اینترنت

برچسب: office

  • Students with discrimination complaints left in limbo, months after California civil rights office closed

    Students with discrimination complaints left in limbo, months after California civil rights office closed


    Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

    K.D. was just starting to believe that the racial harassment her daughter had experienced at school for the last three years would finally be addressed.

    Students had called her daughter the N-word, referred to her as a “black monkey” in an Instagram post, made jokes about the Ku Klux Klan and played whipping sounds on their phones during a history lesson about slavery, according to a statement by her mother, identified in court records as K.D.

    “My daughter reported all of these incidents to teachers and was never told whether they were addressed, if at all,” K.D. stated in her declaration.

    K.D. did what many parents do when they believe a school district has violated their child’s right to an education free of discrimination: She filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in May 2023.

    In December, the office proposed a voluntary agreement to the school board of the district. The board requested more information.

    “We were so close,” said K.D., whose daughter is identified as M.W. in court records. “The board was like, ‘Hey, we just need this one last piece.’”

    While K.D. was waiting to hear back, the U.S. Department of Education announced in March that it was cutting its workforce in half. It planned to shutter and lay off staff at seven of its 12 regional branches for its Office for Civil Rights. One of those branches shuttered was in San Francisco, which handled all the cases for the state of California, including K.D.’s.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to lay off 1,400 employees of the Department of Education, effectively putting the Office of Civil Rights in a state of limbo.

    When the mass terminations were first announced, it didn’t sink in for K.D. what this meant. The attorney on her daughter’s case told K.D. that the office was still waiting to hear from the school district’s board, which was not identified in the court records. If the case wasn’t resolved, the attorney promised to flag it when it was transferred to the Seattle office along with all the other California cases, but that would mean a much longer timeline.

    K.D. recalled: “Essentially, I would have to wait like six months to a year to even hear that someone’s picked up my case.”

    Four months later, K.D. still hasn’t heard from anyone at the Office for Civil Rights. She told EdSource that she’s been left with “a lot of questions” but “little hope.”

    ‘We were already drowning’

    Caseloads at the Office for Civil Rights reached a record high of 22,687 during the Biden administration, according to a 2024 report. That was an 18% increase from the previous year.

    “We were already drowning,” said a San Francisco Office staffer, a member of the AFGE Local 252, impacted by the reduction in force.

    Catherine Lhamon, former assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education under the Biden administration, said her department was always pleading with Congress for more staff to handle the increasing caseloads.

    “There is no universe in which we would have needed fewer people,” said Lhamon, who now serves as executive director of the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Edley Center on Law & Democracy.

    K.D. joined a national suit filed on behalf of other parents and students who have cases pending with the Office for Civil Rights, claiming that “gutting” the workforce and closing regional offices means that caseloads are two to three times higher for remaining staff, effectively halting investigations. It was unsuccessful in securing an injunction to stop the mass terminations.

    In court documents, the Department of Education reported that between March 11 and June 27, OCR received 4,833 complaints, dismissed 3,424, opened 309 for investigation, and resolved 290 with voluntary agreements.

    Lhamon said that represents a fraction of the work under the Biden administration.

    “What we see right now are performative case openings and very little case closings,” Lhamon said.

    The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals halted the mass firings, scheduled to take effect in June, through a preliminary injunction. The suit, joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claimed the terminations were “not supported by any actual reasoning” about how to eliminate waste, but were “part and parcel of President Trump’s and Secretary McMahon’s opposition to the Department of Education’s entire existence.”

    In her successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon denied that the terminations were related to a desire to shutter the Department of Education. Her appeal claimed the preliminary injunction represents “judicial micromanagement of its day-to-day operations.” 

    But McMahon also said in an interview that the firings were “the first step on the road to a total shutdown of the department.” A presidential administration eliminating an agency established by Congress poses a “grave” threat to the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, according to a dissent by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.

