اینترنت

برچسب: school

  • A chance to protect California high school students’ health: Free condom distribution

    A chance to protect California high school students’ health: Free condom distribution


    Credit: pixabay

    California’s 1.6 million high school students are starting another year, but without a critical school supply that I would argue is necessary for teens: condoms.

    Why should California public high schools be required to provide condoms to students? Because condom availability programs are an effective public health strategy supported by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to help keep sexually active high school students safe. According to the CDC:

    This year, the Golden State has a golden opportunity to protect high school students in California from alarming statistics like these in the form of the YHES Act.

    The Youth Health Equity + Safety (YHES) Act (SB 954) would expand access to condoms by requiring public and charter high schools to make free condoms readily available to students, giving them the opportunity to protect themselves from STIs that negatively impact their well-being, shorten their lifespan and easily spread to the wider community.

    The organization I lead, the California School-Based Health Alliance (CSHA), helps improve health access and equity by supporting schools and health care partners to bring health services to where the kids are — at school. The alliance is a proud co-sponsor of this bill because providing condoms in California’s high schools equips young people to make healthier decisions if they choose to be sexually active.

    Although some districts, such as Los Angeles Unified, San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified, already offer condom access programs, the majority of schools in California do not.

    An online survey by TeenSource, an initiative of Essential Access Health, found that 68% of California teens lack access to condoms at their high school, and 98% agreed that easier access would increase condom use among sexually active teens.

    SB 954 would require all public and charter high schools to make internal and external condoms readily available to students for free beginning at the start of the 2025-26 school year. Condoms would need to be placed in a minimum of two locations on school grounds where they are easily accessible to students during school hours without requiring assistance or permission from school staff.

    California’s high school students have a right to consent to and access medically accurate, confidential, culturally relevant, and age-appropriate health services in schools. Our state has made great strides in reducing unintended pregnancy among adolescents in the past 20 years. Unfortunately, half of all reported cases of STIs in 2022 were among young people aged 15-24. The scope of the epidemic requires bold action.

    This year marks the second time state Sen. Caroline Menjivar, D-Van Nuys, has moved this sensible bill through the state’s Legislature. Menjivar has secured $5 million to cover the costs of distributing free condoms in public high schools for three years. The bill also specifies that if funds are not designated for this purpose, schools have no obligation to provide free condoms — addressing any concern as to an unfunded mandate.

    To reduce public health disparities, we must ensure that California youth have equitable access to condoms in high schools. Advocates for youth health and education equity urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign the YHES Act into law.

    •••

    Sergio J. Morales, MPA, is the executive director of the California School-Based Health Alliance (CSHA), a nonprofit organization that aims to improve the health and academic success of children and youth by advancing health services in schools.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • My anxiety as a teacher rises with every school shooting

    My anxiety as a teacher rises with every school shooting


    Students at Clairemont High School in San Diego participate in a national school walkout in 2018 to demand gun control — almost two decades after Columbine.

    David Washburn / EdSource

    “Four dead in shooting at Georgia high school, 14-year-old suspect in custody.” The ABC News headline blasts across my Apple Watch.

    I am in the middle of teaching ninth graders how to draw inferences to support an interpretation of Roald Dahl’s “Lamb to the Slaughter.” They’re captivated by housewife Mary Maloney’s stoic demeanor as she covers up her violent retaliation against her husband. I pause midstory to read the headline to myself, and without reacting, go back to modeling annotations as we uncover how Mary gets away with murder. The students are engaged, but I struggle to keep my own mind focused on the lesson, knowing classes are now canceled in another school, this time in Georgia.

    Afterward, I sit at my desk surveying my classroom. I mentally map out safety spots, rehearsing scenarios for a lockdown. I wonder, “What will I do if we are at lunch? Or if there is a shooting between passing periods?” My thoughts teeter between precautionary mental plans and prayers of relief: t wasn’t us. I imagine many teachers, administrators and parents around the country are breathing that same sigh; thank goodness it wasn’t my classroom, my colleagues, my students, my child. 

    The cry for gun control and stricter safety measures seems to fade in the quiet period after a shooting, with little to no change after the national mourning. My anxiety as a teacher takes a hit every time we revisit this repetitive headline. It is personal and desperately frustrating to grapple with school shootings time and again. Amid the helplessness I feel in the aftermath, I start to think of ways to help my students and colleagues navigate through this repeated collective trauma. What can we do, within our community power, to process these tragedies?

    Upon hearing that the shooter is 14 years old, my initial reaction is that school districts need to prioritize regular emotional check-ins for both students and staff. The research on the importance of social and emotional learning is clear: student perceptions of school safety and inclusion significantly improve with this support.

    The age of the Georgia shooter underscores the urgency of this idea; an intentional emphasis on mental health in schools as a proactive measure can be instrumental in identifying those who may be struggling with psychological challenges. What violence markers were observed beforehand? How could this have been prevented? This is a challenging balance to navigate: ensuring that schools do not overstep in identifying potentially violent individuals while also teaching emotional intelligence as a preventive measure for students to handle stress. While fostering social and emotional learning within school curriculums cannot entirely eliminate the risk, mandating this is a proactive, researched step toward school safety. 

    School personnel also need proper professional development on how to handle trauma. When we see signs of stress, what do we do? We know students now, more than previous generations, buckle more frequently under emotional loads that impact their ability to learn, and teachers often feel ill-equipped to respond. We need structured systems of correspondence when we notice signs that someone — student or colleague — is struggling. Just as school safety plans are mandatory, there is a need for trauma-response systems and appropriate annual training. 

    One issue that has repeatedly surfaced in my classroom is the significant impact cyberbullying and social media have on today’s teenagers. How has technology hindered our efforts to keep students focused and, more importantly, to keep them safe? How has living in a virtual world affected students’ ability to navigate real-life interactions? While I recognize that school violence existed long before every teenager had a cellphone or access to social media, I can’t help but suspect a link between the rise in school-related violence and the fact that much of children’s social interaction now takes place in an impersonal, virtual environment.

    As we respond emotionally to the shooting, the uncomfortably large elephant in the classroom is the urgent need for systemic change. Apalachee, Georgia, has been added to the list of communities grappling with the pain of government inaction. In the aftermath, schools across the nation are managing trauma response and reviewing their safety procedures, hoping to withstand a potential repeat event on their own campuses.

    Wanting students and faculty to come home safely from school should not be a political issue; it is a basic expectation. The overwhelming responsibility for student safety falls on me and my colleagues to find creative ways to ensure our own safety. Instead, this pressure should fall squarely on our elected officials. While we wait for legislative action, we map our modes of escape, pay heed to the emotional toll these events have on our school communities, and pray fervently that we don’t ever experience our own versions of “Lamb to the Slaughter.” The shooting in Georgia is a reminder to check our own locks and security measures in case we become the unlucky next.

