The U.S. Senate just passed Trump’s massive budget bill, which renews tax cuts for the rich and makes deep cuts to Medicaid, about $1 trillion. Three Republican Senators voted against it: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine. Vice-President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. Many hoped that Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would also oppose the bill but the leadership bought her off by adding special exemptions and benefits for Alaskans.
Combined with the impact of Trump’s tariffs — which the White House has argued will help pay for the bill’s tax cuts and new spending — the bottom 80 percent of households would see their take-home incomes fall, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
“The right way to understand this bill is it is the largest wealth transfer from the poorest Americans to the richest Americans in modern history,” said Natasha Sarin, the Budget Lab’s president.
Shortly before the bill passed, I received two reports on the education section. Contrary to earlier reports, the Republicans restored vouchers. Apparently they satisfied the objections of the Senate Parliamentarian or decided to ignore them.
Leigh Dingerson, public school advocate who works for “In the Public Interest,” sent out this update shortly before the Senate passed the bill. The biggest takeaway: Vouchers are in again.
For the last 24 hours (more, actually), the Senate has been voting on a slew of amendments to the bill. Most are going down along party lines. At the same time, the Senate parliamentarian has been reviewing the bill for germaneness. She has struck out several provisions including, initially, the voucher language (this was Friday). But it was reinserted Saturday morning. Since then, some tweaks to the voucher language were made in an effort to win over some reluctant senators. Each time the language was changed, it had to go back through the parliamentarian.
This morning at about 2:15 am, Senator Hirono, along with Senators Reed, Kaine and van Hollen, presented their amendment on the floor of the Senate — an amendment to strike the voucher section altogether. That amendment needed 51 votes to pass. It got 50. All the Democrats voted in favor. All Republicans with the exception of Senators Fischer, Collins and Murkowski opposed it.
The voucher language currently in the bill has some important differences from where it started. Here are some key changes to the bill:
The tax credit is permanent, and now unlimited. There is no federal ceiling on how much can be spent. Republicans removed the $4 billion volume cap on the total amount of donations.
But!! Current language limits the amount a donor can get a tax credit on: The text now allows any individual to donate to an SGO for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit worth $1,700 (rather than 10% of adjusted gross income originally).
States can now “opt in” to the program and must provide a list of approved scholarship granting organizations. And the bill clarifies that SGOs can only administer school vouchers within their state. This eliminates our worry that an SGO in Florida, for example, could hand out vouchers in Nebraska.
The Senate has removed the provision asserting that there shall be no Federal control over private or religious schools. In other words, the door has been opened to federal regulation of schools funded with federal vouchers.
The bill provides broad authority for the Secretary of Treasury to regulate the program, including explicit authority to regulate scholarship granting organizations and opening the door to regulate private schools.
So as you can see, there have been a lot of changes, some good, some bad.
###############
The NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION released the following statement:
National Coalition for Public Education Denounces Senate Vote on Private School VoucherProgram in “OBBB”
Today, the Senate voted to include an uncapped national private school voucher program in its budget reconciliation bill. This represents the first time a majority of the lawmakers in the U.S. Senate have ever supported sending public dollars to private schools. Now that both chambers have voiced their support for private school voucher provisions, it is likely to become law this year, forcing tax dollars to support private religious schools that can pick and choose who they educate and discriminate explicitly against students with disabilities.
Vouchers divert critical funds from public schools, which 90% of American families choose for their children to attend. Vouchers often go to students who never attended public schools in the first place, which drains taxpayer funds to subsidize private school tuition for well-off families who could afford it without money from the government. Under this harmful program, there will be no accountability for money sent to private schools, nor would the private schools be bound by key provisions of federal civil rights laws, which public schools follow.
If this becomes law, the federal government will give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to people who give money to use for payments for children to attend private schools or be homeschooled. This was not done previously with any other 501(c)3 donation in our history, and no other non-profit classified as a 501(c)3) would benefit from this one-to-one tax lowering scheme.
America’s public schools educate all students in every community. Private schools that take taxpayer-funded vouchers, however, often discriminate against students for any number of reasons, including based on their disability status, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, English language ability, academic abilities, disciplinary history, ability to pay tuition, or what their family looks like. The language that was in the House-passed bill about private schools maintaining policies that do not take into account whether or not a student has an Individualized Education Program (though these are not full protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) was stripped in the Senate bill and supporters of the voucher provision criticized this language.
