اینترنت

برچسب: policy

  • Attorney General files suit against Chino Valley Unified to stop ‘forced outing policy’

    Attorney General files suit against Chino Valley Unified to stop ‘forced outing policy’


    Attorney General Rob Bonta

    Credit: Office of the Attorney General

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit today against Chino Valley Unified asking the San Bernardino County Superior Court to end a district policy that requires school staff to tell parents if their child asks to be identified by a different gender or name, or accesses a bathroom or program that don’t align with the gender on their official records.

    The lawsuit also asks the court to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the district policy immediately to protect the safety of transgender and gender-nonconforming students in the school district while the court case proceeds.

    “In its function, in its text, and in its context this policy is disruptive,” Bonta said at a news conference Monday morning. “It’s discriminatory, and it’s downright dangerous. It has no place in California, which is why we have moved in court to strike it down.”

    The Attorney General’s Office filed the case after completing a civil rights investigation of the district. The investigation found that the policy, passed on July 21, discriminates against transgender and gender-nonconforming students, violates their constitutional and civil rights, and threatens their mental, emotional and physical well-being, Bonta said.

    “Let’s call this policy what it is. It’s a forced outing policy,” Bonta said. 

    The policy violates the constitutional right of all California students to be treated equally, regardless of their gender, gender identity, or gender expression, Bonta said. It violates California’s equal protection clause, and it violates California’s constitutionally protected right to privacy, he said.

    Transcripts and recordings of the Chino Valley Unified board meetings reveal that trustees were motivated by a desire to harbor animosity, discrimination and prejudice, Bonta said.

    “Transgender and gender-nonconforming students were described as suffering from a mental illness and perversion,” Bonta said. “There were claims that policies protecting these students are a threat to the integrity of our nation and the family system as we know it. One board member even went as far as to publicly state that transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals need non-affirming action from their parents to get better.”

    Chino Valley Unified officials weren’t notified that the lawsuit was filed until after media outlets began to report on it Monday morning, said Andrea Johnston, district spokeswoman, in an email.

    Johnston did not provide a district official for an interview with EdSource, saying district officials were still reviewing the lawsuit with attorneys. But, Johnston did dispute Bonta’s allegation that the policy puts transgender students at risk.

    “The district’s policy does protect transgender students by requiring staff to notify CPS/law enforcement if the student believes they are in danger or have been abused, injured, or neglected due to their parent or guardian knowing of their preferred gender identity. In these circumstances, CVUSD staff will not notify parents or guardians, but rather, wait for the appropriate agencies to complete their investigations regarding the concerns shared by the student.”

    Johnston said that the district has been transparent in its dealings with the Attorney General’s office on the matter, providing it with all the requested documents and records.

    “Superintendent (Norm) Enfield spoke with the DOJ’s legal counsel weekly to confirm the district was providing requested files, which had changed several times from the original subpoena,” she wrote in the email.

    Students who submitted declarations for the lawsuit said the board policy has made them fear for their safety and has caused them to become withdrawn in school.

    “It presents students with a terrible choice, either walk back your rights to gender identity and gender expression, to be yourself, to be who you are, or face the risk of serious harm, mental harm, emotional harm, physical harm,” Bonta said of the policy. 

    Temecula Valley Unified, Anderson Union High School District and Murrieta Valley Unified also have passed parent notification policies, but aren’t included in the complaint. If the state wins its case, districts with the exact same policy will also be prohibited from using it, Bonta said.

    “We are standing up for our children today, not allowing their rights to be trampled, not allowing them to be put in harm’s way by a school board who is not complying with California law,” Bonta said.

     





    Source link

  • Orange Unified becomes sixth California district to adopt transgender parental notification policy

    Orange Unified becomes sixth California district to adopt transgender parental notification policy


    Packed crowd anticipates discussion on Orange Unified Parental Notification Policy on Sept. 8, 2023.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    In a unanimous 4-0 vote, the Orange Unified School District passed a policy Thursday evening that would require school officials to notify parents and guardians if their child asks to use a name or pronoun different than what was assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use spaces designed for the opposite sex.

    The policy, which has now percolated through a half dozen California districts, has its origins in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, which was denied a hearing at the state level in April.

    Rocklin Unified School District passed such a measure Wednesday. Previously, Temecula Valley Unified (Aug. 22), Anderson Union High School District  (Aug. 22) Murrieta Valley Unified (Aug.10) and Chino Valley Unified (July 20) passed almost identical policies.

    The policies passed by Chino Valley Unified and Murrieta Valley Unified have garnered backlash from state officials – who called the decisions a violation of students’ civil rights and have initiated an investigation into Chino Valley Unified. A Superior Court judge in San Bernardino County has also temporarily halted Chino Valley Unified’s policy.

    It would specifically require parents and guardians to be notified if their child asks to use a different name or set of pronouns, or if they ask to use a different sex’s segregated spaces, such as bathrooms or locker rooms.

    The policy would also mandate school principals be informed of pupils experiencing gender dysphoria or gender incongruence.

    District officials would be required to tell school principals or counselors if a student makes any attempt or threat of suicide. The principal would then have to seek out medical or mental health treatment for the student, ensure that they are supervised until their parents, guardians or another support agency intervenes, and notify emergency assistance – such as law enforcement – if necessary.

    Verbal and physical altercations, along with complaints of bullying, would have to be relayed to parents within three days.

    But the policy’s opponents say denying student’s a source of support at school – especially if they come from toxic home environments and non-accepting parents – could exacerbate their mental health.

    “When our lawmakers fail, when our families don’t accept us, when our friends leave us…I just want to feel safe at school,” said an Orange Unified School District high school student at the previous Aug. 17 meeting.

    School Board Member Angie Rumsey said the majority of teachers would also back the policy.

    “As a [someone in education], I hold and hide nothing from the parents of my students. The relationship begins with a realization that, as the teacher, I am not going to hide anything or keep information from a parent,” Rumsey said during the meeting. “Teachers should communicate with parents regarding any change in behavior.”

    However, before the Aug. 17 meeting, the Orange Unified Educators Association released a letter, arguing the policy would violate various aspects of California law as well as “student privacy rights grounded in the California Constitution.”

    The union added that the policy would burden teachers with the difficult task of discussing sensitive issues about their students with parents.

    “In addition to the legal issues, this policy requires certificated employees to have the appropriate knowledge, training, and time to have communication with students and guardians about sensitive and confidential issues,” the letter stated.

    “With the number of requirements and expectations already placed on certificated staff, this is an unreasonable and highly concerning expectation.”

    Thursday evening, California Attorney General Rob Bonta also issued a letter to the board opposing the measure.

    The school board meeting was heated – and dozens of activists spoke passionately for the measure, including many who didn’t have a direct connection to the district.