    •••

    Emily Garrison is an English teacher in Northwest Arkansas. She is a Teach Plus Senior Writing Fellow.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Strengthen auditing to curb charter school fraud, a new task force recommends

    Strengthen auditing to curb charter school fraud, a new task force recommends


    San Diego County Attorney Sumner Stephan announces in 2019 the indictment of 11 individuals affiliated with A3 Education, including founders Sean McManus and Jason Schrock, who subsequently took a plea deal.

    Credit: Office of the San Diego County District Attorney

    A court-commissioned task force formed in the aftermath of a massive fraud by an online charter school network issued recommendations Wednesday to thwart the recurrence of similar operations.

    State Controller Malia Cohen, who chaired the task force, said that the 20 recommendations for reforming the system for auditing schools should apply not only to charter schools but also school districts and county offices of education.

    The report urges significant improvement in training, selecting, overseeing and disciplining school auditors as well as an expansion of their responsibilities. 

    “With the education of our children at stake and significant state investments of taxpayer money in education, it is crucial that all schools be held to the highest level of integrity, accountability, fiscal compliance, and transparency,” Cohen wrote in an introduction to the 50-page “Audit Best Practices for Detecting and Curtailing Charter School Fraud.”

    There were multiple failures that allowed the Academics Arts and Action Education (A3) charter network of 19 schools to pilfer tens of millions of dollars in public funding. The multi-agency task force focused on strengthening the auditing process, because a system of detecting and quickly responding to possible fraud relies on effective annual reviews by professional, independent auditors, who are overseen by Cohen’s department.   

    San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert Longstreth signed an order in September 2023 establishing the multi-agency task force after observing how A3 exploited weaknesses in the auditing system. A3 fraudulently enrolled participants in its summer athletic programs into the charter school’s academic program so that it could claim average daily attendance funding, even though the students received no education services. Additionally, private schools and other programs that participated in the enrollment scheme received a portion of the state’s per-student funding while A3 pocketed the rest, according to the report.

    In 2021, Sean McManus and Jason Schrock, A3’s founders, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to commit theft of public dollars for the phantom enrollments. In return for serving four years on house arrest, the executives agreed to repay $37 million.

    The State Controller’s Office and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted A3, led the task force. It also included divergent perspectives from the California Charter Schools Association, the California School Boards Association, and the California County Superintendents.  

    Many of the recommendations will require legislative action and additional funding to implement, as noted in the report in a section titled “Obstacles and Solutions.” While charter school advocates and district authorizers agree in principle that there’s a need for changes, they have disagreed in the past over specifics of added regulation. The report called for collaboration among those with differing perspectives.

    This is the third significant report this year that looked at the multiple breakdowns of oversight responsibility and holes in transparency laws that failed to spot flagrant violations by A3 and now-defunct Inspire Charter Schools, a home-school charter network that could not account for tens of millions of dollars in state funding.  

    The first report was a joint effort of the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, a state fiscal oversight agency known as FCMAT. The second was by the anti-fraud task force of the California Charter Authorizing Professionals, a nonprofit association for school districts and county offices of education.

    Both groups made similar recommendations for stronger oversight, including demanding that nonprofit charter school boards scrutinize third-party contracts for conflicts of interest. 

    The authorizers’ task force called for establishing a statewide Office of Inspector General to investigate and prosecute financial fraud in school districts, community colleges and charter schools.

    The LAO-FCMAT report also called for limiting small school districts’ ability to authorize large-scale charter networks. Not only do they lack the knowledge and capacity to monitor complex operations, but the oversight fees they can charge, sometimes reaping millions of dollars yearly, could create an incentive to look the other way. Dehesa School District, with one school in the San Diego County foothills, chartered three A3 and two Inspire charter schools.

    The failure of an audit to catch A3’s “exponential” fluctuations in enrollment was one area that the report said needed fixing.  It recommends tracking enrollment and attendance changes monthly; had this been in place, an auditor may have identified a potential for fraud.

    Other recommendations

    Qualifying, certifying and evaluating accountants: Currently, only 22 certified public accounting firms — less than 0.1% of licensed accounting firms in California — audit 93% of school districts and charter schools, according to the report. As a result, the report stated, “The poor performance of any one CPA firm may significantly impact the quality and reliability of school audits.”  And those auditing schools have not been required to have any training specifically on auditing schools. 

    The report recommends:

    Requiring 24 hours of training on school auditing before an auditor can be listed among certified public accountants eligible for school auditing.

    Requiring the State Comptroller’s Office to do a quality review after an auditor’s first school audit.

    Adding conditions for deleting a poorly performing auditor from the state’s auditor eligibility list.

    Frequent turnover in a charter school’s auditors can be “a red flag” for a subpar auditor or a district with possible misconduct. The report recommends monitoring for these trends.

    Conflicts of interest: Some cases of charter fraud have revealed collusion between vendors with close personal ties to charter leaders, self-dealing by charter CEOs and other conflicts of interest that could lead to fraud or waste. Some boards of directors have failed in their legal responsibility to identify and prohibit them. 

    The report recommends financial disclosure statements for the top five highest-paid school employees, the 25 highest paid vendors, and disclosure statements for charter schools’ contracts with charter management organizations.

    The report reiterates a best practice that some auditors apparently did not follow: To preserve independence, an auditor should never allow a school district or charter school to determine which financial transactions and enrollments should be sampled for an audit.

    Some of the most visible cases of abuse have occurred with non-classroom based charter schools. Those are charter schools in which less than 80% of instruction occurs in person.  

    Consisting of hybrid charter schools and home schools, they comprise about a quarter of the state’s 1,300 charter schools and nearly 40% of charter school students. Exclusively online charter schools are only a small piece.

    Non-classroom-based charter schools are also increasingly popular with parents seeking scheduling flexibility and more options in their children’s education. 

    In 2019, the Legislature imposed a two-year moratorium on approving new non-classroom-based charter schools and has extended it twice.

    Thus, there will be pressure on the Legislature to consider the auditing and oversight reforms that the three reports have suggested before the moratorium ends in 2026.





    Source link

  • School boards association lawsuit claims provision in California budget deal is unconstitutional

    School boards association lawsuit claims provision in California budget deal is unconstitutional


    Credit: Flickr

    This article was rewritten and reposted on Sept. 27 to clarify that the lawsuit’s aim is to prevent underfunding of Proposition 98 in future years. The earlier version misstated that the lawsuit asserted the current state budget as enacted also violated the funding law.