Public schools are a cornerstone of American democracy. NCPE condemns Congress diverting billions of dollars away from public education and toward discriminatory, ineffective private school vouchers
Unless Assembly Bill 2097 — requiring every public high school to teach a computer science course — advances in the state Legislature onThursday, access to computer science in California will continue to be inequitable across socioeconomic, racial, gender and geographic lines, according to the bill’s author.
“It’s predominantly our underserved communities, our Black and brown communities, our rural communities, where students are going to schools that don’t even give them access to computer science,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman about his bill, which would close gaps and increase access to computer science classes in California, as 30 other states do.
Currently, the legislation is under “suspense” in the Senate Appropriations Committee, a process in which the bill’s fiscal impact is considered. If it doesn’t come out of suspense Thursday, the bill dies.
According to a September 2021 report, California lagged behind the national average and about three dozen other states in the percentage of high schools offering at least one computer science course, which can build a foundational understanding of technology.
Across California, the home state of the Silicon Valley, only 42% of high schools offered computer science in the 2018-19 school year, and just 5% of the state’s 1.9 million students enrolled. Access to the course varied, depending on the socioeconomic status, racial makeup and geographic location of schools.
For example, the report showed that 31% of schools serving low-income students offered a course, compared with 69% of high-income schools.
Policy requiring schools to offer computer science has been implemented in states such as Nevada, where about 96% of the state’s schools offer a course, based on a national 2023 State of Computer Science Education report.
Closing equity gaps: The need for a computer science requirement
Since the 2018-19 school year, the percentage of California schools offering a computer science course has slightly increased to 45%, based on 2023 data. But California still lags the national average of 57.5% and still shows disparities among student groups and schools in certain communities.
“It’s been frustrating to see either the lack of progress or the remarkably slow progress that we’ve made, and that really emphasizes for me how important it is that we set this requirement,” Berman said. “If we don’t set that requirement, we’re never going to do the work necessary to accomplish it. Not having a requirement — it’s not yielding the progress that our students deserve.”
Based on the 2023 data from the 2022-23 school year:
55% of high schools don’t offer any computer science courses.
27% of rural schools offer a course, compared with 50% of urban schools and 52% of suburban schools.
“That’s why we need this effort,” Berman said about the proposed legislation bringing schools to the baseline of offering the course.
“The data is clear that depending on what ZIP code you grow up in is determining whether or not you get the chance to get computer science education, and that shouldn’t be the case in California.”
National data shows that 99% of high schools in Arkansas and Maryland offer computer science, with Nevada, Alabama, South Carolina and Indiana having rates above 90%.
Among other policies, all of those states require their high schools to offer computer science.
What is computer science? ‘A fundamental understanding’
Credit: Allison Shelley for EDUimages
AB 2097 defines computer science as “the study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles … implementation and impact on society, as described in the computer science academic content standards adopted by the state board.” Furthermore, the bill wants students to go beyond using the technology; they should understand how and why those technologies work.
The course teaches and prepares students to “meaningfully engage” in a digitally driven world, according to Computer Science for California (CSforCA), a group of educators, nonprofit organizations and industry leaders that has worked to improve equity in computer science access.
According to the group, computer science education can improve digital literacy, critical thinking and other skills that can be applied across multiple fields, including education, entertainment, agriculture, art, medicine and social justice. For example, a class may create an app that increases access to health care services or explore the ethics of data privacy.
“We require that (our seniors take government), not because we expect them all to become politicians,” said Modesto City Schools computer science teacher Amy Pezzoni, “but because if they are going to be citizens in our world, we want to make sure they understand how their world works, how to have their voice heard, how to make sure they’re not lost in the noise.”
Based on 2023 data, each month, California averaged 45,245 open computing jobs with an average salary of $153,544.
“We are not giving California students the opportunity and access to these jobs in the state they live in,” said Mary Nicely, the state’s chief deputy superintendent of public instruction, who represented Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond during a June 12 Senate Education Committee hearing.
Pezzoni said that offering at least one computer science course, such as introductory computer science, builds students’ “fundamental understanding” of technology.
“It’s in our personal lives. It’s in every industry,” she said. “We just want to make sure they have the skills and the knowledge — the understanding of tech — to be successful (with whatever) they choose to do.”
