideas for mitigating student absences

    Despite $6 billion in one-time state funding for post-pandemic learning recovery, chronic absences soared to 30% in 2022-23 and remained high last year. Statewide post-pandemic test scores also plummeted in math and English language arts in 2022-23 statewide and almost remained flat last year.

    Recognizing that students can’t learn when they aren’t in school, Newsom is proposing changes in the law that will allow school districts to provide attendance recovery programs in response to chronic absences and loss in learning because of floods, wildfires and other climate conditions. Districts, in turn, would benefit from offsetting revenues lost from student absences. The new law would specify that districts could fund Saturday programs and intercessions to respond to students with many absences.

    Districts would be required to offer students access to remote instruction, including enabling families to enroll in neighboring districts “for emergencies” lasting five or more days. A budget trailer bill will spell out details, including whether students could seek tutoring under this option.

    The budget calls for $6 million to research hybrid and remote learning and develop new models.

    “We have to use the experiences of recent years to think forward for ensuring that kids can gain access to the learning and instructional opportunities that they deserve,” said Hedy Chang, founder and executive director of Attendance Works, a group that tracks chronic absenteeism.

    Addressing a teacher shortage

    Newsom also proposes to relax some requirements to become a teacher, due to a persistent teacher shortage. Teacher candidates will no longer have to take a test or coursework to prove they have the basic skills to earn a credential, according to the state summary of the budget. The state will now recognize completion of a bachelor’s degree as satisfying the basic-skills requirement.

    Currently, teacher candidates must pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test, a combination of other tests, or complete specific coursework to prove they have the basic skills to teach. The CBEST tests reading, math and writing skills and is usually taken before a student is accepted into a teacher preparation program.

    The governor’s budget calls for streamlining the process of credentialing aspiring arts teachers in response to the passage of Proposition 28, the groundbreaking arts education initiative. It directs the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education authorization for career technical education teachers. This pathway currently only exists for secondary education, and many arts education advocates have pressed to expand it to elementary school classrooms.

    “Governor Newsom’s proposal is an important step in the right direction,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “The money from Prop 28 is the enabler, but students will only benefit when schools use it to hire great arts teachers in all grade levels.”

    The budget summary also refers to several other proposals that will make it easier to become a teacher, although it offered no additional details about those proposals.

    The budget proposal also includes:

    • $20 million as the first step toward implementing the long-debated math framework that the State Board of Education adopted last July. A county office of education would be chosen to work with math experts and nonprofits to train math coaches and leaders, who in turn would teach high-quality instruction. State law would spell out that existing state learning loss funding should focus on teacher training in math.
    • $5 million to increase support for the California Cradle-to-Career Data System.
    • $122 million to increase funding for universal school meals.

    The budget contains good and bad news for districts seeking immediate funding for facilities. Newsom would reduce the General Fund by delaying $550 million for new and retrofitted facilities for adding transitional kindergarten. And he proposes to cut $500 million he committed to the state School Facilities Program, which has run out of state funding. However, Newsom committed to negotiate a multibillion-dollar school facilities bond with the Legislature for the November 2024 ballot.

    Questions on the size of the bond needed to win voter support and whether it should include higher education must be answered, Newsom said. “All that’s being worked on, but a real issue to address is that we’ve exhausted the previous bond, and it’s important to advance a new one.”

    Higher education

    In 2022, Newsom made agreements with both UC and CSU to give annual 5% base funding increases over five years in exchange for increasing enrollment and improving graduation rates.

    Under his latest proposal, UC and CSU would borrow a combined $499 million this year — $258.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU. That includes this year’s 5% increase for the systems as well as $31 million for UC to increase enrollment of resident undergraduate students.

    If lawmakers agree to Newsom’s plan, the two systems would receive two years’ worth of 5% budget increases in next year’s state budget to make up for this year’s deferrals.

    “These decisions will position our state and its students for a prosperous future once budgetary challenges subside,” Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, said in a statement Wednesday. “During economic downturns, the University of California’s role in California’s economic development is even more important, and we are grateful to state leaders for their visionary leadership and commitment to maintaining the funding compact.”

    Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said that given the state’s financial challenges, the governor’s plan acknowledges his financial commitment to CSU students while also attempting to address the state’s budget situation. But the proposal also puts the system in a precarious position. 

    “This proposal would deliver the same level of funding per fiscal year as originally outlined in the compact, although with additional risk to the CSU if the state’s budget condition further erodes and the state cannot fulfill this restructured commitment,” Garcia said. “We will explore our funding options to advance compact-related goals during the one-year delay and will proceed with financial prudence as we review the impacts and implications of this budget proposal.” 

    Newsom’s spending plan would not fund a significant expansion of the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid program. He and lawmakers agreed in 2022 to overhaul the Cal Grant beginning in 2024-25 by simplifying the awards and extending eligibility to more students, but only if state revenues were sufficient to do so. With the state facing a shortfall, the governor is not committing funding to that expansion, though negotiations on the issue are expected to continue through the spring. A spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance said Wednesday that the department will wait until May to make a final determination.

    Newsom also proposed doing away with a program that would provide interest-free loans to colleges and universities to build affordable student housing. In total, that would save $494 million for the state’s 2024-25 budget: $194 million that was appropriated last year plus $300 million this and every year through 2028-29.

    Mike Fong, chair of the Assembly’s higher education committee, said in a statement that he’s disappointed that Newsom proposed eliminating the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and didn’t include funding to reform the Cal Grant. 

    “We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education,” Fong said.