    Although the 2024-25 state budget shields school districts and community colleges from funding cuts, the California School Boards Association is suing the Newsom administration over a provision that the school boards association claims is unconstitutional.
     
    The change to the Education Code would deny schools money they would be entitled to under some conditions in future years, setting a dangerous precedent, CSBA argued in a lawsuit filed this week.
     
    The school boards association is asking the Superior Court in Sacramento County to invalidate that section in the education budget bill. CSBA argues it violates the letter and spirit of Proposition 98, the formula that determines how much of the General Fund must be allocated to schools and community colleges.
     
    The Department of Finance inserted the little-known statutory wording  into the budget trailer bill in the final days of the legislative session in June, with no discussion or notice.  It was not mentioned in the budget analysis that legislators reviewed before passing the budget.
     
    “CSBA’s defense of voter‐approved Proposition 98 is nonnegotiable, as is the obligation of the state to follow the Constitution that governs it,” CSBA President Albert Gonzalez, a Santa Clara Unified school board member, said in a statement.
     
    On behalf of Newsom, the California Department of Finance refuted CSBA assertions in a series of exchanges with legislative leaders in July. All of its actions were legal, Joe Stephenshaw, director of the Department of Finance, wrote.
     
    The lawsuit would not affect this year’s budget, which took effect July 1. However, the tense negotiations and controversial revenue maneuvers preceding the budget’s passage were very much on the minds of Newsom’s financial advisors when they wrote the statutory change that the school boards association opposes.
     
    It pertains to the unusual challenge that Newsom and the Legislature found themselves in trying to write the 2023-24 budget. Because of the devasting impacts of winter storms and floods, the federal government and the state pushed back the tax collection deadline from April to November 2023. Without having tax receipts in hand, Newsom and the Legislature made a best-guess estimate of what Prop. 98 minimum guarantee would be for 2022-23. As it turned out, the minimum guarantee was $8.8 billion less than what they appropriated.
     
    Rather than cut funding for school districts and community colleges after the 2022-23 fiscal year had ended and money had been spent, Newsom left what he called “an overappropriation” alone. Two of the main formulas to determine the Prop 98 minimum guarantee incorporate what the state spent on schools in the prior year. So, the over-appropriation in 2022-23 would increase the amount that the state owed schools in 2023-24, 2024-25 and beyond. his initial 2024-25 budget in January, Newsom proposed allowing schools to keep the $8.8 billion for 2022-23 but to exclude the money when calculating the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee for 2023-24 and 2024-25.
     
    CSBA and other education groups opposed that move. They said that dropping Prop. 98 below what the Legislature had approved violated the initiative that voters passed in 1988.
     
    In most years, the Legislature’s Prop. 98 appropriation becomes the base amount for the following year, then is adjusted for enrollment growth or decline, inflation, or increases in economic growth per student. That assures that Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantee will grow over time, CSBA said.
     
    Faced with strong opposition from a coalition of school groups, Newsom eventually gave up on lowering the minimum guarantee. But still short of funding to pay for it, Newsom turned to a series of multiyear maneuvers: suspending the minimum guarantee in 2023-24, deferring funding from one year to the next, draining the rainy day fund, and creating a multi-billion dollar debt that the General Fund, not future Prop. 98 revenues, would pay back over several years. All of these tactics were legal.

    Newsom tries again
     
    But Newsom and Finance officials hadn’t given up on the idea of revising the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee downward when tax revenues come up short. They quietly inserted language into the trailer bill to limit the state’s funding vulnerability in the event of another tax filing delay in the future.
     
    It says that when the filing deadline for personal and corporate income taxpayers is pushed back at least two weeks, then the state will revert to the previous year’s minimum guarantee. After the new taxes are collected, the state will recalculate the new Prop. 98 minimum and determine the difference between the original and revised Prop. 98 minimum. The “excess” appropriation won’t be able to raise the Prop. 98 minimum that year and for subsequent years, the statute says.  
     
    CSBA criticized this “unlawful provision” for “artificially lowering the baseline upon which future years’ school funding is established.” The lawsuit argues that voters passed it to assure a “stable and predictable source of funding that is not subject to political influence or manipulation.”  

    “When the Newsom administration proposed a budget maneuver in January to exclude some school funding from the Prop 98 formulas, education groups opposed it because it was unconstitutional. The budget language passed this summer to allow a similar manipulation of the guarantee in the future would be similarly unconstitutional,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal advisor for the nonprofit Children Now and an advisor on the lawsuit.
     
    Delays in the tax deadline as occurred in 2022 and laid out in the provision will presumably be rare, but CSBA said the integrity of Prop. 98 must be preserved.
     
    The Legislature has no authority to amend the wording of Prop. 98 – only voters can do that, CSBA argued.
     





    Source link

  • How school closures provide an opportunity to create better high schools

    How school closures provide an opportunity to create better high schools


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Falling enrollments and gloomy economics point to the inevitable: Many school districts in California will close schools over the next decade. So far, they have been mainly elementary and middle schools, but high schools, spared until now, won’t escape, a newly released study by a national research and consulting organization concluded.

    Rather than view closures solely as retrenchment and loss, the authors view “this period of fiscal transition” as an opportunity for districts to redesign high schools that are more engaging for students.

    “This is sorely needed,” wrote researchers Paul Beach and Carrie Hahnel of Bellwether Education Partners, a national nonprofit research and consulting firm. “Educators, policymakers, and researchers increasingly agree: The structure of high school must change.”  

    High school students won’t dispute that. Significant proportions of high school students have signaled they feel disconnected from school, the report notes. One-quarter were chronically absent, and only half said they had a caring relationship with a teacher or another adult at school, according to the state’s latest Healthy Kids Survey.

    The paradox is that redesigning schools “often requires more money, not less,” they wrote, but the transformation is doable through strategies that could include redoing traditional seven-period schedules, expanding dual-enrollment courses with community colleges and apprenticeship opportunities, and creating hubs within a district where multiple high schools can share facilities and courses. Partnerships with government agencies, businesses and nonprofits can help shift expenses, and money from the sale of properties can help pay for new initiatives, like staff housing, they wrote.

    The report, “Navigating Change: Strategies to Strengthen California High Schools Amid Declining Enrollment,” cites examples of districts that are adopting new models, like San Francisco Unified’s health and life sciences learning hub. It offers half-day programs at the University of California San Francisco Mission Bay campus for students in five district high schools with the outside funding that will survive as the district faces a massive deficit and school closings. 

    One way or another, consolidations will happen. After peaking at 6.3 million students in 2005, California’s enrollment has gradually been falling, and hastened by the pandemic, was 5.8 million in 2023-24. The California Department of Finance projects an additional 11% drop of 647,000 students; by 2032, there will be 5.2 million students overall.