    The three board members who opposed the policy walked out of the meeting before the vote, following a disruption.

    “There’s a chilling effect that occurs for folks who then are unsure about what they can say and not say or what they’re required to do, and…. it creates a lot of stress on top of what is already a very stressful job for teachers,” said USC Professor of Education Julie Marsh.

    “…But the broader ripple effect is that you know, might it dissuade potential teachers from actually going into the teaching profession.”

    The policy

    Orange Unified School District is now the sixth district in California to pass a policy that would require parental notification when students show signs of being transgender.

    The district had originally considered that same policy at its meeting on Aug. 17, but Thursday’s agenda included a version where school counselors or psychologists would be informed instead of parents and guardians.

    The board ultimately decided to revert back to a parental notification policy between Thursday’s closed and open sessions.

    In response, several board members objected to discussing the item and tried to postpone the vote to a later meeting, after the Superior Court heard arguments for Chino Valley on Oct. 13. Those board members also claimed that they did not have enough time to adequately review the policy.

    The version that ultimately passed reverted back to the policy’s original intention.

    After the proposed AB 1314 was denied a hearing at the state level,  Essayli – who spoke at Thursday’s meeting – vowed to bring it to local districts and encouraged parents to pursue litigation.

    “In a state like California… a blue state, it becomes really the only option for these kinds of policies and actions to be occurring,” Marsh said. “And it shows us that we’re not immune.”

    The protocols outlined in the policy in response to bullying and threats of suicide have become a common argument in favor of its passage – but detailed policies and protocols to support students through these challenges already exist in Orange County and other districts.

    The 2023 Lead-Up at Orange Unified

    January – The new Orange Unified School Board fired then-Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen during a closed session meeting without a stated reason. She was out of the country at the time. Angered by that board decision, parents have dubbed that night the “Thursday night massacre.”

    Later that month, the board suspended the district’s digital library in response to parents’ complaints about the book “The Music of What Happens.”

    February – Orange Unified School District’s interim superintendent Edward Velasquez resigned after one month in the position.

    The board also faced a Brown Act complaint for allegedly not providing enough notice prior to a meeting, among other claims.

    March: The district faced two lawsuits about alleged Brown Act violations as well as one from parents about the Superintendent firing.

    June – The Orange Unified School Board adopted a policy that would ban Pride flags and other flags, calling them divisive.

    August – The OUSD School Board appointed Ernie Gonzalez as its new superintendent and held an initial discussion of the new parental rights policy that would require school staff to inform parents if their child indicates they are transgender.

    For the past several months, community activists have been calling for a recall of Board Members Rumsey, John Ortega, Madison Miner and Rick Ledesma, the president.

    “All that we’re seeing in Temecula and Chino and Orange and other places around the state are examples of the same thing, where we’ve got a very concerted effort that started with trying to elect conservative members to the board to get a majority and to then advance policies that are more conservative in nature,” Marsh said.

    “Some would argue it’s a politics of distraction to distract us from the core work of what schools are supposed to be doing around teaching and learning. And others would even go further to say this is an explicit effort to undermine public confidence in the public school system.”

    Marsh added, “I feel like it’s a wake-up call for folks to just pay a little bit more attention to school boards.”





    Source link

  • LAUSD considering a policy to limit charter co-locations, prioritize vulnerable students

    LAUSD considering a policy to limit charter co-locations, prioritize vulnerable students


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    The Los Angeles Unified School District school board is considering a resolution that would exclude 346 schools serving its most vulnerable student populations from co-location arrangements with charter schools. Doing so could potentially undermine the integrity of Proposition 39, a statewide initiative that mandates public schools to share spaces with charter schools.

    The resolution, authored by President Jackie Goldberg and member Rocio Rivas and discussed at a meeting Tuesday, would require the district to avoid co-location offers on LAUSD’s 100 Priority Schools, Black Student Achievement Plan campuses and community schools.

    According to the proposal, LAUSD would also avoid charter co-location offers that “compromise district schools’ capacity to serve neighborhood children” or “grade span arrangements that negatively impact student safety and build charter school pipelines that actively deter students from attending district schools, so that the district can focus on supporting its most fragile students and schools, key programs, and student safety.”

    The proposed criteria would guide the placement of new charter schools as well as those opting to change location and increase oversight of charter school co-locations, including site visits before location offers are made, frequent assessments of the average daily attendance of charter schools as well as regular reporting of their facilities payments.

    Goldberg said that her goal was not to “undo” anything but rather to prioritize the needs of vulnerable students by making the co-location process more rational.

    “We should have just some accountability practices, a common sense policy,” said Gloria Martinez, treasurer of United Teachers Los Angeles, the teacher’s union. “I don’t necessarily see this as an erosion of charter schools to exist. This is not an attack on charter schools or communities or parents or students. This is simply saying ‘Our district schools are drowning, and what’s our life vest?”

    Eric Premack, the president and founder of the Charter Schools Development Center, disagrees, saying, “That display at the board meeting today was really stunning, that they were essentially offering an extended middle finger to the voters of California, to the taxpayers and to students and parents and families who have opted to go to charter schools.”

    Board members will vote on the resolution at Tuesday’s meeting. It would give Superintendent Alberto Carvalho 45 days to report back to the board with an updated co-location policy reflecting the resolution.

    Charter school co-locations have long polarized the Los Angeles community with proponents of the proposed policy maintaining that sharing campus spaces has led to hostile environments for the children and greater challenges with securing necessary resources.

    Charter proponents, on the other hand, say the resolution would cause even more of their campuses to be split up and prolong commutes for students who are already disadvantaged.

    Still, the resolution comes amid years of declining enrollment across LAUSD, which some say might be the real reason behind the efforts to curtail co-location.

    Charters in LAUSD: The Basics

    For the 2023-24 academic year, Los Angeles Unified authorized 272 charters — 51 affiliated with the district and 221 independent, according to a presentation by José Cole-Gutiérrez, the director of LAUSD’s charter schools division, which coordinates the district’s Proposition 39 program.

    By the first day of November each year, charter schools must file a facilities request to LAUSD as part of a process outlined by the proposition. Those requests must include the charters’ must include their average daily attendance, which is used to determine how much space they would be allocated.

    For its part, LAUSD must extend a final location offer to the charters by April 1, and the charters have a month to respond.

    For years, the district has had charters share campuses with its regular public schools. This academic year, there are 52 co-locations at 50 campuses, representing 6.7% of district sites.

    Los Angeles Unified has seen fewer facilities requests from charter schools in the past few years. In the 2015-2016 academic year, for example, the district received 101 facilities requests. That number shrank to 51 this year.