Pointing to computer science concepts such as artificial intelligence, web design and development, graphics, computer programming, robotics, cybersecurity and problem-solving, Pezzoni said, “It’s … the understanding of how technology works and how many different ways that you can engage with computer science.”
In 2018-19, high schoolers in Colusa, Mariposa, Modoc, San Benito and Sierra counties had no access to any computer science courses, according to the September 2021 Computer Science Access report.
In other California schools, only 34% of campuses with a high proportion of Black, Indigenous, Latino and Pacific Islander students offered a course. And only 30% of females were enrolled in computer science courses even though they made up 49% of the student population before the pandemic.
Opponents of the bill say the inequity in both access to computer science courses and basic digital skills could create difficulties for some students, making it hard for them to do well in the course. Mark Epstein, with the California Environmental Technology Education Network, said at an April 24 Assembly committee hearing that students need a prerequisite course on basic digital skills to even succeed in a computer science class.
But Pezzoni said she meets students where they are. At the beginning of the class, she finds out what motivated students to take the class and what they want to do with their lives.
“I give them the skill, but I allow them to apply it in a way … that’s going to be meaningful for them,” Pezzoni said. “And I have seen students who were hell-bent on getting out of the class end up becoming some of my best students because they realized what they could do with it in their own interest. I have some that are continuing on a path that’s not tech, but they’re really appreciating the skills that our classes are giving them.
“There is no reason students cannot engage in computer science.”
Berman echoed the importance of meeting students where they are.
“If they come in and they don’t have any computational skill, all the more reason for them to be taking this course and to get that experience,” he said. “I don’t think that we should penalize or punish students just because they haven’t had the chance yet to get these skills. I think that’s who we should be trying to support.”
Computer science skills apply to practically any industry a student will pursue in the future, Berman added. The CSforCA coalition, for example, explained how computer science can make agriculture more sustainable and productive, highlighting robotic machines used in farming.
And it can spark a passion for tech, Berman and Pezzoni said. Pezzoni has even had students who wanted to pursue medicine or business change their minds and decide to go into tech.
“They didn’t realize all of the opportunities they have to make a difference in tech, so they made that switch,” she said.
Implementation is a concern
Berman’s computer science bill would require the class to be offered in all public high schools by 2028-29. Even though the legislation doesn’t require immediate action, Berman said some school administrators have anxiety about implementation.
Pezzoni, who started and grew computer science courses in two low-income schools in the Central San Joaquin Valley, said it is achievable.
If “this could be done in a low socioeconomic area in the Central Valley,” Pezzoni said, “it could be done anywhere in California.”
After she started a computer science class in Ceres Unified in Stanislaus County, she said, “Students took it and were like, ‘OK, what’s next?’”
“‘What can we do with this now?’” she said students asked her. “It, organically, will grow. They will drive that demand. But if they never have the opportunity to experience it, they don’t even know what they’re asking for. Or they just make the assumption, ‘Oh, well, that’s not for me because if it was important, they would offer it.’”
Pezzoni said there is a misconception that implementing computer science is a “big scary hurdle to overcome” because of the needed equipment or upgrades and necessary teachers and curriculum.
“And really none of that is an issue,” she said. “I think once districts start diving in and making this happen, they’re going to be pleasantly surprised how easy this is going to be for them to do.”
Berman explained, “You don’t have to create curriculum. You don’t have to create professional development. That all exists already.”
According to a bill analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee, school districts would have to purchase instructional materials and provide professional development to current teachers.
While the exact cost is unknown, “it could be in the millions to potentially low tens of millions of dollars in Proposition 98 General Fund each year,” the analysis concluded.
The Department of Finance opposed the bill based on its estimate of $50 million to $73 million in ongoing funding from Proposition 98.
California has invested nearly $100 million for professional development and certification of computer science teachers, Berman said. In 2016, the state updated credentialing guidelines to allow single-subject credentialed teachers in other disciplines to pursue a computer science supplementary authorization with required coursework, preparing educators to teach the course.
Last year, another bill requiring all high schools to teach computer science stalled in the Senate, in part because of the lack of teachers, CalMatters reported. The following October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1251, the “next step to increase accessibility for equitable computer science education in California,” the CSforCA coalition said in a news release at the time. The legislation requires the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish a work group to develop a teacher preparation pathway for computer science to address the number of teachers able to teach the course.