    California’s declining student enrollment

    California student enrollment, 2000-’01 to 2023-’24, with projections through 2044-’45

    Credit: California Dept. of Finance, Bellwether Education Partners
    Credit: California Dept. of Finance, Bellwether Education Partners

    As a declining birth rate and fewer immigrants work their way through the system, high schools will feel the impact last, the report said. And those closings will be the hardest to pull off, with the most community resistance.  

    More so than with elementary and middle schools, people have stronger emotional attachments to high schools because that’s where they come of age. They’re their alma maters; their auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and classrooms are after-hours community facilities.

    Districts will more likely cram in middle schools to keep high schools going, said Ron Carruth, who retired as superintendent of El Dorado Union High School District this year and is now the executive director of the California High School Coalition, a new organization that is looking at best practices and new ideas for high schools.

    At some point, resistance will face reality, and districts will have to ask, “Is this a doom cycle?” Carruth said. “There will be a point where a good AP program and challenging academic and career pathways will require a certain size,” Carruth said. “Smaller than that, a school cannot be everything for everybody, particularly in rural areas.”

    Beach and Hahnel, who previously held leadership roles in two California education policy nonprofits — the Opportunity Institute and Education Trust-West — urge districts to get busy on how to consolidate programs and redeploy staff. 

    The Legislature can help by revising state laws that “collectively stifle innovation and create a rigid high school structure,” the report said. At its meeting this month, the State Board of Education discussed potentially granting districts waivers from minimum instructional minutes to accommodate learning opportunities outside the traditional school. It plans to explore the idea further. 

    The report recommends re-adopting the expired pandemic-era relaxation of state laws to simplify selling surplus property so that districts can develop or lease school properties for staff housing, child care centers, or centers operated by local health agencies and nonprofits without red tape.

    Added importance of partnerships

    New partnerships will be critical to expanding student opportunities and reducing costs. The study points to some groundbreaking examples:

    The city of Inglewood is spending $40 million to redesign its main library as an education and innovation center for two high schools in Inglewood Unified, which has experienced a massive, decadelong enrollment drop. The project will include a bridge linking the library to a nearby high school to ensure safe passage.

    High schools and community colleges can both qualify for funding for dual enrollment courses through the College and Career Access Pathways program, especially when college professors teach courses on high school campuses.

    Napa Unified is among the districts whose community schools have tapped into the state’s $4.7 billion Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative to create onsite wellness centers and expand mental health services at their high schools — facilities and programs the district could not afford on its own. 

    “It would be a huge benefit if you can put outside health-care and academic providers on high school campuses as they shrink,” said Carruth. “Look for synergies.”  

    Carruth pointed to the passage of Senate Bill 1244, authored by Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, which the coalition encouraged as a big step in the right direction. Signed into law this month, it removes a restriction that had limited dual-enrollment partnerships to a community college district closest to a school district. The new law will allow districts to enter agreements with other community colleges for courses that the local district cannot or chooses not to offer. “SB 1244 will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of students,” especially in urban areas, where students have lacked a range of dual-enrollment options, said Carruth, who added it may take a few years to reach its potential.

    But beyond the issue of school closing, what’s urgently needed is to step back for a big-picture look at high schools, he said.

    The Newsom administration has done “amazing things for younger kids,” Carruth said, by expanding child care and adding a new grade of transitional kindergarten. “But there has been no similar vision and investments for high schools.”

    Roxann Nazario, a parent advocate and organizer from Los Angeles, said she is disappointed that schools didn’t become more innovative after the pandemic revealed structural weaknesses.

    “Why aren’t we capitalizing to make schools more flexible for kids? I am frustrated they have not evolved,” said Nazario, who was interviewed by the Bellwether authors. 

    She points to her daughter Scarlett, an artistic high school junior, possibly with undiagnosed mild autism, who has struggled to find a school where she can thrive academically and creatively. Ideally, she would be able to take core classes in which she struggles at one school and another school that’s strong in the arts, like Champs Charter High in Los Angeles, where she went last year.

    “A flexible model would meet kids where they are,” she said. “We just settle for what is and don’t push for what’s best.”

    The cost of transporting students to other districts and current funding laws will be obstacles. There is currently no provision for dividing daily per-student funding among districts. A district that offers a minimum of four classes per day receives full funding. But there are discussions to lower the minimum reimbursement to three classes per day to encourage more dual enrollment programs, and that could open the door to further options, Carruth said.

    The state should also re-examine the Local Control Funding Formula, which Carruth said has shortchanged high schools since its adoption a decade ago. The authors of the formula simply added 20% more funding to the base funding amount for seventh and eighth graders to determine high school funding per student. The rationale was that high schools were required to offer 20% more instructional minutes than middle schools. 

    “That (falsely) assumes high school is just a bigger middle school,” Carruth said. “We made a mistake during the creation of (the funding formula) that we didn’t adjust what it costs to run a high school.”

    But with budget forecasters projecting stable, if not lean years ahead, high schools probably won’t get an infusion of funding any time soon. Meanwhile, dropping enrollments, which will lead to declining revenue in many districts, will underscore the study’s call for rethinking how to spend the limited funding high schools will receive. 

    “There’s a pent-up demand for re-envisioning high school,” Carruth said.  

    Added Nazario, “Many kids are just getting by, not thriving.”





    Source link

  • Why civic engagement must be integrated into the school dashboard

    Why civic engagement must be integrated into the school dashboard


    State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond and Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero honored Kennedy High in Anaheim for its outstanding civic learning programs.

    Credit: Courtesy Anaheim Union HSD

    The State Seal of Civic Engagement, approved by the State Board of Education in 2020, marked a vital progression in developing students who are not only academically strong but also civically active and socially aware.

    However, the absence of this seal in the College and Career Indicators (CCI) of the California School Dashboard represents a missed opportunity — until now. Recently, the State Board of Education has requested that the California Department of Education incorporate the seal into the CCI. By incorporating it, we can incentivize schools to cultivate civic responsibility, enhance the relevance of education and elevate student voices. This initiative offers a powerful chance to foster active citizenship, connect learning to real-world challenges, and inspire students to engage meaningfully with their communities.

    The Seal of Civic Engagement, which is affixed to a student’s diploma or certificate of completion, should be added alongside other key indicators like the State Seal of Biliteracy, ensuring it receives the attention it deserves. With local criteria including a minimum GPA of 2.0 in all social science courses and the completion of a civic engagement project, schools would now be held accountable to a higher standard of civic instruction. The inclusion of the civic engagement seal on the California School Dashboard is not only a recognition of student accomplishments but also a catalyst for broader shifts in educational practices that prioritize civic education.