    Cases in limbo

    M.W.’s case was one of 772 in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when the San Francisco branch was shuttered, according to a site that has not been updated since President Donald Trump took office. 

    Advocates say the office provides a venue to address a discrimination complaint, especially for those who haven’t had success appealing to their district or state and cannot afford to hire a personal attorney. 

    “No one’s going to OCR if they have any other option,” said Johnathan Smith, an attorney with the National Center for Youth Law, the Oakland-based nonprofit that represented K.D. in her suit. “The reason why K.D. turned to OCR was because she didn’t have options. And so for this administration to literally pull out the rug from under families, from children who are at their lowest point of need, is beyond cruel.”

    The Department of Education updated its list of recent voluntary resolutions, which include seven cases in California during Trump’s second term.

    There were also two letters addressed to State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and the California Interscholastic Federation, involving transgender athletes’ eligibility to participate in school sports.

    The other resolutions involve agreements regarding disability cases, including those at San Diego State University, as well as the Belmont-Redwood Shores, Cupertino Union, Inglewood Unified and Tehachapi Unified school districts. Letters about the resolutions were signed by attorneys with phone numbers that contain Washington, D.C., or Seattle-based area codes.

    It’s unclear whether most of the nearly 800 cases in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when Trump took office have been addressed. The department did not respond to requests for comment.

    Most deal with disability: the right to a free and appropriate public education, harassment or discipline.

    The office also handles discrimination claims filed by students and parents or staff on the basis of gender, race, age, nationality or language. Over three-quarters of the pending cases in California deal with the TK-12 system — the rest are postsecondary.  The office investigates discrimination claims at the state level.

    “No state is immune for the need for a federal backstop against that harm,” said Lhamon. “We have had six-decade bipartisan recognition that it is true.”

    ‘Speaking her truth does matter’

    M.W. will be a junior when she returns to school in the fall. Her mother, K.D., told EdSource that her daughter continues to be bullied by students and the issue remains unaddressed by the school district. 

    “The driving force for me has been just like her, knowing that what she has to say and her speaking her truth does matter,” K.D. said. “I want her to know, no matter how long this has taken — or will take — that it does matter.”

    Schools are where students learn about academic subjects, but also how society functions. 

    “Schools are where we teach people how to participate in democracy,” Lhamon said.

    She worries that if the federal system for addressing discrimination breaks down, students will receive the message that discrimination is allowed.

    “If you are harmed and no one speaks up for you, what you take home is that it was OK,” Lhamon said. “That’s the worst part of the lesson.”





    Source link

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts $19 billion state budget deficit for schools and community colleges

    Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts $19 billion state budget deficit for schools and community colleges


    California State Capitol

    Credit: Christopher Schodt for EdSource

    Schools and community colleges likely will face a $19 billion, three-year state funding deficit, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reported Thursday. The funding for TK-12 this year is $108 billion.

    The LAO’s annual projection is a forecast of what to expect from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first pass next month on the 2024-25 state budget. It reflects a decline in funding in Proposition 98, the 35-year-old constitutional amendment that determines the portion of the state’s general fund that must go to schools and community colleges. Complicating the picture is that about half of the education deficit covers money that schools and community colleges spent in 2022-23.

    The overall projected state general fund budget deficit of $68 billion could also jeopardize 5% annual increases for the University of California and California State University systems that Gov. Gavin Newsom had agreed to, as well as children’s services not covered by Proposition 98.

    The projected shortfall is the largest financial challenge schools and community colleges will face since the Great Recession budget of 2009. However, the LAO said that schools are better positioned now because of an education rainy-day fund that the Legislature was required to sock away in the record-high revenue years of the past half-decade.  

    Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, cautioned that state leaders must avoid the sort of harsh cuts made during the Great Recession. They included forcing districts to borrow billions of dollars with the expectation they would be repaid later.