    ‘More to do with less’: Fighting for increased enrollment

    The resolution comes as Los Angeles Unified — and schools throughout the state — have been reckoning with decreased enrollment despite the expansion of transitional kindergarten. Districts are working harder to retain and increase their current student populations.

    “Parents have some choices, and they’re not shy about exercising them,” said Premack, the president and founder of the Charter Schools Development Center. “A lot of them have voted with their feet and gone to the charter sector for instruction to enroll their kids, and … the district sees that is costing them a lot of money.”

    Decreased enrollment has led to fewer charters making facility requests, leading to more physical space open for student learning, said Myrna Castrejón, president of the California Charter Schools Association, which opposes the proposed resolution and staged a rally outside LAUSD’s headquarters during the recent meeting.

    With enrollment at 538,295 in 2022-23, LAUSD suffered the second-largest percentage enrollment decline in the state — a nearly 16% drop from 639,337 in 2015-16.

    “The cream of the crop left the district and went to charter schools, so did the money, and so did the funds, now we have to do with less,” Rivas, who co-authored the resolution, said during Wednesday’s board meeting.

    She also said that charter management organizations have continually profited while eroding the money the district needs to support more vulnerable student populations.

    A study conducted by the University of Arkansas, however, found that regular public schools in LAUSD made $5,225 more per student than charters in the district, as of 2019-20.

    “We’re pitted against each other to fight for the very few crumbs we’re given,” Rivas said.

     Challenges with co-location 

    Parents and community organizations have long pointed to challenges with co-locating charters on regular LAUSD campuses, citing competition over spaces and contentious relationships between school communities.

    “Co-locating charters are a burden placed on the shoulders of school communities. Campuses become divided spaces with drastically diminished resources, often at the expense of our most vulnerable students and families. As a result of co-locations, we have witnessed appalling and unacceptable uses of space,” reads a news release issued by the Facebook group Parents Supporting Teachers.

    The group says some schools have had to hold speech therapy sessions in closets and auditoriums have been converted into administrative offices.

    During Tuesday’s public comment segment, speakers and board members in favor of the proposed changes also cited challenges with district schools being able to access music and dance spaces — along with PE areas and rooms needed for individual education plan meetings.

    Supporters of Los Angeles charter schools, however, emphasized that sharing spaces is not always associated with problems.

    “Nobody likes to share,” said Castrejón, the president of the California Charter Schools Association. “But there are actually really good examples of … really good synergistic co-locations that actually amplify and serve both schools.”

    Supporting campuses with higher needs  

    The new resolution would prevent Priority, Black Student Achievement Plan and community schools from sharing their campuses with a charter school. Board President Goldberg said during the meeting that the changes would offset “some of the worst impacts” of Proposition 39 on more vulnerable LAUSD schools and communities.

    This academic year, LAUSD approved 13 co-locations on the district’s 100 Priority Schools, 19 co-locations on Black Student Achievement Plan campuses and seven on community schools campuses.

    “We’re saying: Those schools where we are doubling our investment — and I don’t mean as far as dollars — but where we are doubling our efforts really to help those schools – we cannot subject them to being co-located and then having themselves … in a fight to be able to carry out that vision to be able to … hold on to rooms where we can actually carry out the needs of the community,” said Martinez, the treasurer of United Teachers Los Angeles.

    The resolution’s opponents, however, have noted that many charters located on LAUSD campuses are community schools.

    More than 70 of LAUSD’s independent charters have received State Community Schools Grants, according to Ana Tintocalis, California Charter Schools Association spokesperson.

    “Based on CCSA’s analysis of the district data, there are more independent charter schools in LAUSD that have received State Community Schools Grants than district schools,” Tintocalis said in an email to EdSource.

    Potential effects for charters 

    This academic year, 19 charter schools have been split over either two or three LAUSD campuses, and the proposed resolution is projected to increase that number.

    “In attempting to avoid sites with special designations, it is likely that there will be more multi-site offers, leading to a larger overall number of co-locations Districtwide,” reads the interoffice correspondence from the office of the chief strategy officer on “Operational, Policy & Student Impact Statements” for the resolution.

    “This may also lead to increased costs associated with renovation work to make sites ready for co-location, and would likely make it more challenging for the district when making ‘reasonable efforts’ to locate the charter school ‘near’ where it wishes to locate.”

    Splitting a charter school across multiple sites can negatively impact students’ morale and can lead to unsustainable commutes for parents, said David Garner, the principal of Magnolia Science Academy-2.

    “They were going to also offer us another school, which is Sepulveda Middle School, which is 6.9 miles away,” Garner said. “And 6.9 miles away is not a big deal if you have people that have cars. However, 88% of our students’ parents come from free-and-reduced lunch backgrounds.”

    Eighty percent of the 4,000 students enrolled in his schools come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Garner calculated that the commute from Sepulveda Middle School to Magnolia Science Academy-2 is 55 minutes each way by bus — which can add up, particularly in cases where parents have children at various locations, spread out across grade levels, with different bell schedules.

    “Let’s just say one of the kids is in, you know, one of our sites on (Birmingham Community High School’s)  complex, and then she has another two kids at the Sepulveda Middle School site,” said Garner.

    “That parent would have to take the bus to Sepulveda from our school (at Birmingham) for one hour just to drop her other kids, and then take a bus back one hour to pick up the kid from our school, and then the bus back one more hour to pick up her second kid, and then the bus home.”

    Ultimately, he said, schools — public, charter or private — should all be held to the same standards in supporting their students.

    “We all take to this industry because we care about the kids,” Garner added. “We care about their futures. We believe that education can be used as a means to social mobility, as a means to get out of some challenging circumstances and (give) them all the tools to be successful.”





    Source link

  • Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles

    Community college math policy: Balancing big picture gains and classroom struggles


    Is this a picture of something bad, or something good?

    Cognitive scientists call this the global-local processing dilemma: Do we perceive the overall image, or focus on the details? Education policy often faces the same question: Can a policy be considered “good” if the overall data look promising, but the day-to-day experiences feel “bad?”

    This tension is at the heart of California’s college math reforms.

    Like the image, the story of these policies may look “good” from a distance, but “bad” up close.

    Before recent reforms, community college students who needed extra math support were typically placed in remedial courses like elementary algebra. These classes didn’t count toward transfer requirements, and most students stuck in them never made it to a math course needed to transfer to a four-year university, such as college algebra or introductory statistics. This created an academic dead end for many.

    A 2017 law, Assembly Bill 705, changed that. It used high school grades for placement and gave more students direct access to transfer-level courses, with corequisite support (a support course taken concurrently with a transfer-level course) when needed. Instead of multi-semester remediation, students could move into transfer-level math courses faster.