Graduation requirement removed from bill, but not from vision
Among the 30 states that require high schools to offer a course, eight mandate it as a graduation requirement.
“I think that should be an eventual goal,” Berman said. “I think the next logical step, especially as the economy continues to change and people continue to see the value and the benefit, is that every student should take it.”
When the bill was first introduced in February, it included requiring the course as a graduation requirement. According to Berman, the requirement was removed from the bill.
“I have some colleagues that feel like we’ve already created some additional graduation requirements and to add more is not appropriate at this time,” he said.
The computer science bill passed the Assembly in May and the Senate Education Committee in June. It now sits in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where a similar bill died last year. The bill faces a similar fate on Thursday if the Appropriations Committee doesn’t send it to the full Senate for a vote.
“What the bill does is, it says this is a priority. This is a priority for our students. This is a priority for our communities,” Berman said. “It forces school districts to make this a priority. But I think once they do that, the benefit is going to be massive.
“This bill will make computer science availability and access for every student a priority.”
California state legislators passed a bill Wednesday requiring school districts to ban or restrict student smartphone use on campuses during school hours.
Assembly Bill 3216, renamed the Phone-Free School Act, requires that every school district, charter school and county office of education develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.
“Extended studies have demonstrated that the use of smartphones in classrooms can detract from students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying,” said the authors’ statement. “In consideration of California’s deficiency when it comes to academic performance, as compared to other states, it is imperative for the legislature to take action to resolve this issue.”
The Phone-Free School Act was authored by a bipartisan group of Assembly members that includes Republican Josh Hoover and Democrats Josh Lowenthal and Al Muratsuchi.
The legislation comes as states, school districts and individual schools are increasingly banning cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices on campuses in an effort to curb classroom distractions, bullying and addiction to the devices.
At least five other states, including Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio have similar laws in place.
It is likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation into law. He sent a letter to school district leaders earlier this month urging them to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use this school year. Excessive smartphone use increases anxiety, depression and other mental health issues in children, he said.
The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, resulting in some students doubling their recreational screen time, according to research. This has led to concerns about addiction to the devices.
This legislation builds on a previous law passed in 2019 that gave school districts the authority, but did not require them, to regulate smartphones during school hours.
Assembly Bill 3216 allows school districts to enforce their cellphone policies by limiting student access to their smartphones. Currently, some schools enforce phone bans by requiring students to check them into “cellphone hotels” or stow them in locked pouches that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet.
Many schools with cellphone prohibitions confiscate phones until the end of the school day if students flout the rules.
The legislation allows for some exemptions. Students will not be prohibited from using their phones if there is an emergency, when they are given permission by school staff, when a doctor says that the student needs the phone for medical reasons or when a smartphone is required in a special education student’s individualized education program.
The legislation also prohibits school officials and staff from accessing or monitoring a student’s online activities.
School districts are required to have “significant stakeholder participation” in developing their cellphone policy to ensure it is responsive to the needs of students, teachers and parents, according to the legislation. The policies must be updated every five years.
Adopting cellphone policies could collectively cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state analysis of the legislation. Because it is a state mandate, the costs could be reimbursed by the state.
The Los Angeles Unified School District school board passed a resolution to support parent employees.
The district will gather data to help understand employees’ needs and what it will take to fulfill them.
This resolution is just the beginning — and a more detailed plan is expected in November.
The Los Angeles Unified School District’s school board unanimously approved at Tuesday’s meeting a resolution to support employees who are parents.
Currently, many LAUSD employees fail to qualify for California’s state-paid family leave, according to the resolution. During public comments at Tuesday’s meeting, several teachers and community members said they did not feel adequately supported by Los Angeles Unified when they had children.
“I’ve met countless educators, school staff members, who have had challenges with the whole parental package, with healthcare, with child care, with parental leave. And so this really, this resolution, really bore out of those stories and the opportunities to change L.A. Unified to be that employer of choice for parents,” said Ortiz Franklin, who introduced the resolution, alongside board members Karla Griego and Kelly Gonez.
“We have a big vision in this district for our kids to achieve at really high levels. And, we know that our staff needs to be well to be able to do that — and this is going to support them in their journey, to support our kids.”
The resolution — “Parental Package: LAUSD as an Equitable Employer of Choice for Thriving Families” — addresses various stages of parenthood, including family planning, pregnancy and parental leave and childcare.