    Incorporating the California Seal of Civic Engagement into the school dashboard will encourage schools to shift away from traditional instructional models and move toward more student-centered approaches. One of the primary benefits is the emphasis on elevating student voice and agency. Rather than positioning students as passive recipients of knowledge, the seal incentivizes schools to create opportunities for students to take on leadership roles, participate in community-based projects and engage in civic dialogue, and ultimately give students a reason to vote and participate in our democracy.

    Student-driven learning experiences will become a central focus, allowing students to take ownership of their education and the role they play in society. This shift fosters not only a deeper understanding of democratic principles but also a sense of responsibility and empowerment. As students take on active roles in addressing real-world challenges, they develop leadership, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, all while becoming more engaged in their communities.

    The connection between civic engagement and student well-being is becoming increasingly evident through research at UCLA and USC. By embedding service learning into the curriculum, schools can create more holistic learning experiences that connect academic content with community service. Civic engagement projects offer students a sense of purpose and belonging, which can significantly contribute to their mental health.

    When students work on projects that address real-world problems, they not only learn about the issues but also engage emotionally and intellectually with the material. Service learning provides an avenue for students to apply what they’ve learned in the classroom to make a tangible impact in their communities, which can enhance their sense of agency and improve their emotional well-being. Schools will be encouraged to develop instructional models that prioritize these types of experiences, ultimately supporting the mental and emotional health of students in ways that extend beyond traditional academic instruction.

    One of the most exciting opportunities provided by the California Seal of Civic Engagement is the potential to integrate civic engagement with career exploration. Schools can align civic projects with career pathway programs, providing students with hands-on learning experiences that are directly related to potential college majors and career interests.

    For example, students interested in public service, environmental sustainability or health care could engage in civic projects that allow them to explore these fields while still in high school. By linking civic engagement with career pathways, schools not only make learning more relevant but also provide students with early exposure to future career opportunities. This shift in instructional focus ensures that students are better prepared for both post-secondary education and the workforce.

    A key feature of the Seal of Civic Engagement is its potential to drive instructional shifts that address pressing societal issues. With its inclusion in the dashboard, schools will be incentivized to create project-based learning opportunities that tackle local and global challenges such as climate change, affordable housing, health care access and mental health.

    By engaging in civic projects that address these critical issues, students develop the skills necessary to analyze problems, research potential solutions and implement action plans. These hands-on experiences prepare students to think critically and creatively, making their learning more meaningful and applicable to real-world contexts. The seal encourages schools to foster a learning environment where students can connect their education to the challenges facing their communities and the world.

    The Seal of Civic Engagement also promotes active citizenship by encouraging schools to design lessons that emphasize democratic participation, voter registration and civic responsibility. By embedding these democratic practices into the curriculum, schools can ensure that students are not only knowledgeable about the issues but also understand the importance of participating in democratic processes.

    This instructional shift prepares students to be informed and engaged citizens beyond graduation, helping to create a more active and participatory democracy. Students who understand the value of their voice and their vote are more likely to carry those values into adulthood, becoming lifelong advocates for their communities and society at large.

    By nudging schools to prioritize civic education, we can prepare a generation of students who are not only academically accomplished but also socially conscious and ready to engage with the challenges of the modern world. From promoting student well-being to encouraging career exploration and addressing critical societal issues, including the Seal of Civic Engagement in the state’s accountability system is a vital step toward creating a more equitable and empowered future.

    •••

    Michael Matsuda is superintendent of Anaheim Union High School District in Southern California.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • A guide to what a $10 billion construction bond on the ballot could mean for your school

    A guide to what a $10 billion construction bond on the ballot could mean for your school


    West Contra Costa Unified’s Stege Elementary School in Richmond.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    More than 1 in 4 school districts are asking local voters to approve a record $39 billion in school construction bonds on the Nov. 5 ballot. Those that pass will jockey for some of the $10 billion in matching state funding that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are asking voters to approve by passing Proposition 2.

    The facility needs of districts are huge and growing, even as the state’s overall enrollment is projected to decline over the next two decades.

    Decades-old “portable” classrooms are falling apart; many air conditioners are malfunctioning, and classrooms without them are sweltering. Roofs leak, plumbing is corroding, wiring is fraying. 

    Parents worry about open access to insecure campuses. Schools lack room for new transitional kindergarten classes and plans for climate-resilient, energy-efficient buildings. Increasingly popular career and vocational education programs need up-to-date spaces.

    Districts’ priorities will vary, and so will their capacity to pay for them. As in the past, districts with high property values, which often correlate to higher-than-average incomes of homeowners, will have a leg up on their property-poor neighbors in terms of what they can ask their taxpayers to approve. Some districts will check off items on their wish list; other districts will resort to triage, fixing what’s most falling apart.

    In March 2020, amid first reports of a new pandemic on the horizon, statewide voters defeated a state construction bond with an unlucky ballot number. As a result, the state fell further behind in helping districts repair and rebuild school facilities.

    “The defeat of Proposition 13 in 2020 and the pandemic made local districts more hesitant to put bonds on the ballot in 2022, so there is a lot of pent-up need,” said Sara Hinkley, California program manager for the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley, which has extensively analyzed facilities needs in the state. 

    “The number of bond measures and the total amount reflect the aging and deferred maintenance of California schools, as well as the increasing urgency of HVAC and schoolyard upgrades to grapple with extreme heat.”

    The center estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are more than 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 years old or older.

    Proposition 2 won’t significantly reform a first-come, first-served funding system if it passes, but it will clear out a backlog of unfunded school projects and partially replenish a state-building fund that has run dry.

    With so much on the ballot competing for attention, Proposition 2 may escape many voters’ attention. Here are answers to questions that should help you fill out your ballot.  

    What’s on the ballot this year?

    School districts have placed 252 bond proposals to raise $39.3 billion; 15 community college districts are asking voters to pass $10.6 billion worth of bonds, for a total of 267 proposed bonds valued at $49.9 billion. They range from a proposed $9 billion bond issue in Los Angeles, the state’s largest district, to $3 million sought by Pleasant View Elementary School District for repairs to its only school in Porterville.

    How is school construction funded?

    Unlike school districts’ operating money, which mostly comes from the state’s general fund, school construction and repairs remain largely a local responsibility, paid for by bonds funded by property taxes. Over the past 20 years, voters approved $181 billion in local bonds for public school and community college facility projects, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  

    That compares with $31.8 billion over the same period in state facilities bonds passed for school district and community college construction, plus $4.6 billion from the general fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom directed toward school construction. Altogether, the state has chosen to bear only 17% — one-sixth — of the total costs of school construction since 2001.