    Early education   

    The budget largely holds steady for early education and child care. It maintains ongoing funding for the newly expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and earmarks $1.7 billion toward long-awaited increased pay for child care providers. It also continues to gradually add subsidized child care slots, with about $2 billion going to fund about 146,000 new slots to be filled by 2024-25, toward an ultimate goal of 200,000 new slots.

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

    EdSource reporters Michael Burke, Ashley S. Smith, Mallika Seshadri, Betty Márquez Rosales, Karen D’Souza, Diana Lambert and Emma Gallegos contributed to the article. 





    Source link

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

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


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

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

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

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

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

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

    — John Fensterwald, Editor-At-Large

    Yolie Flores, CEO and president, Families in Schools

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

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

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

    Jeff Freitas, president, California Federation of Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sara Noguchi, superintendent of Modesto City Schools

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

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

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

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

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

    Josh Hagen, policy director, Campaign for College Opportunity

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

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

    Martha Hernandez, executive director, Californians Together

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

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

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

    Alberto Carlvaho, superintendent, Los Angeles Unified

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

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

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

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

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

    Mala Batra, CEO, Aspire Public Schools 

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

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

    Eric Premack, executive director, Charter Schools Development Center 

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

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

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

    Sarah Lillis, executive director, Teach Plus California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

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

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

    Albert Gonzalez, president, California School Boards Association

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

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





    Source link

  • Newsom’s $8 billion fix to spare cuts to schools, community colleges may face tough sell

    Newsom’s $8 billion fix to spare cuts to schools, community colleges may face tough sell


    Gov. Gavin Newsom announces his 2024-25 state budget proposal, including his plans to deal with a projected deficit in Sacramento on Jan. 10.. Credit: Brontë Wittpenn / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    Gov. Gavin Newsom buoyed the hopes of school district and community college educators this month when, despite a sizable three-year decline in state revenue, he promised to protect schools and colleges from cuts and to uphold future spending commitments.

    They might want to hold their applause until after the last act, when the Legislature passes the 2024-25 budget in June.

    In an analysis of the state budget, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) cautioned that there are questions about how Newsom plans to close $8 billion of a huge revenue shortfall facing schools and community colleges.

    Beyond meeting this challenge, the LAO also urged legislators to start planning for education spending beyond 2024-25, when flat or declining revenues are expected to raise difficult financial choices. They could pit funding of ongoing expenses against sustaining ambitious programs like summer and after-school programs for low-income students, additional community schools, money for teacher training in early literacy and math, and confronting post-pandemic learning setbacks.

    “The state faces significant operating deficits in the coming years, which are the result of lower revenue estimates, as well as increased cost pressures,” the analyst said.

    But the immediate enigma is Newsom’s strategy for the $8 billion.

    Newsom is projecting that state revenues to run schools and community colleges will be short $14.3 billion over three years: the budget year that ended in 2022-23, the current budget year of 2023-24, and the coming year. That number is calculated as revenue through Proposition 98, the formula that determines the proportion of the state’s general fund that must be spent on schools and community colleges — about 40%.

    Proposition 98 revenues are sometimes close but never exactly what a governor and the Legislature assume when they approve a budget. Revenues for the past and current years exceed or fall short of what they projected and not what they predict for the year ahead.  

    Budget analysts were particularly handicapped when calculating the 2023-24 budget. They didn’t anticipate the shortfall from 2022-23 and didn’t discover it until fall 2023, because of a six-month delay in the filing deadline for 2022 tax returns.

    Newsom is proposing to divert $5.7 billion from the Proposition 98 rainy day fund to fill in the current year’s deficit as well as what’s needed to sustain a flat budget, plus a small cost of living increase, for 2024-25. Draining the rainy day fund would require the Legislature’s OK.

    The remainder — and biggest piece — is the $9 billion revenue shortfall from 2022-23, which would be $8 billion after other automatic adjustments. That shortfall is technically an overpayment beyond the statutory minimum Proposition 98 funding guarantee. It fell dramatically from what the Legislature adopted in June 2022 to $98.3 billion that revenue actually produced. The biggest decline was in income tax receipts on the top 1% of earners.

    School districts have already spent funding from 2022–23, including on staff pay raises that they negotiated with good faith estimates. Newsom and the Legislature could try to deduct that overpayment from the current and 2024-25 budgets, but such a move “would be devastating for students and staff,” Patti Herrera, vice president of the school consulting firm California School Services, told a workshop last week with more than 1,000 school district administrators in Sacramento.

    As an alternative, Newsom proposes to find reductions from the non-Proposition 98 side of the general fund, which covers higher education, child care and all other non-education expenses, from prisons to climate change programs.

    “We are super grateful there will be no attempts to claw back” the money given to school districts in a past year’s budget, Herrera said.

    Newsom’s challenge is to make districts and community colleges financially whole without increasing the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee. Raising Proposition 98 could create a bigger obligation in the future, including potential deficits after 2024-25 — unless the Legislature raises taxes, a nonstarter in an election year.

    How Newsom is going to do this is a mystery. The one-sentence reference to it in his budget summary says only, “The Budget proposes statutory changes to address roughly $8 billion of this decrease to avoid impacting existing LEA (school districts) and community college district budgets.”

    Both the LAO and School Services said it’s their understanding from the Department of Finance that the payments from the general fund to cover the Proposition 98 overpayment would be made over five years, starting in 2025-26.

    “We have some questions about that proposal. Probably the most pressing one is how is the state going to use revenue that it’s not going to collect for several years to address a funding shortfall that exists right now,” said Ken Kapphahn, the LAO’s principal fiscal and policy analyst for TK-12 education.