    While challenges remain, the approach led to significant improvements. In 2016-17, before AB 705 was announced, only 27% of students passed a transfer-level math course within one year. But in 2019-20, the first full year of AB 705’s implementation, that number had nearly doubled to 51%. And by 2023-24, it reached 62%. About 30,000 more students were fulfilling their math requirements each year. The story is similar in English courses, and so it’s undeniable that AB 705 has helped California’s community college students get one step closer to transfer. 

    Despite these gains, many faculty don’t see AB 705 as a success. As one instructor put it, “There are a lot more people failing than before … largely students of color. … By making this change (i.e., AB 705) around equity, we’ve created an inequitable system.” And the data do show that pass rates have declined. 

    But here’s the catch: Far more students are now taking those courses. The graph below helps illustrate this shift using data from one community college district. Before AB 705, only a small fraction of students reached transfer-level math, but with high pass rates, as shown by the darker blue shading within the dashed box. After AB 705, access expanded, but pass rates declined from 80% to 70%. Critically, that’s 70% of a much larger group.

    With such an improvement, why do some faculty feel like the policy is a failure? 

    Because of this paradox: AB 705 absolutely led to more students passing. But it also led to more students failing. 

    People respond more strongly to stories than to statistics, and losses loom larger than gains. The students we see struggling — their faces, their frustration, their stories — linger longer than a bar graph showing statewide gains. As faculty members, we know this all too well. We remember the students who didn’t make it. We think about what we could’ve done differently. We agonize over them.

    And often, faculty haven’t been given the full picture. Our research has found that many instructors hadn’t even seen outcome data on AB 705’s impact. So, without that context, and given the classroom experience, it’s reasonable to assume the policy failed.

    This disconnect is a classic challenge in public policy: a policy can be effective overall but still feel painful on the ground. And this tension is always a part of the hard work of building systemic justice. AB 705 succeeded in dismantling long-standing barriers and expanding access to transfer-level math. But that progress has introduced new classroom dynamics that feel personal, urgent and overwhelming to faculty. Good policy must account for both the big-picture gains and the human cost of change. Reforms don’t succeed on data alone. They require understanding, empathy and support for those doing the work.

    And just as faculty were beginning to adjust to AB 705, we face Assembly Bill 1705, a sharper and even more controversial new policy. It asks colleges to stretch even more, limiting their ability to offer even prerequisite math courses. Understandably, many educators are still reeling. They’re trying to adapt to new expectations while managing unintended consequences in their classrooms. Recent guidance has softened the rollout, but confusion remains. The stakes are high, and many faculty feel mistrustful and angry.

    If AB 705 taught us anything, it’s that mistrust grows when there’s a gap between what the data show and what people experience. This is why the next phase of work cannot be just about compliance or policy enforcement. It must be about storytelling, listening and solutions. Faculty need to see the big picture. Policymakers need to understand life on the ground. The policy “worked” in aggregate, but not without professional and emotional cost. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very equity goals these reforms were meant to achieve.

    Like the image above, the truth lies in seeing both levels clearly. We must acknowledge the trade-offs, the tension, and the very real pain of transition. Let’s take concerns seriously without retreating from hard-won progress. Let’s keep asking the harder, more honest questions: How do we support both students and faculty through ambitious change? How do we ensure that every student, not just the most prepared, has a real shot at success? 

    If we can do that, maybe we’ll find a way forward that is both honest and hopeful, one that sees the whole picture.

    •••

    Ji Y. Son, Ph.D., is a cognitive scientist and professor at California State University, Los Angeles and co-founder of CourseKata.org, a statistics and data science curriculum used by colleges and high schools.
    Federick Ngo, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His research examines higher education policy, with a focus on college access and community college students.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. 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

  • Little-known academic renewal policy offers students a second chance

    Little-known academic renewal policy offers students a second chance


    Los Angeles City College

    Credit: Larry Gordon / EdSource

    The most stressful time in most people’s academic careers is their first year of college. The transition from the routine of high school is suddenly over.

    An entirely new level of freedom is afforded to us, and quite frankly, even that can be overwhelming. You might suddenly miss a class or two and no one will phone your home, and it’s enticing to view college as a chance to catch up on socializing. All this can cause students — especially those in community colleges where material isn’t always as rigorous — to make the mistake of not putting adequate effort into education the way they should. 

    So, what happens when students hit a snag in the road during their collegiate start?

    For myself, there was something else that affected my ability to put my best foot forward in classes. I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis just as I began my next chapter in my educational journey. I couldn’t help but feel like my world was crashing down.

    This illness can create frustrating pain at times we cannot predict. Attending classes, much less focusing on the material, sometimes felt impossible. My grades faltered as I tried to manage my social life, treat my illness and balance a full load of classes.

    My first few semesters in community college featured the dreaded W, or withdrawal, and even a pair of F’s. I immediately knew transferring was unlikely, so I decided to take some time off. Maybe college wasn’t for me. I was forced to put dreams aside and try to find work; and given the price of medication and doctor visits, it wasn’t a bad idea. So I dropped out, and for a time I thought I’d never have a chance to earn a degree.

    Then came the Covid pandemic, and with it, work and school from home.

    The opportunity to take online courses was enticing, even though I assumed transferring was out of the question given my academic record.

    I decided to email an adviser at my local community college, just to see what could be done to transfer despite my less-than-stellar transcripts. 

    To my surprise, I learned about the little-known academic renewal policy. It allows community college students who have taken two years off to apply to have a limited number of units cleared from their GPA. It will remain on their records to give potential four-year universities a fuller picture of their efforts, but if you can return to classes and start hitting the ball out of the park, there is a chance to rebuild your academic career.

    According to the California Community Colleges, academic renewal was first introduced in 2008.

    It gives students a chance to petition to have D’s and F’s removed from their GPAs, but they must first earn a certain level of passing grades to start the process.

    Ultimately, the work still must be done by the student. You are not guaranteed success by wiping a few W’s and F’s from your GPA, but the opportunity to have a second chance in education can uplift those who face illnesses, economic hardships or other unforeseen circumstances.

    Your first semester in college should not follow you forever. And thankfully, the state’s community college system understands this.

    When I filled out the academic renewal application with my adviser, I didn’t expect much. But to my surprise, they were very helpful in ensuring that my plan to take the appropriate courses to transfer to colleges of my choice was possible. 

    What followed were four semesters of the hardest work I have ever put in. I came back as a student on a mission to attend class as often as possible, ask questions to professors, get involved in study groups and even be a teaching assistant. My illness had thankfully gone into remission, and for once I felt like I could be a student.

    Thanks to my advisers, professors and fellow students, I transferred to my dream university.

    However, I do wish this renewal process were more widely advertised because not all students who have initial struggles in their academic careers will reach out to advisers. Community colleges can and should find better ways to ensure students understand there are second chances through what appears to be a little-known process.