    Bonds are essentially loans that are paid back, commonly over 25 or 30 years, with interest. In the past 10 years, interest rates have ranged from about 2% to nearly 5% and now are coming down again. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would cost the general fund about $500 million annually for 35 years to pay back Proposition 2’s principal and interest.

    What does it take to pass a bond?

    The passage of a local bond requires a 55% approval rate. Despite the higher threshold than a simple majority, voters have approved 80% of local bonds on the ballot since 2001, according to CaliforniaFinance.com. The exception was in 2020, when voters defeated about half of local bonds, along with Proposition 13. The passage rate bounced back in 2022 to 72% — perhaps a good omen for proposals on Nov. 5 . 

    It takes only a 50% majority to pass a state construction bond. A voter survey in September by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 54% of likely voters said they would vote yes on Proposition 2, with 44% voting no.

    The bulk of state funding for school and community college construction came in the early 2000s, during fast-growing enrollment and boom years for the state economy. However, the state issued no state bonds for a decade after 2006. The 2016 bond, Proposition 51, the last that voters approved, allocated $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for the state’s 115 community colleges. All of that funding has been distributed. 

    Are there limits to how much districts can tax property owners for school bonds?

    Yes. Property taxes from school construction are capped at $60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for unified districts, $30 per $100,000 for elementary or high school districts, and $25 per $100,000 for community college districts. A person whose home assessed value is at $400,000 (often significantly less than the market value) could pay up to $240 in annual property taxes in a unified district to pay off bonds’ principal and interest. Districts will stretch out the timeline for projects to stay under the limit.

    How will Proposition 2 be divvied up?

    The $10 billion will split:

    • $1.5 billion for community colleges
    • $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
      • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
      • $3.3 billion for new construction
      • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
      • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
      • $115 million set aside to remove lead in school water

    Will all of this money go toward new projects?

    No. 

    Unfunded projects left over from Prop. 51 in 2016 that are deemed eligible for funding will go to the front of the line. That’s how the system worked in the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around, and the Legislature applied the same language to Prop. 2. The rationale is that districts spent time and money hiring architects and engineers and drawing up plans, and shouldn’t be penalized for efforts done in good faith.

    Those existing projects could consume half of the $8.5 billion for TK-12 funding. As of Aug. 31, the Office of Public Instruction, which tracks projects for funding, reported 1,000 school projects requesting $3.9 billion were already in line, with requests dating back to 2022. These break down to 812 modernization projects potentially eligible for $2.6 billion and 189 new construction projects eligible for $1.3 billion. The deadline for school districts to apply is Oct. 31, so the list may yet grow. 

    The Office of Public Construction cautioned that although the districts have filed paperwork, they have not been evaluated and approved for funding by the State Allocation Board under the rules in effect for Proposition 51. Some may have been built with local funding and are waiting for a state match.

    With $40 billion in local projects on the ballot and probably a net of $4 billion available for modernization and new construction, there likely will not be enough to fund more than a portion, leading to the establishment of a new list of unfunded projects.

    How does the match work?

    The state awards matching money to districts to defray the qualifying cost of individual school projects; it does not provide a lump sum award for all of the districts’ requests.  The state pays a uniform amount per student based on a school’s enrollment. Districts with growing enrollment, buildings over 75 years old, and a shortage of space can receive funding for new construction. 

    As with past state bonds, the state will split the cost of new construction; the state will contribute a higher match for modernization projects — 60% by the state and 40% by the district.

    A new feature in Proposition 2 will provide a slightly larger state match — up to an additional 5 percentage points on a sliding scale system to districts with both high rates of low-income students, foster children and English learners, and, to a lesser extent, with a small bonding capacity per student, another measure of ability to issue construction bonds. Low-income districts like Fresno Unified and Los Angeles Unified will be eligible for 65% state assistance for renovations and 55% for new construction, lowering their share to 35% and 45%, respectively.

    Is the formula fair?

    Analyses by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley have concluded that the current system favors property-wealthy districts. Property-poor districts serving low-income families can’t afford bonds to qualify for state modernization subsidies to repair and upgrade schools. 

    The center’s data showed that the quintile of districts with the lowest assessed property value — those with a median of $798,000 of assessed value per student — received $2,970 per student in state modernization funding from 2000 to 2023, while the districts in the highest quintile, where the median assessed property value was $2.3 million per student, received $7,910 per student — more than two-and-a-half times as much. 

    Another factor is that matching money is distributed first-come, first-served, which favors large districts and small property-wealthy districts with an in-house staff of architects and project managers adept at navigating complex funding requirements.

    Does Proposition 2 address these complaints?

    To an extent, yes.

    • Proposition 2 would dedicate 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction to small districts, defined as those with fewer than 2,501 students. First-come, first-served wouldn’t apply to them.
    • Proposition 2 would expand financial hardship assistance in which the state pays for the total cost of projects in districts whose tax bases are too low to issue a bond. Eligibility would triple the threshold for hardship aid from a maximum of $5 million to $15 million in total assessed value; additional dozens of mostly rural districts would become eligible. Some have never issued a bond to fix schools that urgently need attention. Since 1998, about 3% of state bond money has been spent on hardship aid.
    • The higher state match for districts with large proportions of low-income students and English learners is a step toward addressing inequalities. However, critics led by the public interest law firm Public Advocates charge that it does not go far enough and uses flawed measures. Districts like 3,500-student Del Norte in the far north of the state  and 46,000-student San Bernardino Unified in Southern California would need an 80% to 90% state match to raise enough money to fix critical conditions and add facilities that property-wealthy districts take for granted, they argue.

    What else is new in Proposition 2?

    The bond will allow districts to seek a supplemental grant to construct or renovate transitional kindergarten classrooms and build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them.

    Districts must write an overall plan documenting the age and uses of all facilities when submitting a proposal for Prop. 2 funding. The lack of data has made it difficult to determine building needs statewide.

    What would happen if Proposition 2 is defeated?

    In the last 30 years, voters have nixed state construction bonds twice, but never twice in a row. If voters do that next month, the unmet building needs of districts struggling to address them will mount. The price to fix them will rise, forcing difficult choices on how to scale back and reorder priorities.

    The $9 billion bond issue passed in 2016 would cost $11.8 billion to cover the same work in 2024, 31% more, according to a U.S. inflation calculator. A $10 billion bond passed in 2002 would require $17.5 billon in funding today.

    The escalation in materials and labor costs since the pandemic may continue to soar — or maybe not. Voters on Prop. 2 will have to decide whether to take that gamble.

    “We believe that voters will understand the value of making the critical repairs and classroom upgrades that our students need and deserve,“ said Rebekah Kalleen, legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing or CASH, the lobby representing school districts and school construction contractors campaigning for Prop. 2.