    The questions are legal and political. The proposed statutory language, which may be released in a trailer bill in the coming weeks, will reveal how the state Department of Finance will finesse postponing balancing the 2022-23 budget that’s $8 billion out of kilter. Budget hearings next week in the Capitol may indicate how receptive legislative leaders are to further reducing general fund spending, which also is feeling a financial squeeze.

    A search for the extra $8 billion

    Additionally, Newsom is proposing several billion dollars of accounting maneuvers that will book spending in 2024-25 but delay and defer payments for programs and some state salaries until early 2025-26.  Included are $500 million in deferred reimbursements to the University of California and California State University for the 5% budget increase that Newsom committed to funding in 2024-25.

    “Many of these solutions involve moving costs to next year. That is one reason we have the state looking at a large deficit, not just this year, but the following year,” Kapphahn said. “I can’t recall another situation quite like this.”

    Barring a recession, which neither LAO nor the Newsom administration is forecasting, both Newsom and the administration are projecting general fund deficits averaging about $30 billion annually in the three years after 2024-25. Pushing the $8 billion solution for the 2022-23 Proposition 98 deficit, along with other general fund delays and deferrals into those years will compound difficult choices, according to the LAO.

    “Overall, the governor’s budget runs the risk of understating the degree of fiscal pressure facing the state in the future,” the LAO analysis said.

    The LAO suggested other options for resolving the 2022-23 deficit. It recommended applying the remaining $3.8 billion from the Proposition 98 reserve fund that Newsom hasn’t touched and looking for reductions in unallocated one-time funding such as an unused $1 billion for community schools and canceling $500 million for electric school buses. 

    Even with no cuts to Proposition 98 next year, many school districts and charter schools will likely face their own deficits in 2024-25. That’s because the projected cost-of-living adjustment for next year will not be enough to cover the loss of revenue from declining enrollments. The COLA, tied to a federal formula measuring goods and services bought by state and local governments and not consumer products, is currently projected to be 0.76%; it would be the lowest increase in 40 years, with one exception, the year after the Great Recession, in 2009. This would come on the heels of two years of near record-high COLAs of 6.6% and 8.2%.

    The analyst’s office projects the COLA may inch up to 1% by June, when the budget is set. At that rate, a hypothetical school district with 10,000 students would see declining revenues with an enrollment decline of only about 100 students.

    Paso Robles Joint Unified School District in San Luis Obispo County, with about 6,000 students, is among those with declining enrollment since the pandemic. As a result, the district, with about 800 full-time employees, anticipates a reduction of five full-time staff members in 2024-25 and perhaps 40 layoff notices the following year, said Brad Pawlowski, the assistant superintendent for business services.

    Pawlowski said he came away encouraged after School Services’ presentation that schools will be spared cuts in the next budget, while acknowledging it’s a long time between now and the budget’s adoption.

    “We have seen a common message between the governor and the Legislature to protect education. And that does make me feel good,” he said. But doing so, he added, “will mean finding other ways to make that up outside of Prop. 98. That’s going to be the real challenge.”





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal calls for expanding arts ed pathway

    Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal calls for expanding arts ed pathway


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Faced with an ongoing teacher shortage, many California arts education advocates have been championing the use of career technical education (CTE) to attract new arts teachers to help fulfill the state’s historic arts mandate. The sticking point has been that the credential has only been applied to secondary classrooms, leaving elementary students out. 

    That may change if Gov. Gavin Newsom’s initial 2024-25 state budget becomes law. This proposal, subject to change in May, when the numbers are revised in response to shifting economic conditions and policy issues, calls for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education pathway for career technical education teachers. This expansion would allow more working artists to share their expertise with California students, a move many arts advocates praise.

    “Newsom is paving the way for a more vibrant and well-rounded educational experience, fostering creativity and skill development at every stage,” said Allison Gamlen, visual and performing arts coordinator for the San Mateo County Office of Education. “Empowering CTE teachers with the ability to bring their expertise to elementary classrooms is a positive step that will enrich the artistic learning experience for young students.”

    Expanding this credential into elementary schools might help recruit working artists, from musicians to animators, who are passionate about their craft into the school system, which is struggling to find staff in the wake of the pandemic.

    “It’s really exciting,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. He said the governor’s direction to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing about expanding the career technical education pathways for arts educators to include elementary schools “will help all 6 million children in public schools across California benefit from the additional funding Prop. 28 provides for arts education.”

    While many arts advocates are excited, some also caution patience, given the exhaustive nature of the bureaucratic process. The budget may well undergo significant changes during the May revision, for example.

    “Teaching artists will now have another pathway into employment at schools to meet the needs of Prop. 28,” said Eric Engdahl, professor emeritus at CSU East Bay and past president of the California Council on Teacher Education. But “knowing how state bureaucracies work and the laws that govern their actions, I don’t think this will produce any new teachers for at least two years, quite possibly more.”

    One key concern has been whether artists have sufficient knowledge of best practices for younger children. Some are concerned that teaching third graders requires a different skill set than eighth graders, for instance. 

    “Elementary has different foundational considerations, including meeting young students’ developmental and reading needs,” said Letty Kraus, director of the California county superintendents’ statewide arts initiative. “The developmental piece is an important one.”

    Kraus believes the state should solve the staffing problem by widening the existing arts educator pipeline. 

    “Rather than push CTE down into elementary, I think it is important to look at our existing credentialing system and consider how to increase statewide access to credentialing pathways, including virtual,” she said, “and also how to remove financial barriers and support credential candidates while they complete their student teaching.”