It also aims to boost employee retention in a female-dominated field and make LAUSD a model for other districts across the nation.
Tuesday’s resolution is just the beginning of a longer process.
It calls for data collection on various factors, including employee demographics, the amount of time employees take off, the number of employees who have children enrolled in Los Angeles Unified’s early education programs, healthcare plan coverage and any financial impacts of providing over 12 weeks of family leave.
The district will also conduct a study to gauge employees’ interest in having children, family planning needs, access to LAUSD’s provided reproductive support, healthcare benefits, obstacles employees encounter in taking time off, information about childcare and the nature of employees’ current children’s education.
Based on their findings, the Los Angeles Unified School District will have to come up with a plan by November. And in the meantime, the district will be expected to work toward providing adequate lactation spaces, identify liaisons to support parent employees and find affordable childcare providers to consult on an as-needed basis.
“After the birth of my first daughter, I returned to the classroom happily, excited. I nursed my baby and during my unpaid lunch break, that was fine, until it wasn’t,” said Tanya Reyes, a veteran teacher with LAUSD, who created a support group within United Teachers Los Angeles, the district’s teacher’s union, to support other working moms. “After the disagreement with my administrator, I was told my daughter was a liability. My pay was docked. Not once. Not twice — but three times.”
“Mothers need paid leave — not sick time, not borrowed time. Paid leave,” Reyes added during public comment at Tuesday’s board meeting. “Families need policies that protect us, and those policies must be enforced.”
For 30 years, California has experimented with a school choice program that let parents enroll their children in nearby districts that opened up seats for outsiders.Now the little-known District of Choice program, which the Legislature has renewed seven times, will become permanent through the passage of Senate Bill 897, authored by Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, if the governor signs the bill.
Only about 10,000 — about 0.2% — of the state’s students annually have taken advantage of the program. Most attend a half-dozen, primarily small districts in Southern California.
Districts of choice must be open to all who apply, including students with disabilities, who may be more expensive to serve. To prevent wealthier, primarily white families from exiting their home districts, SB 897 adds some stipulations to existing restrictions to prevent racial disparities and financial impacts. After accommodating siblings of transferees, the next priorities will be foster, homeless and low-income children. Up to 1% of students in districts with more than 50,000 students and a maximum 10% of students in districts with fewer than 50,000 will be able to transfer annually. Districts with a negative or qualified financial status can limit the number of students who can leave under the program.
Walnut Valley Unified, a 14,000-student district in the San Gabriel Valley, has been the most active proponent, with 2,774 students –30% of the total –transferring there in 2023-24, likely drawn to its Chinese immersion schools and emphasis on the arts. Pomona Unified, in opposing the bill, argued it lost wealthier families in Diamond Bar, which borders both districts, to the program.
The California Department of Education has not promoted the program, and many neighboring districts appear to have taken a don’t-poach-on-me, I-won’t-tread-on-you approach to interdistrict transfers.
But in an era of declining enrollment, the district of choice program is an option to shore up finances and fill up seats. It’s an open question whether districts will seize the opportunity.
The California Teachers Association testifies in support of the compromise.
Co-author: Reaching a deal was by far her hardest challenge as a legislator.
Up against a deadline, an Assembly committee endorses a bill they haven’t actually read.
A new bill that could reshape early reading instruction quickly passed its first test in the Legislature on Wednesday, with a major opponent doing an about-face and publicly announcing support.
Members of the Assembly Education Committee unanimously passed Assembly Bill 1454 after a short hearing. The compromise legislation that Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas helped create, after months of stalemate, won over the California Teachers Association (CTA).
“Reasonable people can disagree on reasonable things, but we also can show the world how you can disagree and come together,” said Patricia Rucker, a lobbyist for the CTA and former member of the State School Board. “We’re committed to continuing the work on this bill to keep the bill moving forward.”
Advocates of a comprehensive statewide approach to early literacy say the bill would fill in significant gaps in what has been missing under the state’s current policy of local control over instructional decisions.
The main elements are:
The California Department of Education would select teacher training programs in reading instruction for TK-3 that are aligned with “evidence-based practices.”
The State Board of Education will designate appropriate TK-8 textbooks for reading instruction, also based on evidence-based practices and aligned to the state English language arts framework and English language development framework for English learners. School districts would have to choose among those or seek a waiver from the state board.