    Students across the state should know about academic renewal. It can be the difference between giving up on getting a degree or achieving your goals.

    •••

    Joshua Picazo is majoring in media studies at UC Berkeley and is a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.

    The opinions expressed in this piece 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

  • Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Immigration Policy Is Wrong

    Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Immigration Policy Is Wrong


    The conservative, Murdoch–owned Wall Street Journal editorialized that Trump’s immigration plan is in deep trouble, and rightly so. His goal (Stephen Miller’s) is to deport 11 million immigrants (one of every 20 people in the country. That’s led to raids at workplaces. Even his supporters are shocked. They voted to deport criminals, “the worst of the worst,” not the hard-working people who contribute to the economy.

    Vincent Scardina is a Trump voter in Key West, Fla., who owns a roofing company. Six of his workers, originally from Nicaragua, were en route to a job late last month when they were detained, according to a report by a local NBC affiliate. Their attorney says five of those men have valid work permits, pending asylum cases, and no criminal records. We haven’t been able to verify that, but if it’s correct, jailing them is a strange enforcement priority.

    “It’s going to be really hard to replace those guys,” Mr. Scardina said. “We’re not able, in Key West, to just replace people as easily as, say, a big city.” He also got emotional. “You get to know these guys. You become their friends,” he said. “You see what happens to their family.” Mr. Scardina’s message to the President that he helped to elect: “What happened here? This situation is just totally, just blatantly, not at all what they said it was.”

    Four hours after that post about farms and hotels, Mr. Trump was back on Truth Social. President Biden let in “21 Million Unvetted, Illegal Aliens,” who have “stolen American Jobs,” he said. “I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History.” For the record, the Census Bureau says the U.S. population is about 342 million, so he’s talking about maybe deporting 1 person in every 20.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s deportation maestro, Stephen Miller, wants the immigration cops to arrest 3,000 migrants a day. That means raiding businesses across the country. Mr. Trump prefers to talk about “CRIMINALS” because he knows that’s where he has broad public support.

    But his federal agents are out raiding job sites full of non-criminal, hard-working people who are contributing to the American economy. The real policy isn’t what Mr. Trump says, but what his agents do on the ground.

    How can immigration czar Miller meet his goal without deporting farm workers, construction laborers, restaurant staff, and hotel workers?



    Source link

  • Backlash mounts as LAUSD approves policy preventing charters on vulnerable campuses

    Backlash mounts as LAUSD approves policy preventing charters on vulnerable campuses


    The LAUSD School Board meeting on Aug. 30, 2022 in Los Angeles. Credit: Julie Leopo, EdSource

    The Los Angeles Unified School District school board voted 4-3 Tuesday to adopt a policy that would prevent charter schools from sharing a campus with the district’s Black Student Achievement Plan (BSAP) schools, community schools and priority schools.

    This decision means that when making co-location offers, the board will try to avoid offers that “compromise district schools’ capacity to serve neighborhood children” and that “result in grade span arrangements that negatively impact student safety and build charter school pipelines that actively deter students from attending district schools.” 

    The policy is months in the making — beginning with a resolution passed in September, mandating that Superintendent Alberto Carvalho devise such a policy. Board members reviewed a draft of his proposal at January’s Committee of the Whole Meeting. 

    “This policy, in the eyes of some, does not go far enough; and, in the eyes of others, it goes too far,” Carvalho said at Tuesday’s meeting.  “And somehow, experience tells me that any time you’re in that position, you probably achieved some degree of balance.”

    Supporters of the co-location policy, including United Teachers Los Angeles, have claimed that the presence of charters in district schools has created an atmosphere of ongoing hostility and that charter schools take critical resources —  including spaces used for enrichment programs and social-emotional support services — away from district students who are more vulnerable. 

    “Before we became a community school and a BSAP school, we had no arts, no sports, no clubs, and our students [compared] our school to a prison,” said a science teacher who spoke during public comments at Tuesday’s board meeting. 

    “The school has transformed….The students that used to want to leave immediately now want to stay after club hours. And this is only possible because we have the space available to host these resources.” 

    Pro-charter organizations maintain that the new policy is detrimental to the future of charter schools in Los Angeles and that it will likely result in more charters being divided across multiple LAUSD sites. They also anticipate charter closures will become more common. 

    “The district has finally made its intentions clear: to run charter schools out of town,” states a  letter to Carvalho and LAUSD’s school board members by the L.A. Coalition for Excellent Public Schools — consisting of about half of charters in the district — including 107 charter schools that educate more than 50,000 students. 

    “If the district can just elbow charter schools out of the campuses they’ve been sharing – if it can engineer feeder patterns, if it can remove charters from predominantly Black campuses, if it can make it all but impossible for kids to enroll in charters throughout their K-12 education – then L.A. Unified will keep more students and save a few bucks.” 

    The letter further alleges that the district’s policy is not about students’ education or equity, but rather about the district’s enrollment and financial challenges. 

    “The resolution will most immediately and severely impact thousands of predominantly Black and Latino students. Even more alarming is that it paves the way for L.A. Unified to eradicate charter schools altogether, denying so many families their civil rights, their hopes and dreams for their children’s futures.” 

    Myrna Castrejón, president and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, said in a statement that “the decision of the LAUSD Board of Education to enact this policy is divisive, discriminatory, and unlawful.” 

    Castrejón added, ”It is a shameful day when the second-largest school district in the nation puts politics ahead of students and families. . .. Instead of following California law and providing equitable facilities for charter public school students, LAUSD’s Board voted today with their campaign donors and against the very students they took an oath to support.” 

    ‘Merely moving and enlarging challenges’ 

    In addition to a wealth of support, the policy has also garnered backlash — from both pro-charter organizations and from individuals who said the policy doesn’t do enough to protect vulnerable students. 

    “This resolution is the capstone of a relentless, decades-long campaign….to cast blame rather than take responsibility,” the letter reads. 

    A survey conducted by CCSA’s Local Advocacy Team of 28 organizations also found that 10% of charter students in district facilities are Black/African American, in comparison to 4% of all public school students in LAUSD. About 90% of those students are from low income backgrounds.

    Charters were also found to have more socio-economically disadvantaged students and students who are English learners. 

    Meanwhile, the coalition’s letter also states that blocking co-locations on BSAP campuses will lead to fewer charters being able to serve Black students in the long run, adding that it takes “gall to rob Black families of the critical lifeline that our schools provide.” 

    School Board Member Nick Melvoin, who voted against the policy, also said that while he appreciates the policy’s intentions, “the district’s own analysis suggests that this policy will create not fewer, but more co-locations.” 