    Some arts education experts warn that teaching a subject is not the same as practicing it.

    “I am concerned about having CTE teachers teaching a core subject like arts, math and science —mastering a subject doesn’t mean you can teach it,” said Abe Flores, deputy director of policy and programs at Create CA, an advocacy group. “I know how to read, but it doesn’t mean I can adequately teach a student to read.”

    Others say that the new credential should require adequate training in child development as well as pedagogical concerns.

    “Since it is now in the CTC’s court, they will have to create a pathway that ensures preparedness,” said Engdahl. “A CTE credential requires classes in addition to industry experience, and the CTC should be looking at those classes closely.”

    Engdahl has confidence that aspiring arts educators will apply due diligence to their professional development. 

    “As for teacher preparedness, I am not really too concerned. When I was a teaching artist, and having worked with teaching artists for many years, I have noticed that their classroom preparedness is generally excellent.”

    However, classrooms today are not what they were before the pandemic, and many children are coping with mental health issues as well as learning loss. That raises the stakes for all new teachers, Engdahl notes, not just arts educators.

    “If there is an area of concern, it is in the changes in schools after Covid,” said Engdahl. “Students and schools are different now, and it is more challenging helping students to heal and learn.”

    This urgency to adapt to shifting school needs is one reason Beutner believes change is called for.

    “You have to meet the students where they are,” said Beutner. “You also have to meet the aspiring teachers where they are.”





    Source link

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office criticizes Newsom’s education budget for risky funding practices

    Legislative Analyst’s Office criticizes Newsom’s education budget for risky funding practices


    Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, right, listens as Ken Kapphahn of the Legislative Analyst’s Office critiques Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed education budget at a hearing on May 22.

    Credit: State Senate Media Archive

    Top Takeaways
    • A drop in project state revenue projections from January to May, while avoiding cuts, would compound a dilemma.
    • Newsom also would increase funding for early literacy and after-school programs.
    • Key legislators share concern about draining the rainy day fund and deferring payments.

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office is criticizing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s spending plan for next year for schools and community colleges. It says the May revision of the 2025-26 state budget would create new debt, rely on one-time funding to pay for ongoing operations, and drain the education rainy day fund to pay for new programs and enlarge existing ones.

    The Legislature should reject the financially unsound practices, which would “put the state and districts behind the eight ball” if state revenues fall short of projections, Ken Kapphahn, senior fiscal and policy analyst for the LAO, told the Legislature’s budget committees on May 22. 

    The LAO provides the Legislature with nonpartisan analysis and advice on fiscal and policy issues.

    In his budget for 2025-26, Newsom would protect TK-12 and community colleges from a $4.4 billion drop in projected state revenue between his January and revised May budgets and add $2 billion in spending to the administration’s priorities, which include:

    • Qualifying more students for coverage of summer and after-school learning through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program ($526 million).
    • Hiring more math and literacy coaches and training teachers in literacy instruction ($745 million). The money would reflect legislation that the Legislature is expected to pass requiring textbooks and instruction practices to incorporate phonics and foundational skills.
    • Reducing the student-to-staff ratio in transitional kindergarten from 12 to 1 to 10 to 1 ($517 million).
    • Paying stipends for student teachers ($100 million).

    The biggest budget challenge is that the projected Proposition 98 guarantee for 2025-26 — the minimum portion of the state’s General Fund that must be spent on TK-12 and community colleges — fell $4.4 billion — from $118.9 billion in the initial budget in January to $114.5 billion in May — because of revised revenue forecasts for California that project a drop in stock market earnings and uncertain impacts from President Donald Trump’s economic policies.

    Newsom’s May budget would include some cuts and savings from, for example, lower projected enrollment in transitional kindergarten. It would also withdraw or reduce nearly $400 million in community college funding for updating data systems and investing in Newsom’s Master Plan for Career Education (see Page 28 of his budget summary).

    But he’d primarily rely on financial tactics that the LAO cited as fiscally risky and unwise:

    • Committing $1.6 billion in one-time funding for ongoing funding, a strategy that could leave the state short of funding starting a year from now;
    • Depleting the Prop. 98 rainy day fund by $1.5 billion;
    • Issuing a $2.3 billion IOU by pushing back paying $1.8 billion for TK-12 and $532 million for community colleges from June 2026 to the next fiscal year in 2026-27. This deferral, though only for several weeks, creates a debt that must be repaid. Paying it off will eat into state revenue for districts and community colleges in the subsequent year. 

    Issuing deferrals and digging into the state’s reserves have been done before during recessions and financial emergencies, but should be viewed as “a tool of last resort,” not as solutions to difficult spending choices, Kapphahn said. 

    “The state historically has tried to contain spending during tight times to protect funding for core programs,” its critique said. “May Revision would task districts with hiring staff and expanding local programs based on funding levels that the state might be unable to sustain.”

    Neither LAO nor Newsom is predicting a financial recession, but both project weakened state revenues over the next two years.

    The LAO’s option

    The LAO put forward an alternative budget that it claims would meet the revised, lower Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantee for 2025-26, including a required 2.3% cost-of-living adjustment for community colleges and schools. It would avoid deferrals, reduce $1.6 billion in ongoing spending, and reject many of Newsom’s one-time spending proposals, including literacy training and materials. 

    Instead, consistent with local control, it would increase an existing discretionary block grant to let districts choose how to spend much less new money.