The Commission on Teacher Credentialing would update school administrator standards to include training for principals and district administrators on supporting effective literacy instruction.
Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, the author of a previous bill that stalled and is now co-authoring AB 1454, said at the hearing that negotiating the compromise “by far, has been the hardest thing that I have ever done in nine years as a legislator.”
“Sometimes I was ready to walk away,” she said, “but for the coalition (of supporters), parents, family members, and of course, our speaker, for finally sitting us down and saying, ‘Get it done. Get it done.’ ”
Several Education Committee members said they appreciated the effort.
“You can find people who are struggling readers in every community,” said Darshana Patel, D-San Diego. “To know that you are focused on making sure the very fundamental, foundational skill of learning to read is available for every single child is so meaningful and important.”
The language of AB 1454 and its implementation over the next several years will determine its effectiveness. Members of the Assembly Education Committee, however, relied on a staff analysis of the bill, not the bill itself. It has yet to be released, because the intense talks that led to the deal continued into this week, leaving not enough time for the Legislative Counsel to vet the wording before the final hearing for new bills.
AB 1454 contains many key elements of AB 1121, a contested bill, authored by Alvardo and co-sponsored by advocacy nonprofits EdVoice and Families In Schools, Decoding Dyslexia CA and the California NAACP. First introduced last year and reintroduced this year, it stalled because of disagreement with CTA and English learner advocacy groups over how much research-based training should emphasize foundational skills, starting with phonics in TK to Grade 2 and progressing to learning vocabulary, oral skills, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Together, they are known as structured literacy or “the science of reading.”
English learner advocates, including Californians Together, argue that a rigid application of structured literacy would ignore the needs of English learners and attention to bilingual language learners.
Under AB 1454, reading instruction training would be optional, not mandatory, although districts must provide state-approved courses to be reimbursed by the state. The bill’s language will also call attention to the needs of English learners, and the California Department of Education will consult with a range of language-acquisition experts, including English learner organizations, when choosing the programs.
The bill will skirt fights over semantics by avoiding references to structured literacy and the science of reading. However, the bill is expected to require aligning training to existing statutory requirements for reading instruction, which specify foundational skills.
Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, drew an optimistic analogy to the state effort to require universal screening for potential reading challenges. CTA and English learner advocacy groups initially opposed that initiative, but later supported the effort, after extensive negotiations and agreement on an advisory committee of experts. “This fall, 1.2 million kids, kindergarten, first and second grade will be screened for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia,” he said.
Tracking progress with data
Tuck said that under the bill, the state will begin collecting data for the first time on how many teachers complete the training, and which training programs, textbooks and materials districts choose. “And then collectively, we can all say, OK, these districts are making real progress. They had consistency. They used similar programs and they trained a lot of teachers. Maybe these districts aren’t making as much progress.”
Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, an English learner growing up, said the issue will be not just how widespread the training is, but whether it’s appropriately used. “At the end of the day, it’s what is happening with the students who are the ones who are struggling,” he said, adding that he appreciated the bill’s attention to biliteracy.
“This is a one-size-fits-all approach,” he said, adding that progress is happening in small reading cohorts with one-on-one literacy coaching. “How we track that would be helpful.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom included $250 million in his initial 2025-26 state budget he proposed in January, but since then the financial outlook has darkened; money for new programs is expected to be scarce. However, Rivas as Assembly speaker; Alvarez, as chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance; and Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, a co-author of AB 1454 and chair of the Assembly Education Committee, are well-positioned to see the bill passed and funded. Newsom, who has funded several early literacy initiatives in the past four years, may be receptive.
No member of the public spoke against the bill. Instead, EdVoice, Families in Schools, and Innovate Public Schools, based in San Francisco, organized dozens of parents, members of the Black Parallel School Board and supporters to travel to Sacramento. Although they signed up for Rubio’s stalled bill, they switched bills when they learned of the compromise. They were given time to say just one sentence.
“I’m a parent of a dyslexic who only learned to read in the third grade because of outside resources,” said Alyson Henry. “I’m here in support of 1454.”
“On behalf of the Sacramento Literacy Foundation, the Sacramento Literacy Coalition, the 200,000 kids who are not reading at grade level right now, and my son, a struggling reader, I am in support of 1454,” said April Jarvis.