    “Fortunately, we have tools, including the Proposition 98 reserve, that we can leverage to protect Proposition 98 funding levels,” he said. “Even during fiscal times like these, public education must be prioritized and protected. We must continue to build on our state’s great momentum and investments that have been made these past few years.”

    The LAO report lays out several options to balance school spending, some of them jarring for schools and community colleges.

    One option is for the Legislature to preserve TK-14 funding approved last June and find the full $68 billion in cuts in the general fund. That would spare schools, but other programs for children outside of Proposition 98 funding would more likely be hit, including support and subsidized costs for child care.

    The opposite approach — the most painful to schools and community colleges and politically risky for legislators — would be to revise the 2022-23 and the current 2023-24 Proposition 98 funding downward to meet the minimum required by law. That would slash funding by $9 billion from 2022-23 and $6.3 billion for the current year, with a ripple effect of lowering the minimum guarantee for 2024-25 by $3.5 billion.

    The Legislature could ease the burden by draining the $8.1 billion rainy day fund. That would still leave about $10 billion in cuts. Billions of dollars in one-time funding, whether unspent so far this year, or allotted by the Legislature for the next several years, could be targets. These could include $1 billion as yet unallocated for developing community schools or money set aside for learning recovery and for after-school extended learning time. It could be politically unpopular for legislators to make significant school cuts in an election year. And they would have to approve a resolution that there is a fiscal emergency to reduce the Proposition 98 appropriation.

    The third alternative is somewhere in the middle — cuts to K-14 and cuts from other general fund programs.

    The Legislature had an inkling that economic conditions were worsening but no hard numbers when they passed the 2023-24 budget in June: The deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16. So they didn’t know the impact on state revenues in 2022-23 and 2023-24 from slowing home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and from declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.

    The LAO’s forecast for state revenues for the general fund shows a big drop in 2022-23, a flat line in 2023-24 and a slight uptick in the next fiscal year. But the gray area shows the possibility of an additional decline or a quick recovery.
    Source: The Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    The LAO cautioned that economic conditions are volatile, and revenues will remain unpredictable. A graph of its revenue outlook shows slow growth in 2024-25, with a large gray penumbra of uncertainty above and below that line.

    Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento, said he was pleased that the LAO listed several options and did not recommend resetting funding to meet the Proposition 98 minimum, with “devastating cuts.”

    “The numbers are worrisome, but the approaches laid out are significant efforts to demonstrate how lawmakers might work to protect basic investment in education funding,” he said.





    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

  • County Office of Education can take over West Contra Costa school budget

    County Office of Education can take over West Contra Costa school budget


    Credit: Thomas Galvez/Flickr

    The West Contra Costa Unified School District may be on the verge of turning over control of its budget to the county after the school board rejected the district’s Local Control Accountability Plan on Wednesday night, limiting the chance of passing a 2024-25 district budget by July 1, as required by state law.  

    Without passing a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) — a document that sets district goals to improve student outcomes and how to achieve them — the board cannot vote on the proposed budget, said Kim Moses, associate superintendent of business services at West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). The two are linked; the LCAP is a portion of the budget and gives the district a road map on how to allocate funding for its $484 million budget. The district risks losing local control over funding decisions. Trustees voting no said it didn’t reflect priorities of the community and was not transparent.

    It’s a rare situation. Districts routinely pass budgets at the end of June to close the fiscal year and start a new one. 

    District and Contra Costa County Office of Education officials warn that a failure to pass a budget and LCAP by July 1 will cede financial control to the county office. The district can still act by midnight Sunday to avert a takeover, but district officials are assuming that will not happen. The board would still need to vote on the budget presented by the county.

    The district also would face difficulties getting the county’s approval of the budget. The state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), which focuses on helping districts solve and prevent fiscal challenges, found in a recent analysis that the district had overspent, and concluded that the school board had been unable or unwilling to make cuts.