    Negotiations in the coming weeks between Newsom and legislative leaders will determine what’s in the final budget. However, two Democratic leaders who chair budget committees overseeing education in the Assembly and Senate said they shared the LAO’s skepticism. 

    Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said he felt uncomfortable recommending increased funding for individual programs that “set us on for being in trouble next year.”

    “If we do all this, and the projections are accurate,” he said at the May 22 hearing, “there will not be enough money to pay off deferrals and make the COLA. The decision to put us in that position we are making now, potentially creating a bad situation for next year.”

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, who chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, said he too is concerned that the proposed budget would deplete the last $1.5 billion of the rainy day fund, which was $8.4 billion only two years ago.

    At the same time, he agrees with Newsom’s new spending on literacy instruction and funding for stipends for student teachers. And he would add in money for ethnic studies that Newsom didn’t include. Without the funding, the mandate for a semester-long ethnic studies course that the Legislature required, starting in 2025-26, cannot take effect.

    Alvarez didn’t suggest budget cuts to make room for ethnic studies.





    Source link

  • Teachers, school boards threaten to sue over Gov. Newsom’s fix for revenue shortfall

    Teachers, school boards threaten to sue over Gov. Newsom’s fix for revenue shortfall


    Gov. Gavin Newsom

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

    The article was updated on May 20 to include a quote from Rob Manwaring and a graphic showing differences in Prop. 98 funding between the governor’s May budget revision and CTA’s estimate of full funding.

    Two powerful education groups’ opposition could derail Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to fix a massive state budget shortfall for TK-12 schools and community colleges and lead to litigation this summer with an unpredictable outcome.

    The dispute is over Proposition 98, the 35-year-old, complex formula that determines how much money schools and community colleges must receive annually from the state’s general fund. Newsom says he’s complying with the law while largely sparing schools and community colleges the larger budget cuts facing UC, CSU and non-educational parts of state government.

    To which the California School Boards Association and the California Teachers Association say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

    In separate announcements, the school boards association on Wednesday and CTA on Friday threatened to sue over what they characterize as an end run around the Proposition 98 formula that would deny schools and community colleges billions of dollars. They argue that Newsom’s tactic would set a bad and expensive precedent that governors in other tight times would imitate if allowed.  

    David Goldberg, CTA President

    CTA President David Goldberg called the budget maneuver “an outright assault on public school funding” that would “wreak havoc for years to come.”

    Patrick O’Donnell, a former high-ranking Assembly member who is now chief of government affairs for the school boards association, said the organization is willing to sit down with the governor but will not permit a violation of the state constitution on Proposition 98, “our lifeline to education.”

    Like other areas of state government, schools and community colleges are facing a massive revenue shortage — a drop of $17.7 billion in Proposition 98 funding over a three-year period, including $3.7 billion just since January alone.

    The biggest piece of the drop reflected a big miscalculation. Because of winter storms in early 2023 across much of the nation, the federal government and California pushed back the filing date for taxes from April 15 to Nov. 15. As a result, Newsom and legislators lacked accurate revenue estimates when they set the 2023-24 budget in June; it turns out they appropriated $8.8 billion more than the minimum required under Proposition 98.

    Since TK-12 and community colleges had already budgeted and spent the money,  Newsom promised to hold them harmless. The contention is over his Department of Finance advisers’ plan to treat the “overpayment” as an off-the-books accounting maneuver.

    The Department of Finance would pay for the $8.8 billion in cash — the state apparently has lots of it these days — and then accrue the expenditure from the general fund over five years, starting in 2025-26.  

    The proposed budget “is not only legal and constitutional in our view, but is designed to provide predictable and stable support” in response to unprecedented disruption in revenue projections,” said H.D. Palmer, the deputy director for external affairs for the Department of Finance. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has questioned whether the governor’s plan is prudent, without commenting on its legality. And key legislators, including the chairs of the budget subcommittees on education financing — Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, and Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego — appeared skeptical in hearings this week.

    CTA and the school boards association have a different beef: the “manipulation” of the Proposition 98 obligation. Voters passed the proposition as a constitutional amendment to protect education spending from tax cutters and, as has happened more often lately, tax volatility. The formula sets a funding floor but not a ceiling, and the Proposition 98 appropriation in any given year generally becomes the base for calculating the next year’s minimum. There are several “tests,” tied to economic conditions and growth in student attendance, that determine how much Proposition 98 funding changes annually.

    The teachers union and the school boards association argue that the extra $8.8 billion becomes the floor for calculating the 2023-24 obligation, and that it is not a mistake or overpayment.

    By CTA’s calculations, adding in the $8.8 billion and applying other Proposition 98 factors would raise funding for 2023-24 by $6.8 billion beyond what Newsom calls for in his May revision and $5.1 billion more in 2024-25.

    “The Proposition 98 maneuver proposed in the May Revise threatens public school funding,” Goldberg said in a statement. “Eroding this guarantee would harm schools for years to come and create the conditions for larger class sizes, fewer counselors, school nurses and mental health professionals, cuts to essential school programs and potential layoffs.” 

    Kenneth Kapphahn, senior fiscal and policy analyst for the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said that the agency hasn’t seen CTA’s calculations but that the union’s numbers are “close to what we are tracking.”

    “The Administration is trying to illegally exclude the $8.8 billion that already was spent on schools in 2022-23 when calculating the minimum guarantee for 2023-24,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser for the advocacy nonprofit Children Now. “In passing Proposition 98 as a constitutional amendment, voters were clear they wanted to avoid manipulations to suppress spending on schools and community colleges.”