    Source link

  • How a caring teacher can make or break school for young students

    How a caring teacher can make or break school for young students


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    The pint-sized pupils in Paula Merrigan’s transitional kindergarten, or TK, class often call her mom, or sometimes even grandma. One reason there’s such a strong teacher-student bond boils down to warmth. Merrigan makes sure all the children are greeted with a big smile when they enter the classroom in the morning, she works with every single one of them one-on-one at some point during the day, and she is generous with praise, hugs and affection. 

    “When a small child tells you they love you, say it back to them!” said the veteran Castro Valley Unified teacher. “They need to know you care. Imagine telling someone, “I love you,” and all you hear back is, “Thank you,” or “OK.” How would that make you feel versus being told, “I love you, too?”  If you don’t want to be that specific, you can also say, “I love all of you too.”

    Merrigan knows that caring is just as important as the curriculum when it comes to small children. Unless they feel nurtured, they may well struggle to learn.

    Paula Merrigan

    “It is so important for every child to feel that their teacher truly cares about them, that school is always a safe place to be,” said Merrigan, who also serves on the National Education Association’s (NEA) board of directors for California. “If they don’t make that connection with their teacher, it can impact their learning. When they know you truly care about them, they want to do their best for you, because they are seeking your approval.  If they think you don’t care, they don’t care.”

    That’s one reason why some little children hate going to school. Consider the case of a first grade boy who had a tantrum when a teacher threw his artwork away. Or a kindergartner who cried when a teacher scolded her for starting her math worksheet too early. Adults may have different criteria for an academic environment, but for small children, friendliness is often the bottom line.

    “It’s really just little things like these that make a big difference to a child,” said Merrigan. “When you take them to the office, for whatever reason, they need to know it’s a safe space as well. The cafeteria needs to be welcoming when they are going to get food. Often, young children are just looking for a friendly smile to make them feel better when at school.”

    Merrigan also takes pain to listen to the children. She lets them tell her their stories, and she learns where their interests lie so she can engage them more deeply.

    “When you learn about certain things they like and tie that into your curriculum, they love it,” she said. “Not that you’re creating a new curriculum.  Maybe you’re just recognizing that the children told you they really like dinosaurs so when you’re teaching the letter ‘D,’ you create a dinosaur art project to go with it.”  

    Separation anxiety hits many youngsters hard as they struggle to let go of their caregiver’s hand when entering the kindergarten classroom. Sometimes it’s the first time they’ll be away from home for a whole day. That stress can feel like a huge chasm for families to cross.

    How the child feels at the beginning of their schooling can set the tone for the rest of their academic life, experts say. That’s why the emotional component of early education can not be overlooked. 

    “This is so important for little ones because this is often the first time that young children are experiencing formal education,” said Hedy Chang, executive director of Attendance Works, a nonprofit that works to boost student attendance. “It may be one of the first times that they are in the care of someone who is not their parent or another adult family member. They are learning how to learn, make friends, overcome conflicts, and thrive outside their home. … What happens during this time can help lay the foundation for social and academic success.”

    Mónica Zegers said her daughter Elena had jitters about starting a new school in the middle of the year. Luckily, the teacher had students write little welcome notes to her before she arrived. It was a small gesture that made a magical difference to the third grader. She now keeps the jar of notes in her desk so she can reread them at her leisure. 

    “This was a wonderful act of kindness that should be celebrated,” said Zegers, a Concord mother of two and a postdoctoral scholar at the UCSF Dyslexia Center. “Many teachers now are overwhelmed, and they don’t have the cognitive bandwidth to really address these social-emotional needs.”

    Creating an atmosphere of kindness and generosity is fundamental to learning in the early grades, experts say. That’s why many believe creating a nurturing environment may be key to healing the rifts between many families and schools that grew during the pandemic. Even one caring adult on campus, whether it’s a teacher, a coach or a music teacher, can make the difference between a child who wants to go to school and one who dreads it.

    Deborah Stipek

    “I’m not sure there is anything as important for young children than feeling comfortable with the teacher,” said Deborah Stipek, an expert in early childhood education at Stanford University. “There is a lot of research on the importance of teacher sensitivity to young children and the relationship between teacher and child. And there is evidence that mental health and behavioral problems have risen since Covid, and the teacher’s sensitivity is all the more important now.”

    Amid the youth mental health crisis, it’s more important than ever to make sure children feel a sense of belonging on campus, experts say. The emotional connection between adult and child can be the reason children feel motivated to overcome obstacles, from social anxiety to coping with a playground bully at school.

    “What are the little teeny steps that you can provide so people feel comfortable?” said Mary Jane Burke, who served 28 years as Marin County’s superintendent of schools and serves on the EdSource board of directors. “If you are in a great classroom, you can see it in everything that they do. It’s there in the way they greet the children in the morning. I’m huge on relationships; those are the things that I think buoy us in hard times. It can just make such a difference in how you feel.”

    Despite its significance to student achievement, not all teacher preparation programs cover how to meet emotional needs as comprehensively as they should, experts say.

    “Teacher prep programs vary hugely in how much and how well they address social-emotional issues,” said Stipek, who helped develop the new PreK-3 credential.

    Merrigan, for one, will never forget the year her son Andrew had a teacher who didn’t seem to prioritize emotional validation. It was hard on both of them.

    “He was a rule follower, and he just wanted to please his teacher,” she remembers. “The constant look of defeat on his little face when he got home from school was heartbreaking.  I don’t ever want a child to feel that way.”

    Bonding might even be a secret weapon in the battle against chronic absenteeism, which has skyrocketed in the wake of the pandemic, experts suggest. USC researchers found that students of all ages who miss an excessive amount of school often suffer from mental and emotional issues. They may need to feel nurtured, experts say. 

    “To the degree that parents keep kids home from school because the kids say they don’t want to go,” said Stipek, “children’s relationship with the teacher should be an important factor.”

    Merrigan, who herself remembers faking being sick a few times as a child, couldn’t agree more.

    “When it comes to truancy, sometimes a child will fake being sick because they just want to take a day off to spend with family,” Merrigan said. “I’ve found most young children want to be in school; they thrive off the consistent expectations for them.  Of course, that’s in a school where children know their teachers and staff truly care about them.”





    Source link

  • High school math placement is too important to leave to subjective recommendations

    High school math placement is too important to leave to subjective recommendations


    A student practices graphing in Algebra I at Rudsdale Newcomer High School in Oakland.

    Anne Wernikoff for EdSource

    Enrolling students in high school math courses is a high-stakes endeavor with an outsize effect on students’ college opportunities and even on their entire careers.