    In a statement to EdSource, Moses wrote she was “deeply disappointed” that the board didn’t pass the LCAP. The responsibility to adopt the LCAP and 2024-25 school year budget will be in the hands of county officials. Until they impose the new plan and budget, Moses said, the district will revert to operating under last year’s budget.

    “We are confident that the county will review our circumstance with a student-focused lens and do what is necessary to support our students,” the statement said. “In the interim, we will be able to continue processing payroll without interruptions, and we will be able to maintain all expenses related to the general operating costs within the district, such as utilities, required materials and supplies, and other operational necessities.”

    But because the district is functioning on last year’s budget, some schools won’t receive the funds they need, and the district can’t move forward with new goals set, said Javetta Cleveland, a school business consultant for West Contra Costa.

    “This is really serious to go forward without a budget — the district cannot operate without a budget,” Cleveland said during the meeting. “The district can’t meet or establish priorities without a budget.”

    Cleveland asked the board to reconsider approving the LCAP and have the Contra Costa County Office of Education approve the LCAP with conditions that would allow revisions after receiving feedback from parents. But that didn’t happen.

    Budget shortfalls

    District officials are projecting a $31.8 million budget deficit over the next three school years, with about $11.5 million in shortfalls projected for the upcoming school year. The plan was to use reserve funds over three school years to make up the shortfall. 

    To address budget shortfalls, the board has also had to eliminate more than 200 positions since last year. The most recent cuts were voted on in March. But at the same time, the district was dealing with three complaints, including allegations that the district is out of compliance with the law because teacher vacancies have not been filled and classes are being covered by long-term or day-to-day substitutes, which district officials acknowledged was true.

    “While the result of last night’s board meeting complicates an already challenging financial situation, members of the community should know that WCCUSD schools will continue to operate, and employees will continue to be paid as we work through the LCAP approval process,” said Marcus Walton, communications director for county office. “At this point, it is the role of the Contra Costa County Office of Education to support WCCUSD staff to address the board’s concerns and implement a budget as soon as possible.”

    FCMAT conducted a fiscal health risk analysis on West Contra Costa in March and found the district is overspending. 

    While the FCMAT analysis concluded the district has a “high” chance of solving the budget deficit, it highlighted areas it considers high-risk, including some charter schools authorized by the district also being in financial distress; the district’s failure to forecast its general fund cash flow for the current and subsequent year, and the board’s inability to approve a plan to reduce or eliminate overspending. 

    FCMAT’s chief executive officer, Michael Fine, was not available for comment.

    The vote

    President Jamela Smith-Folds was the only trustee to vote yes on the LCAP. She said she wants to see more transparency but that it’s important to keep local control over the LCAP and budget. 

    “I would be remiss if I didn’t say that there are things we need to do differently, but I think everyone is acknowledging that,” Smith-Folds said. “Now the next step after you acknowledge that is to show change and consistency.” 

    Trustees Leslie Reckler and Mister Phillips voted down the LCAP. Phillips said it was because he doesn’t believe that what the community asked for is reflected in the document. 

    “I have consistently advocated for a balanced and focused budget since joining the school board in 2016,” Phillips said in an email. “The proposed budget was neither. With my vote, I invited our local county superintendent to the table. I hope that she will work with us to create a balanced and focused budget that prioritizes the school district’s strategic plan.”  

    Reckler said that for the last two years, she had continued to ask staff to show how programs and the LCAP performed, how community feedback is being incorporated, and how money is being spent.

    “I’m frustrated I have to spend an entire weekend trying to figure out the changes in the LCAP. It should be self-evident,” Reckler said during the meeting. “This document seems to be less transparent than ever before. I don’t know how else to get your attention, and I won’t be held hostage. For these reasons, I am voting ‘no.’”

    Trustee Otheree Christian abstained, saying that there needs to be more transparency in the LCAP but did not elaborate further or respond to requests for comments on why he chose not to vote. 

    Board member Demetrio Gonzalez Hoy was absent because of personal family reasons, according to his social media post. He called the vote a failure of the board, including his absence.