    Suspension of Proposition 98 likely

    Newsom’s May revision to the budget calls for using $8.8 billion from the general fund to plug the shortfall for 2022-23, draining what remains of the nearly $8.5 billion Proposition 98 reserve to balance 2023-24 and 2024-25, and making a couple of billion dollars’ worth of cuts, including facilities spending for preschools and transitional kindergarten, middle-class college scholarships, tuition grants for teacher candidates and a delay in funding preschool slots.

    A win for the CTA and the school boards association, whether through negotiations or in court, wouldn’t immediately send additional revenue, which the state doesn’t have, to districts’ doorsteps or resolve the challenge of a $17.7 billion shortfall. 

    O’Donnell, representing the school boards, acknowledged that adding billions to the Proposition 98 minimum could compound the “short-term pain” of balancing the budget. 

    This immediate result could be additional cuts, an emergency suspension of Proposition 98 this year or the creation of billions of dollars in IOUs called deferrals.‘ The legislative analyst’s Kapphahn said that the state is heading into the next fiscal year with less state revenue and without a rainy day fund to help out. 

    Suspending Proposition 98 when the state cannot fund its minimum obligations has been done twice, in 2004-05 and 2010-11. Suspension requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and creates a debt, called the “maintenance factor,” that, Kapphahn said, “can take many years to be restored.”

    Deferrals, which were used in the years after the Great Recession, involve late payments, anywhere from days to months, into the next fiscal year, which are rolled over yearly until there’s enough new money to end them. 

    “There’s a whole series of options, and they are all difficult. Every single one seems to require us to pay money that is not budgeted with the possible exception of the governor’s proposed maneuver,” said the Senate’s Laird. “We are going to have intense discussions over the next few weeks about these options.”

    CTA acknowledged that a Proposition 98 suspension might be inevitable but also essential. “At least a suspension brings a constitutionally required restoration of the guarantee level” through repayments of the maintenance factor, it said in a statement Friday,  “thereby avoiding a permanent reduction in school funding and the whims of future Administrations.” 

    The union intends to put pressure on legislators. “We will be calling our elected leaders in the coming weeks to demand protection of school funding,” Goldberg said, adding that CTA will launch a media campaign to ensure that our communities understand what’s at stake.”





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget

    Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom answers a reporter’s question about his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    True to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise, the 2024-25 budget compromise that the Legislature announced Saturday and will pass this week will spare TK-12 and community colleges from cuts that other state operations will bear.

    TK-12 funding will be flat and will continue Newsom’s major commitments to multiyear, multibillion-dollar programs, including community schools and before- and after-school expansion.

    Update: State Budget Signed

    On June 26, Gov. Newsom signed Assembly Bill 107, the main budget bill, and Senate Bill 154, the Proposition 98 suspension bill. On June 28, Newsom signed SB 153, the education trailer bill.

    The budget will even throw in a couple of billion in new revenue that Newsom didn’t call for in January or in his May budget revisions. Newsom and legislators, meanwhile, struggled to squeeze an additional $28 billion out of a $211 billion general fund spending.

    But protection for schools and community colleges will carry risk. To balance the budget, Newsom and legislative leaders rely on budget maneuvers that would give a button-down accountant acid reflux.

    They include creating a $6 billion debt that won’t be fully repaid to the state treasury for a dozen years, and draining the $8.4 billion education rainy day fund.

    The deal also requires delaying payments to schools and community colleges and suspending — for only the third time in its 36-year history — Proposition 98 obligations for the current school year, on the assumption the money will be repaid quickly. Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988, established a formula for determining the minimum level of general fund spending on transitional kindergarten through grade 12 and community colleges — generally about 40%.

    Rather than punish schools for money already spent, the budget bill creates a $6.2 billion debt that the general fund, not schools and community colleges, will repay the state treasury over a decade, starting in 2026-27. The remaining $2.6 billion will be a Proposition 98 obligation pushed ahead to 2023-24; that unfunded amount is called a deferral.

    The California State University and the University of California won’t fare as well in the budget deal, although better than Newsom had proposed in January, even with a drop in state revenues since then. Both will get a 5% budget increase in 2024-25 that Newsom had proposed delaying, equal to $227.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU, to support enrollment growth of California residents this fall. 

    Another promised 5% budget increase for both systems in 2025-26, however, will be put off a year. UC and CSU also face one-time cuts in 2024-25 of $125 million and $75 million, respectively, which will be restored in 2025-26.

    Both CSU and UC will also face a 7.95% cut in their administrative expenses in 2025-26.

    There will be no reforming the Cal Grant program in 2024-25, but, at the Legislature’s insistence, the $637 million ongoing funding for middle-class scholarships will continue, with a $289 million one-time increase.

    Late spending changes

    The final budget will also restore some TK-12 and child-care cuts that Newsom had proposed in his May budget revision while maintaining others. They include:

    • Restoring $60 million for the Golden State Teachers Program, which provides $20,000 in scholarships to teacher candidates, although a new means test may pare back $10 million in eligibility.  
    • Restoring $100 million in funding to help preschools prepare classrooms and train teachers in order to enroll more children with disabilities, while withdrawing larger plans to expand the program.
    • Continuing the existing agreement to serve 200,000 more children in the state-subsidized child care system but pushing back the timetable for full compliance to 2028.
    • Rescinding $895 million in one-time spending on electric-powered school buses that Newsom had made a priority. Instead, the money will be used to reduce some of the late payments in state funding for schools.