    “This may placate some folks in the room, but next year, we’ll have folks from 600 other schools back here with concerns because we’re not solving anything,” Melvoin said. “We’re merely moving and enlarging challenges.” 

    Spreading a charter school across multiple campuses can have negative effects, according to charter proponents — and CCSA’s survey specifically found that: 

    • “89% (8/9) reported a negative impact on staffing due to a split campus.”
    • “77% (7/9) reported a negative impact on school culture due to a split campus.”
    • “66% (6/9) reported a negative impact on student enrollment and the ability of families to maintain access to the school due to a split campus.”
    • “66% (6/9) reported a negative impact on school finances due to a split campus.”
    • “55% (5/9) reported a negative impact on programs or academic offerings available to students due to a split campus.” 

    Meanwhile, LAUSD board president Jackie Goldberg, who co-authored the initial resolution passed in September, rebuked claims from charter proponents, insisting that she was not “complaining about charters” and had no intention to “un-do anything.”

    “This resolution simply says if we can undo some of the problems we’ve created, let’s try to do that as we go forward,” Goldberg said. 

    Rather, she faulted Proposition 39 — which requires public school districts to share space with charters — calling it “flawed from the day it was written.”  She also criticized the “privately owned, publicly funded” nature of charter schools. 

    Goldberg also blamed the CCSA and the current state of the charter movement — which she said is more focused on competing with public schools rather than improving them. 

    “Prop 39 overrules everything,” Goldberg claimed on Tuesday. “And the enormous amount of money that the California Charter Schools Association is willing to spend suing districts … .is a design for them to contain power in Sacramento.” 

    Meanwhile, Scott Schmerelson, vice president of the LAUSD school board, who voted in favor of the policy, said that while he sees the policy as a step forward, he also recognizes that some do not feel it is enough to protect the district’s most vulnerable students. 

    “I hear you, I want to say that I understand you don’t feel we’ve done enough,” he said. “But we have made progress. And for now, I am willing to say OK, we will approve this, but we will keep the conversation going.” 

    ‘A substantial risk of litigation’ 

    A letter released by Latham and Watkins LLP on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, claims that the newly adopted policy is illegal and places the district at “a substantial risk of litigation.” 

    “By prioritizing public school students attending District-run schools over public school students who attend charter public schools, the policy violates Proposition 39’s mandate that ‘public school facilities should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools,’” the letter reads. 

    According to the letter, there are currently 13 co-locations on the district’s priority schools this academic year — as well as seven on community schools and 19 on BSAP campuses.  

    “I just hope that as we walk out of this building today,” Carvalho said, “we recognize that at the end of the day, that the only thing that matters, the only thing that should matter…. is what we do for kids, how we do it for kids despite our positions as adults.”





    Source link

  • Temecula Valley Unified can continue enforcing transgender policy, CRT ban, for now

    Temecula Valley Unified can continue enforcing transgender policy, CRT ban, for now


    Community member Kayla Church stands in support of LGBTQ+ community and in opposition to Temecula Valley Unified curriculum ban.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    While litigation moves forward, the Temecula Valley Unified District can keep enforcing its transgender notification policy as well as its ban on critical race theory, which restricts instruction on race and gender more broadly, Riverside County Judge Eric A. Keen ruled Friday. 

    In what seemed to be a contradiction to this decision, Keen had ruled on Feb. 15 that the case — Mae M. v. Komrosky — filed on behalf of the district’s teachers union, teachers, parents and students, in August by Ballard Spahr and the country’s largest pro-bono law firm Public Counsel LLP — will move forward. The plaintiffs had asked Keen to temporarily block enforcement of the policies while the case was fought out in court, but did not get it.

    “We are deeply disappointed with the denial of the preliminary injunction, primarily for the students and teachers and parents that we represent,” said Amanda Mangaser Savage,  supervising attorney for Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project. 

    “While these policies remain in effect, students in Temecula’s classrooms are being denied access to an accurate and fact-based education and, instead, are receiving an education that is dictated entirely by the board members’ ideological preferences.”

    Supporters of the board’s policy, including Joseph Komrosky, the Temecula Valley Unified school board president, have claimed that the policies do not discriminate against transgender students or students of color.  

    “The diversity that exists among the District’s community of students, staff, parents, and guardians is an asset to be honored and valued,” Komrosky said in a news release by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Murrieta-based law firm, “dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts,” that is representing the district for free.  

    “These policies were enacted by the school board to ensure our district puts the needs of students and their parents above all else,” adding that Temecula Valley Unified is committed to providing students with a well-rounded education devoid of “discrimination and indoctrination.”  

    A board guided by conservative values

    The turmoil in Temecula Unified started in December 2022, when the school board, with a newly elected conservative majority, banned critical race theory. The following spring, the board fired the former superintendent, Jodi McClay, without cause and temporarily banned the Social Studies Alive! textbook due to a mention of LGBTQ+ activist Harvey Milk in the supplemental material. 

    In August, the board passed a policy that percolated through about a half-dozen other districts, requiring that school administrators notify parents if their child shows signs of being transgender. 

    Since then, teachers have voiced concerns about more widespread curriculum censorship and negative impacts on students’ mental health — which have drawn attention and scrutiny from state officials. 

    Edgar Diaz, president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union, criticized Keen’s ruling, stating that it “does not consider the ripple effects” of the district’s policies. 

    Diaz added that wooden blocks have since been placed on library shelves in lieu of books because teachers and staff fear “there may be some banned concept in them.”

    “We shouldn’t be banning anything; we’re an educational institution. If children are curious about something, they explore it; they talk to the teachers. And especially in high school, they’re old enough to form their own opinions about what’s real and what’s not real,” said Temecula Valley Unified school board member Steve Schwartz. 

    He added that if an LGBTQ+ student “doesn’t feel safe enough in their home to tell their parent but needs to share it with someone and shares it with a teacher, it doesn’t seem like a good idea for the teacher to have to tell that parent.” 

    Widespread divides over critical race theory 

    The transgender notification policies and critical race theory ban supported by the Temecula Valley board are part of a larger movement driven by conservative organizations like Reform California. These groups formed to counter widespread calls from the left for racial justice following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020. 

    Nearly 800 measures in 244 local, state and federal entities have been taken against critical race theory, according to CRT Forward, an initiative of the UCLA School of Law’s critical race studies program. 

    In California alone, 13 measures have been introduced at the local level, nine of which have been passed or implemented. 

    As of April 2023, however, 60% of anti-CRT measures were adopted in predominantly conservative states.

    “Today’s ruling unfortunately means that Temecula will continue amongst the ranks of Texas and Florida,” Mangaser Savage said. 

    “While California is obviously a liberal state, I think that the fact that this is happening in our districts demonstrates how pernicious this is.” 