    In a recent meeting with the District Local Control Accountability Plan Committee (DLCAP), made up of parents and members of community organizations, committee members shared their frustrations, saying they didn’t feel heard and needed more information about programs, Superintendent Chris Hurst said. Gonzalez Hoy said he agreed with the committee that there needs to be more transparency and in regards to spending priorities, community leaders need to be heard.

    “With that said, what we should have done is ensure that this does not happen in the future and that the DLCAP committee is taken seriously in their charge,” Gonzalez Hoy’s post said. “Unfortunately, instead of advocating for that and ensuring this occurs, I believe that some on our board want certain adults leading our district to fail and that’s really what led to a vote last night.”

    During Wednesday night’s meeting, many community members asked the board to stop making staffing cuts and to reject the LCAP and budget proposals, saying that both proposals didn’t meet student needs, and disenfranchised low-income, English learners, and students of color. Some speakers questioned if the LCAP complied with the law. 

    The district team that put together the LCAP said the planning document complies with the law, according to Moses, as do the officials at the county office of education that reviewed the document. The county gives the final stamp of approval after the board passes the LCAP, and if something needs to be fixed, they can approve the document with conditions, she added.

    “I do know, with any large document, nothing is perfect in the first draft,” Moses said during the meeting. “I’m not sure if there is something we need to take a look at, but if so, I’ll restate this is a living document; if we do find that there is an area that needs more attention, we’ll give attention to that area.”

    Moses said she agrees with the advocates — the district needs to serve students better. She and the district are committed to strengthening communication with the community and explaining how the strategies in the 203-page document are helping students.

    As of Thursday evening, an emergency meeting has not been scheduled. The next board meeting is scheduled on July 17.

    The story has been updated to clarify how operations of the district will proceed moving forward.





    Source link

  • Evangelicals Have Office in the White House

    Evangelicals Have Office in the White House


    It’s long been clear that Trump has relied on evangelical Christians as a significant part of his political base. It’s also long been clear that Trump himself is not religious. He seldom quotes the Bible, which he usually mangles, but he does sell a Trump Bible ($60). He is usually golfing every Sunday, seldom seen in any house of worship. He has had three wives and cheated on them all. He has operated fraudulent businesses (such as Trump University, which cheated war widows, veterans, and the elderly, and was ordered to pay $25 million to victims of his scam).

    Despite having broken almost every one of the Ten Commandments, Trump is adored by evangelicals because he delivered what they wanted most: the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Now, following the agenda of Project 2025, he is wiping out the barriers between church and state and satisfying his religious base.

    Ruth Graham covers religion for The New York Times. She wrote:

    This week, the White House issued an extraordinary statement — a presidential Easter greeting that was more directly evangelistic than those in the past. Trump and the first lady said they were celebrating “the living Son of God who conquered death, freed us from sin, and unlocked the gates of Heaven for all of humanity.” (By contrast, the White House’s much shorter Ramadan statement last month sent “warmest greetings.”)

    The White House spent much of this week celebrating, including at a live-streamed Easter prayer service and a dinner attended by the president. Trump told attendees he hoped it would be “one of the great Easters ever.”

    Trump has significantly expanded the power and influence of conservative Christians in government, as my colleague Elizabeth Dias and I have been reporting on for years. This week is a visible demonstration of just how powerful people advancing conservative Christian causes have become inside this administration.

    The language and rituals of the White House are changing. The first Cabinet meeting opened with prayer “in Jesus’ name.” Prayer sessions and even hymn-singing have broken out in the West Wing, in public and in private.

    President George W. Bush established the first White House faith office in the early 2000s, and versions carried on under later administrations, often working to direct some federal money to faith-based groups providing social services. This term, Trump has given the office a higher stature and a broader mandate.