    School districts receive the bulk of their funding through the Local Control Funding Formula, which is based on daily student attendance and a yearly cost-of-living adjustment. So, even though overall state funding won’t be cut, many districts with declining enrollments and high absenteeism rates will face financial challenges.

    The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is based on a federal formula tied to the cost of goods and services but does not factor in regional costs, including housing, will be only 1.07% for 2024-25, forcing further belt-tightening. One option for school districts, giving layoff notices to staff, will be off the table. State law allows an additional round of layoffs in August in years when the COLA is less than 2%, but, at the urging of public employee unions, Newsom and legislative leaders included a clause prohibiting late summer layoffs. They have done the same statutory override before.

    The initial reaction from two veteran TK-12 budget watchers was mixed. “This budget remarkably insulates K-14 funding from cuts, abides by constitutional requirements to restore funding in the future, and even provides a modest cost-of-living increase, all amid a record budget shortfall. Pretty amazing,” wrote Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, a school consultancy firm.

    Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser with the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, was cautious. “While the final budget is perhaps the best schools could anticipate given the budget challenges, we worry about the size of the suspension for schools, $8.3 billion,” he wrote. “Schools will eventually get paid back those funds in future years on top of the minimum guarantee, but these payments will result in increased school funding volatility and uncertainty until they are paid back.”

    And if revenues falter next year, schools and community colleges will no longer have a rainy day fund to turn to; it will be depleted by the end of 2023-24, with the possibility of replenishing it by $1.1 billion in 2024-25.

    Proposition 98 juggling act

    The proposed 2024-25 budget for schools and community colleges will be balanced, if revenue projections hold true, by juggling three years of Proposition 98 shortfalls, with one year’s solution creating the next year’s dilemma.

    The big drop was in 2022-23 when the Legislature “over-appropriated” the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee by $8.8 billion, while state revenue from the post-Covid stock market and the tech sector plummeted. Legislators didn’t see the warning signals because winter storms had pushed back the tax filing deadline from April to November.

    Under the mechanics of Proposition 98, the funding level for 2022-23 becomes the base level for 2023-24, even though the state still lacks the revenue to pick up the tab. So all but $1 billion of the $8.4 billion in the education rainy day fund will be drained to cover some of the 2023-24 deficit and the $2.6 billion deferral from the year before.

    On top of that, the budget deal calls for suspending $8.3 billion of the Proposition 98 funding for 2023-24. That has the effect of lowering the minimum guaranteed funding by that amount, while freeing up money to avoid deeper cuts in other state operations. That’s how the Legislature can restore cuts in 2024-25 for child care and preschool that Newsom had planned.

    The architects of Proposition 98 wanted to discourage the Legislature from suspending the law. So it requires the Legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and to make the suspended funding a priority for repayment as soon as there is new revenue. The 2024-25 budget assumes the state will have enough new revenue to pay back at least $4 billion of the suspended $8 billion, maybe more. But if revenues falter, districts won’t get what they’re entitled to, with no set date for repayment.

    That’s why the deal is also a gamble for schools and community colleges.

    There’s one more wrinkle. To raise revenue quickly, the Legislature has accelerated the temporary, three-year suspension of two tax benefits for large and medium-sized businesses: net operating loss deductions and tax credits. The period will start in 2024-25, one year ahead of schedule. It will yield a projected $5 billion, with $2 billion going to Proposition 98 — funding that will be used to pay down deferrals.

    Between this new money and the $4 billion payback for suspended funding, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee is expected to rise to a record $115.3 billion in 2024-25.

    As with all deadline negotiations, legislators will have at most three days to review hundreds of pages of budget details spread over 16 separate bills. Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, are expecting that legislators will demand some changes when they return from vacation in August.  





    Source link

  • No cuts for schools, more funding for early literacy, in Newsom’s revised budget

    No cuts for schools, more funding for early literacy, in Newsom’s revised budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised 2025-26 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 14, 2025.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    TK-12 schools and community colleges can expect the same funding in 2025-26 that they received this year, plus a small cost-of-living adjustment, and there will be a big boost for early literacy, Gov. Gavin Newsom revealed Wednesday in the revision to his January state budget plan.

    Schools and community colleges will be shielded from the pain facing other state services because of the revised forecast of a $12 billion drop in state revenues that Newsom blamed on the “Trump slump” — the president’s erratic tariff and other economic policies that are affecting California.

    For the University of California and California State University, the news was better than anticipated. The systems would face a 3% cut for 2025-26, notably less than the nearly 8% reduction Newsom proposed in January. The smaller cut may provide some relief at a time when higher education in California and across the nation is worried about losses in federal research grants and other funding under Trump administration policies. 

    The 2.3% cost-of-living adjustment in 2025-26 for most TK-12 programs is determined by a federal formula that does not factor in the cost of housing, the biggest expense facing teachers and other employees.

    In his May budget revision, Newsom keeps significant money for TK-12 programs that he proposed in January for fully rolling out transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds, along with additional funding to reduce class sizes, and for expanding summer school and after-school learning to more districts.

    And Newsom would add $200 million to his earlier $543 million proposal for early literacy instruction, with money to buy instructional materials, hire literacy coaches and train teachers in “evidence-based literacy instruction,” which is code for teaching phonics and word decoding as well as other fundamental reading skills.

    That funding would take a significant step toward creating and funding a comprehensive early literacy strategy and coincides with compromise legislation, pushed by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, on spelling out what the instruction and reading materials should look like.

    “We’re thrilled. We’re excited,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, which pushed early literacy legislation. “In a really tight budget year, prioritizing reading for California kids and investing $200 million is real leadership.”