    While the nearly 4,000 U.S. adults surveyed by researchers at the University of Southern California largely agreed on the importance of public education and the core functions of literacy, numeracy and civics, they are more polarized on topics about race and LGBTQ+ issues.  

    The survey specifically found that between 80% and 86% of Democrats support the idea of high school students learning about LGBTQ+ topics compared with less than 40% of Republicans. Introducing LGBTQ+ topics at the elementary level garnered less support on both sides of the aisle. 

    Over half of those surveyed also supported discussion of topics about race at the high school level. But at the elementary level, Democrats were much more likely to support the idea of students learning about slavery, civil rights and racial inequality. 

    Critical race theory is usually taught at the college level, and Schwartz said it has not been taught in Temecula Valley Unified. 

    “But if I were a teacher today, and a student came to me and said, ‘What do you think about CRT?’ my response would be: ‘Why don’t you do some research and see what you think about it, and then we can have a discussion,’” Schwartz said. 

    “My thought is not to tell kids not to investigate things that they’re interested in. That’s what learning is all about.” 

    The lead-up in Temecula 

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a court brief in support of the plaintiffs in December. According to Mangaser Savage, that brief marked the first time in recent history that the state got involved with litigation to limit ideological censorship in schools. 

    Following Bonta’s brief, more than 20 civil rights and LGBTQ+ rights organizations — including American Civil Liberties Union’s chapters in Southern and Northern California — have also filed briefs in support of the preliminary injunction.

    Those organizations include: 

    • Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California
    • California LGBTQ Health & Human Services Network
    • Equal Justice Society
    • Equality California
    • Family Assistance Program
    • Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network
    • GLSEN
    • Inland Empire Prism Collective
    • Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
    • LGBTQ Center OC
    • LGBTQ Community Center of the Desert
    • Legal Services of Northern California
    • Los Angeles LGBT Center
    • Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
    • Public Advocates, Inc.
    • Public School Defenders Hub
    • Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance
    • Sacramento LGBT Center
    • Safe Schools Project of Santa Cruz County
    • Transgender Law Center
    • TransFamily Support Services
    • Trevor Project

    Penguin Random House and PEN America have also announced their support for the preliminary injunction. 

    As pressure has mounted on the district to stop its enforcement of allegedly discriminatory and illegal policies, the school board’s makeup has also changed — and more could shift in the coming months. 

    In December, One Temecula Valley PAC, a political action committee, lodged a recall effort against the board’s three conservative members and gathered enough signatures to move forward with a recall election this spring against Komrosky, the board president. 

    Conservative board member Jennifer Wiersma, however, will remain on the board, while Danny Gonzalez announced his resignation in December with plans to move to Texas. 

    Temecula Valley Unified’s school board met on Feb.13 to appoint a replacement but was unable to and decided to move forward with an election. Whoever replaces Gonzalez in that seat will determine whether the board retains its conservative majority. 

    “Despite the small but vocal opponents that seek to rewrite history and indoctrinate students,” Komrosky said, “I am very optimistic for our school district.”

    Editors’ note: This story has been updated to add a statement from Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project supervising attorney, Amanda Mangaser Savage.





    Source link

  • Chino Valley revamps parental notification policy; LGBTQ+ allies fear legal escalation

    Chino Valley revamps parental notification policy; LGBTQ+ allies fear legal escalation


    Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw speaks at the parental rights rally in Simi Valley.

    Credit: Courtesy of Rebecca Holz / California Policy Center

    The Chino Valley Unified School District school board voted Thursday to adopt a revamped version of its transgender notification policy, which LGBTQ+ advocates fear would help the district withstand court battles and propel the case to the United States Supreme Court — a possibility previously expressed by Board President Sonja Shaw.

    Unlike the original policy adopted in July, the new policy does not use words like “gender” or “bathroom.” Instead, it broadly states that school officials should notify parents in writing, within three days, if their child requests to change any information in their official or unofficial record. It also cites previous decisions in favor of parental rights. 

    “These policies are rooted in distrust for our schools. And so you know, they’re breaking down these relationships that are essential to schools being successful,” said Kristi Hirst, a district alumna, teacher and parent, who also serves as the the chief operating officer of Our Schools USA — a national organization focused on protecting public education. 

    “What is unclear is what ‘unofficial records’ are, and my hunch is, that’s where…. targeting of transgender students is going to really be seen,” Hirst said.

    Thursday’s board meeting was packed with both supporters of the new policy, as well as members of the district’s teacher’s union, who wore matching red shirts in solidarity. 

    Supporters of the policy also spoke during public comment on Thursday with one of them claiming that the “initiative” would put an end to puberty blockers supposedly being administered and prevent “boys entering into women’s/girls’ spaces.” 

    One speaker told the board, “Safe teachers don’t lie to parents. Safe teachers don’t keep secrets from parents. Thank you for protecting our kids against unsafe teachers.”

    “Parents love and know kids best. Calling a parent abusive for wanting to get their child the proper psychological help is completely ignorant.” 

    Both the previous and new versions of the policy stress the district’s commitment to foster trust between schools and parents. They also share the same three statements of intent: to maintain trust between schools and families, involve parents in decisions about their child’s mental health and increase communication and build positive relationships that can positively impact student outcomes. 

    The older version of the policy which passed in July would have required school staff to notify parents within three days in writing if their child asks to use a name or pronoun that is different from what is on their official student record. Parents would also have to be informed if their child wishes to access sex-segregated spaces that do not align with their biological sex or request to change anything on their official or unofficial record. 

    Under the new policy, however, parents would only be notified of the following: 

    • Requests to change official or unofficial records. 
    • Extracurricular or co curricular activities their student is involved in.  
    • Physical injuries at school or during school sponsored activities.

    Both policies share the same guidelines in cases where a student experiences bullying, is involved in a physical altercation or has suicidal intentions. 

    “The updated policy strikes a balance between two important principles—prioritizing students’ well-being and upholding parents’ rights—and ensures that parents are kept informed every step of the way,” Shaw said in a Liberty Justice Center statement released Friday. 

    Chino community members have repeatedly claimed that such policies in Chino Valley Unified and beyond are detrimental to the mental and physical well-being of LGBTQ+ students. 

    A crisis hotline launched on Aug. 5 by Rainbow Youth Project USA and Our Schools USA has received nearly 650 calls since Chino Valley Unified passed its transgender notification policy, the Los Angeles Blade reported. 

    “All the students who have come to speak about this, they are hearing that rhetoric,” Hirst said, adding that the board’s decisions have fostered a climate of “mistreatment.”  

    “That is 100% going to filter down to schools, and it is. Your leaders, when they breathe that hate into the air, it spreads, and you can feel it.” 