    The new faith office is led by Trump’s longtime personal pastor, Paula White-Cain, and by Jennifer Korn, who worked in his first administration. They have promised a more ambitious agenda to end what they see as Christian persecution in America and to challenge the notion that church and state should be separate.

    Ruth and her colleague Elizabeth Dias met the White House faith leaders in their much-coveted office in the West Wing.

    White-Cain and Korn said they were focused on all forms of anti-religious bias, not just those affecting Christians. But if atheist groups and abortion rights groups have had a voice in government, “why shouldn’t pastors, priests and rabbis?” Korn told us. “We’re telling them the door’s open.”

    In the new organizational structure, the faith office is now able to weigh in on any issue it deems appropriate. White-Cain said the office works closely not just with Trump and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, but also with officials in intelligence, domestic policy and national security.

    White-Cain and Korn have also hosted multiple briefings, listening sessions and other events with faith leaders over the last few months. One regular attendee at events hosted by the office, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who has visited the White House in previous administrations, said the new structure meant “unprecedented access” for faith leaders. Evangelical Christians are by far the most prominent presence.

    These events are also communicating a clear message across the country. Many of the pastors have returned home to their large congregations in states like Colorado and Pennsylvania and shared photos of them with Trump. They’ve also recounted praying with him. Clips of faith leaders singing and praying in the White House have gone viral in conservative Christian circles.

    “Even the White House shall be called house of prayer,” a pastor from Alabama wrote online in February, sharing a video clip of Christian leaders singing an impromptu a cappella version of the hymn “How Great Thou Art” in the Roosevelt Room. He added, “Would you join me in praying for President Trump and our United States of America?”

    While the influence of conservative Christians is visible in the White House, it’s also emerging in federal policy. Trump has already taken several actions that have delighted his conservative Christian supporters. He has signed executive orders that establish a task force, spearheaded by the Justice Department, to “eradicate anti-Christian bias” and that declare there are “two sexes,” male and female.

    I wonder if atheists, Muslims, Universalist Unitarians, and gay rabbis are invited to join the multi-faith meetings?



    Source link

  • Feds shutter California civil rights office: ‘The students are going to suffer’

    Feds shutter California civil rights office: ‘The students are going to suffer’


    Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    TOP TAKEAWAYS
    • The U.S. Department of Education announced that it is reducing its workforce by half, shutting seven of 12 regional branches of its Office for Civil Rights. 
    • California has over 700 pending cases with the Office for Civil Rights. The Trump administration has not provided details on what happens to cases handled by the shuttered regional office in San Francisco.
    • The administration said this dramatic slashing would be followed by “significant reorganization to better serve students, parents, educators and taxpayers.” 
    • Educators and civil rights advocates say that vulnerable students will not have recourse when schools violate their civil rights.

    The announcement of a large-scale effort to reduce the workforce of the U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday — or nearly half of the agency’s staff — is raising concerns among California educators and advocates about the future of civil rights enforcement and funding for vulnerable students.

    About 1,300 federal workers will be placed on administrative leave as of March 21 or have accepted a voluntary resignation agreement, according to a news release by U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. 

    Seven of 12 regional offices that handle federal civil rights complaints were shuttered, including the Office for Civil Rights branch in San Francisco, which handles complaints filed in California. 

    “There is no federal presence enforcing civil rights in schools in California,” said Catherine Lhamon, the former assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education. “Our country and California will effectively see an end to a federal backstop of harm in schools.”

    While local and state governments provide the vast majority of funding and governance for TK-12 schools and higher education, the federal government handles key aspects of education in the U.S., including disbursing student loans and Pell Grants; funding programs for students with disabilities as well as schools serving low-income students; and overseeing national research that provides critical data for educators and policymakers.

    The U.S. Department of Education is also tasked with enforcing federal civil rights laws, authorized by Congress, through its Office for Civil Rights in order to protect students from discrimination. California alone has more than 700 pending complaints of civil rights violations.