    Newsom would also add to past efforts to recruit teachers by including $64.2 million in one-time funding for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, under which teachers receive college tuition in exchange for agreeing to teach in underserved districts and in subjects facing critical shortages, and $100 million to pay stipends to student teachers. Unpaid student teaching has been cited as one of the primary reasons teacher candidates fail to complete their credentials. 

    The Legislature has a month to reshape Newsom’s budget before the June 15 constitutional deadline to pass a budget for the fiscal year that starts on July 1.

    What the budget doesn’t include, however, is any funding to backfill for the potential loss of billions of federal dollars in Medi-Cal funding for school physical and mental health services, cuts for Head Start programs, training grants for new teachers and research grants for the University of California and California State University, and the dismantling of the AmeriCorps program, which supplies teachers aides and tutors in hundreds of low-income schools.

    “Our ability to backfill all these federal cuts — no, we’re not going to be in a position to do that, we just are not in that position,” Newsom said. “It’s the old adage, you can’t do everything but you can do anything. There may be areas where we can make adjustments.”

    “I think we should be cautious about eliminating consideration of x, y, and z until we see the totality of the challenges as they present themselves.”

    In one cost-cutting measure, Gov. Newsom is proposing to roll back California’s health insurance program for undocumented immigrant adults, by charging premiums and freezing new enrollment, a move that advocates said will affect their children, many of whom are U.S. citizens. One in 10 California children are estimated to have an undocumented parent.

    “When a parent or family member is sick and unable to work or provide care, kids suffer as a result,” said Mayra Alvarez, president of the nonprofit organization The Children’s Partnership.  “Ripping away these family members’ access to health care, while they are also under threat of cruel immigration enforcement and other anti-immigrant policies, in turn puts the well-being of our children at risk.”

    Higher education

    State funding for the state’s system of 116 community colleges would change little from last year, receiving 0.6% less, at $8.9 billion. However, some of its important funding — $531.6 million from Proposition 98 revenues — would be deferred for a year under the proposal.  

    UC would have its funding cut by $129.7 million, while CSU would lose $143.8 million. In January, Newsom’s administration had proposed deeper cuts of $396.6 million and $375.2 million, respectively. 

    The revised budget maintains a proposal to defer previously promised 5% budget increases until 2027-28 for both systems. Those deferrals, which were part of Newsom’s multiyear compact agreements with the systems, were also included in Newsom’s January budget proposal. 

    The compacts, originally agreed to in 2022, promised annual budget increases for UC and CSU in exchange for the systems working toward goals such as increasing graduation rates and enrolling more California residents. 

    “We were able to hold strong to that over a two-year period. And we’re struggling now with some challenges,” Newsom said during a news conference Wednesday, though he added that the compacts are “sacrosanct” and that the systems would get their deferred dollars in 2027-28.

    By reducing the proposed cut to UC’s budget for 2025-26, the 10-campus system will be able to minimize cuts to student support services and preserve “critical investments like affordable student housing construction,” President Michael V. Drake said Wednesday in a statement.

    CSU Chancellor Mildred García in January warned that a nearly 8% state budget reduction would result in larger class sizes and fewer course offerings for the system’s more than 460,000 students, hampering their prospects for graduating on time. With those cuts now dialed back to 3%, García praised the May revision as a “thoughtful and measured approach to addressing the state’s fiscal challenges.”

    Proposition 98 maneuvers

    In total, the May revision proposes $45.7 billion for the state’s higher education institutions and the California Student Aid Commission.

    The minimum funding for 2025-26 for Proposition 98, the formula that determines the portion of the general fund that must go to TK-12 and community colleges, would be $114.6 billion, down from $118.9 billion in 2024-25 because of shrinking state revenues.

    Newsom proposes to make up the difference by shifting numbers around, depleting what was left in the Proposition 98 rainy day fund. Among other maneuvers, he would:

    • Drain the remaining $540 million from a fund that was $8.4 billion only two years ago, when the state faced a fiscal crisis.
    • Defer $1.8 billion that would be due to schools in June 2026 by a month, to July 2026. Schools should notice little difference, although the maneuver does create a state obligation that must be repaid.
    • Withhold $1.3 billion due to schools and community colleges in 2024-25 in anticipation that the revenues for the rest of the year might come up short because of the further decline in state revenues.

    This last maneuver grabbed the attention of the California School Boards Association, which filed a lawsuit over a similar effort last year and is threatening to do so again.

    “Even in lean times, investing in public schools is California’s best economic strategy, so we cannot sidestep constitutional protections for public education nor underfund Prop 98 to offset shortfalls in other sections of the budget,” association President Bettye Lusk said in a statement.

    The immediate reaction to the budget proposal was positive, with some caveats.

    “The bottom line is that amid a budget crisis, the governor is protecting every major investment in education,” said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors, a consultant for school districts. “We want to make sure Prop 98 funding is accounted for. As long as that’s the case, there’s not much to complain about.”

    Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit that runs many Bay Area child care centers, praised the commitment to universal transitional kindergarten (TK) while criticizing Newsom’s decision to suspend a cost-of-living adjustment for child care providers for low-income children and freeze funding for emergency child care services for foster and homeless children. 

    “We know that small class sizes and highly qualified teachers are two of the most important quality standards to ensure children benefit from pre-K. This budget invests wisely in TK,” he said. “The proposed cut to the COLA (cost of living increase) for child care providers must be restored. Now is the worst time to eliminate a small, but very much needed and deserved COLA for those who take care of our youngest and most vulnerable children.”





    Source link