    Hirst added that her daughter, who attends district schools, has also noticed an increase in physical fights and bullying against LGBTQ+ students. 

    Before the policy’s passage, “no one cared,” she said. 

    “There’s no teacher who has these nefarious intentions to kids and hides things from their parents. Nobody’s doing that. . . They [teachers] are constantly working to get parent volunteers and parent involvement.” 

    The lead up 

    In November 2022, voters elected a conservative majority to the Chino Valley Unified School District school board, with three members connected to Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, led by Pastor Jack Hibbs.

    The board voted in June to ban pride flags and in November passed a policy to have a panel remove books it believes to be “sexually inappropriate.” In July, Chino Valley Unified became the first district to pass a policy that would require school officials to notify parents if their child shows any sign of being transgender, which has since spread to other districts, and originated from Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, which was denied a hearing at the state level. 

    The district’s board meetings have also drawn the attention of conservative groups such as Leave Our Kids Alone, a group that travels to various school board meetings to advocate “age appropriate curriculum” and to oppose curriculum and practices they view as indoctrination. 

    State Superintendent Tony Thurmond attended the board’s July meeting to speak out against the transgender notification policy during public comment but was kicked out of the meeting. 

    In August, California Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a civil rights investigation and filed a lawsuit against the district. Two months later, a San Bernardino County judge blocked the district from enforcing the policy, arguing it “treats otherwise similar students differently based on their sex or gender identity.”

    During the closed session of Thursday’s meeting, members of the board met with two law firms: The Liberty Justice Center and Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud, and Romo (AALRR) about the ongoing litigation. 

    Last September, the board hired The Liberty Justice Center — known for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court labor case Janus v. AFSCME — to provide them with pro-bono legal representation. 

    An argument for teacher support

    For teachers in the Chino Valley Unified School district, discussions about the transgender notification policy are inseparable from a push for better wages. 

    If the board has hundreds of thousands to spend on legal fees, it has the money to bargain in good faith and provide a Cost of Living Adjustment, the teachers union has argued. And on Feb. 22, the union declared an impasse. 

    “We can’t hire teachers; we can’t attract them. We have all these openings. We have parents coming to our board meetings complaining about violence in our schools that’s not being addressed. We have parents coming in complaining about rampant racism in our schools that’s not being addressed, bullying that’s not being addressed,” Hirst said. 

    “And so we have real issues that need to be addressed, and instead, all of our resources and time and energy is going on these culture war issues that don’t improve our schools.”

    In November, public records published by the Sacramento Bee and acquired by Our Schools USA found the district tripled their legal fees to AALRR since July, when they passed the first iteration of their transgender notification policy. In July, the Chino Valley Unified School District paid AALRR $30,903. 

    Those fees soared, amounting to $104,867 in August and $54,988 in September, in addition to the $307,000 spent during the 2022-23 academic year. 

    “We’d rather be home tonight grading papers, planning lessons, maybe trying to have some time with our families,” said Steven Frazer, the organizing committee chairperson for Associated Chino Teachers. “But it’s important that we’re here. It’s important that the board understands that we’re united in standing up for our rights, for student rights and just for what’s right.”

    Two weeks ago, hundreds of district teachers rallied for the cause — and made their voices heard again before Thursday’s meeting. 

    “I know this community really well. I love this community. And I’m watching the most beloved teachers just really struggling and wanting to leave,” Hirst said. 

    “There’s nothing in my kids’ educational experience that is as impactful as the quality of the teachers they have access to. And I’m really concerned that we’re not going to attract the best anymore.”

    This story has been updated to include a statement from Chino Valley Unified School Board President Sonja Shaw.





    Source link

  • Charter Schools Association sues LAUSD over charter co-location policy 

    Charter Schools Association sues LAUSD over charter co-location policy 


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, challenging the district’s policy limiting charter co-locations on nearly 350 campuses, including the district’s 100 Priority Schools, Black Student Achievement Plan schools and community schools. 

    The lawsuit, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, argues that the policy is illegal and discriminates against charter students by not providing them with “reasonably equivalent” facilities. 

    “We have consistently maintained that this policy is a shameful and discriminatory attack on public charter school students, for which the district shares a responsibility to house,” said Myrna Castrejón, president and CEO of the CCSA at a press event Tuesday. 

    “Families choose to send their children to LAUSD charter public schools because they have found programs uniquely tailored to their needs. … This policy limits options for those parents among the most vulnerable across LA Unified.” 

    The CCSA started making threats of litigation when the board passed the resolution on Feb. 13. The following month, the CCSA claimed the vote was invalid due to alleged violations of the state’s open- meetings law, the Brown Act, tied to board member George McKenna’s virtual participation during the February vote. 

    LAUSD’s school board reconvened on March 19 and passed the policy a second time with a 4-3 vote that included the support of Board President Jackie Goldberg, Vice President Scott Schmerelson and members McKenna and Rocio Rivas. 

    The four board members, along with members of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), have repeatedly emphasized negative effects of co-location, particularly on vulnerable students, including allegedly hostile school environments and challenges with accessing programmatic spaces, including computer labs, music rooms and art studios. 

    Family centers, according to Cecily Myart-Cruz, the president of UTLA, are also negatively impacted by co-locations. 

    “Implementing proper oversight and limitations on co-located schools is the fairest way to ensure that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, can access a high-quality education within LAUSD,” Myart-Cruz said in a statement to EdSource. 

    She added that the lawsuit filed by the CCSA is “a misguided response” to a policy widely supported by teachers, parents and students. 

    “All students deserve a space to thrive, and overcrowding our already resource-limited public schools has had a detrimental effect on both public and charter students,” Myart-Cruz said. 

    Charter proponents, however, have argued that taking nearly 350 schools off the table for co-locations could lead to more multi-site offers and school closures, which they say will negatively impact vulnerable students.

    The lawsuit specifically states that the 240 charter schools in LAUSD educate more than 115,000 students, who are largely low-income and students of color. 

    The lawsuit also claims that the district has failed to collaborate in good faith and points to a history of alleged violations of Proposition 39, which dealt with bonds to finance school facilities. 

    “Despite CCSA and the charter public school communities’ offer to work collaboratively with the board on a new policy that would improve the process of sharing campuses, LAUSD has disregarded the voices and needs of charter school families and adopted a new policy to harm their charter schools,” Castrejón added at Tuesday’s press event.

    LAUSD declined to comment on the lawsuit as litigation is pending. 

    Meanwhile, the CCSA emphasized its strong legal track record and said they feel optimistic about the case.

    “It is a common theme with LAUSD,” said CCSA’s vice president of legal advocacy and executive director, Julie Umansky, on Tuesday. “We’re feeling confident with the precedent on their disregard for Prop. 39 and our ability to get the court to see it the way we do.” 





    Source link