    “I don’t know what is going to happen to those cases,” said an attorney who works in the San Francisco branch of the Office for Civil Rights. The attorney declined to be identified, citing concerns about retaliation for speaking out. “The students are going to suffer.”

    McMahon said in a statement that the reduction in force reflects a commitment to efficiency and accountability, and that the department will “continue to deliver on all statutory programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking.”

    Some conservative groups, such as the Cato Institute, applauded the dramatic slashing of staff.

    “We don’t know how many people are actually needed to execute (the U.S. Department of Education) jobs, and it’s time to find out if it’s been a bloated bureaucracy all along,” said Neal McCluskey, director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom.

    But many educators and advocacy groups who work with students forcefully condemned the cuts.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board passed a resolution Tuesday condemning the cuts to the U.S. Education Department, as well as cuts to other federal funding for school meals and Medicaid. Board member Kelly Gonez called on legislators to “push back against this radical and cruel agenda.”

    “The Trump administration and its allies in Congress are looking to decimate federal funding to schools, including cuts to school meals, MediCal, and education block grants,” Gonez said. “More threats are on the horizon due to Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the Department of Education entirely. We will not stand by while this administration removes essential support for students.”

    ‘These are not minor issues’

    After a student with autism died after being restrained, Davis Joint Unified agreed to change its policies and training related to secluding and restraining students in 2022. That same year, Los Angeles Unified promised to address the concerns of disabled students who said they received little legally required special assistance during the height of the pandemic.

    These are just a few of the high-profile complaints that the Office for Civil Rights investigated and settled in California.

    “These are not minor issues,” said Lhamon, who was then the assistant secretary for civil rights.

    The Biden administration pleaded with Congress for additional funding to staff the Office for Civil Rights, which was facing a mushrooming caseload that reached an all-time high during his presidency, according to the Office for Civil Rights’ annual report. Now staff face the prospect of their caseload doubling from 50 cases per person to 100 cases — an “untenable” number, Lhamon said.

    The increase in cases, combined with an existing staffing shortage has likely created a backlog, extending the wait time for investigations to be completed and findings issued, said Megan Stanton-Trehan, a senior attorney at Disability Rights California who represents students with disabilities.

    “With increasing complaints and an idea that we want to increase efficiency, what we shouldn’t be doing is closing offices and decreasing the workforce, unless what we really want is to not enforce civil rights,” said Stanton-Trehan. 

    The federal government is sending the message that though students are required to attend school, there is no federal agency that will protect them from harm, Lhamon said.

    “That’s dangerous for democracy; it’s dangerous for schools,” she said.

    The U.S. Department of Education has not announced a plan for transferring cases from San Francisco or any other shuttered regional office.

    “We are in this work because we care, and we are compassionate,” said the San Francisco Office for Civil Rights attorney. “We are devastated for our students.”

    The Office for Civil Rights page listed 772 records of pending cases that the office is currently investigating in the state of California, though it does not include any cases filed after Jan. 3. Of those, 597 of the listed cases involved K-12 institutions, while another 175 involved post-secondary education. Many of the complaints — 388 pending cases — involve disability discrimination complaints.

    The cases date back to complaints filed in 2016 on a range of topics, including discrimination on the basis of national origin, religion and English learner status, as well as allegations of sexual violence, racial harassment and retaliation.

    Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced that it had sent letters to 60 universities to inform them that the Office for Civil Rights was investigating them for antisemitic discrimination. That list included Sacramento State, Chapman University, Pomona College, Santa Monica College, Stanford University, UC Davis, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley.

    Ana Najera-Mendoza, director of education equity and senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Southern California, is concerned that these complaints may take precedence over others. Every complaint filed in the Office for Civil Rights deserves to be considered in good faith, she said.

    Stating that a reduction in force doesn’t equate to a reduction in the department’s responsibilities, Najera-Mendoza said, “No administration should elect to enforce some complaints over others to enforce a specific agenda.”





    Source link