    The pressure to reach Calculus by a student’s senior year of high school often translates into pressure to take Algebra I, the first course in a five-course sequence, by eighth grade. Algebra I (or Integrated Math I) is considered a ninth grade course, but taking it on that schedule typically doesn’t allow students to meet the prerequisites for Calculus in their remaining three years of high school. This is important when we consider that advanced math classes on a student’s transcript can boost their chances of admission to certain colleges.

    But the benefits of eighth-grade math acceleration are neutralized when students who perform well in Algebra I are nevertheless required to repeat that course in ninth grade.

    Students of color and low-income students face that predicament disproportionately under their schools’ placement practices. This glaring inequity was highlighted more than a decade ago by civil rights advocates in California — and confirmed in multiple research studies since then, including this one by our organizations last year.

    Legislation targeting this unfair practice was passed in 2015. It requires the use of multiple objective measures to place students. “Successful pupils are achieving a grade of ‘B’ or better, or are testing at proficient or even advanced proficiency on state assessments. Nevertheless, they are held back to repeat 8th-grade mathematics coursework rather than advancing to the next course in the recommended mathematics course sequence,” the legislation noted.

    But nine years since the bill’s passage, we still lack a clear picture of its impact — if any — on equitable ninth-grade math placement. In the meantime, numerous states have adopted policies that have demonstrated preliminary success in expanding access to acceleration opportunities in middle and/or high school.

    California cannot afford to leave this equity issue to chance — especially because what we know to date about the implementation of California’s policy is not encouraging.

    The law, the California Math Placement Act of 2015, requires a “fair, objective, and transparent” math placement policy using multiple objective measures of student performance to determine placement. It discourages the use of subjective measures such as teacher recommendations, because of the risk of bias. In particular, it says that teacher recommendations may be used only to advance students, not to hold them back.

    But, according to a recent report from Rand Corp., high schools in California are more likely than schools elsewhere to use teacher recommendations to inform how students are placed into math classes.

    In fact, data from the survey of high school principals analyzed in the report suggest that 95% of California high schools that track students into different math courses use teacher recommendations as part of their placement process. That’s more than the national average of 86% and far more than other large states such as Florida (56%), New York (78%) and Texas (70%).

    In what appears to be a violation of the law, almost a third (31%) of California schools — more than twice the national average of 14% — use recommendation data exclusively.

    Put another way, only 69% of California principals report using some form of assessment data — whether grade-level tests, diagnostic tests, in-class tests, or classroom assignments — to inform placement decisions. Nationally, the proportion was 85%, the researchers found.

    Without further research, we won’t know why these teacher recommendation practices prevail. More importantly, we won’t know whether the past decade has brought any improvement in access to accelerated course sequences for students of color and low-income students. The available research on 12th grade course-taking before the Covid-19 pandemic shows continued inequities in access to advanced math for students who are Black, Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged or English learners.

    The issue of teacher recommendations is a nuanced one, as researchers from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) pointed out in 2016. If bias is addressed, teacher input can have benefits — by accounting for factors such as students’ motivation and persistence, which metrics such as test scores may obscure. But no research suggests they should be used to the exclusion of objective measures.

    The provision that teacher recommendations can be used only to advance students creates opportunities for students who perform better in class than on standardized assessments. PPIC noted that schools need better guidelines to comply with that provision. Many schools using recommendations may be doing so appropriately. But without further research, it’s hard to imagine how the 31% of schools that are relying solely on teacher recommendations and no assessment data could be doing what the law envisioned.

    That is why we need clear measures of how students are being placed into math classes across the state.

    While California has been in the dark about students’ math enrollment patterns, numerous other states have adopted automatic enrollment policies. Under such policies, students who meet a certain benchmark in math are automatically enrolled in an advanced math course the following year. Such enrollment policies have shown promise to address the very problem California lawmakers set out to fix nearly a decade ago.

    • Beginning in 2014, districts in Washington state widened access to more rigorous math for Black and Latino students, whose enrollment in accelerated sequences increased by 3.1 percent more than their peers. As a result, Washington mandated automatic enrollment across the state in 2019.
    • North Carolina adopted similar legislation in 2018, guaranteeing accelerated math opportunities for students who score at the highest level on an end-of-grade test.
    • Schools in Dallas have also demonstrated success with this approach. From 2019-20 to 2022-23, the proportion of Black and Latino students who met fifth-grade standards and subsequently enrolled in sixth-grade honors math increased from 58% to 92% and 69% to 94%, respectively. These results led Texas to adopt its own statewide automatic enrollment policy last year.

    Given the major role math placement exerts on students’ future opportunities, California leaders similarly should insist on rigorously measuring access to advanced math courses to ensure that it is equitable regardless of race or socioeconomic background.

    •••

    Pamela Burdman is executive director at Just Equations, a policy institute that reconceptualizes the role of math in education equity.

    Rachel Ruffalo is senior director of strategic advocacy at EdTrust-West, an evidence-driven advocacy organization committed to advancing policies and practices to dismantle racial and economic barriers in California’s education system.

    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

  • Lack of candidates means many Californians won’t vote for school board

    Lack of candidates means many Californians won’t vote for school board


    Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.

    Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed

    Millions of California residents will not have the opportunity to vote for the people representing them on their school boards on Nov. 5 because many of the board races will not appear on the ballot.

    EdSource analyzed data from 1,510 school board races in 49 California counties and found that 851 races, or 56%, will not appear on a ballot because either no one is running for the seat or a single candidate is running unopposed – making that person an instant winner. 

    The problem is most prevalent in more remote areas of the state, where the lack of school board members has been an ongoing issue, said Troy Flint, chief information officer for the California School Boards Association.

    Districts in rural counties have smaller populations, limiting the pool of candidates for school board, and offer fewer incentives — such as monthly stipends or health insurance — than larger districts, said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Small School Districts’ Association. 

    In Siskiyou County, 14 school districts do not have candidates running for their open board seats, and in San Benito County, there are 20 candidates for 31 open school board seats, leaving 13 seats without candidates. Only one race, for Trustee Area 4 in the Hollister School District, is on the ballot. It has three candidates.

    In Nevada County, four of the nine districts have no candidates for their open board seats. In Plumas County, there are no school board races on the Nov. 5 ballot, although there are a total of six open seats in two districts, according to the county elections department.

    School board members are responsible for setting the vision for the district, hiring its superintendent, adopting policies and curriculum, passing a balanced district budget, overseeing facilities, providing direction for and accepting collective bargaining agreements, monitoring student achievement and making program changes as needed, according to the California School Boards Association.

    Calderon recalls having to convince community members to run for school board when he was the chief business officer at Cold Spring School District, which serves 193 K-6 students in Santa Barbara County.

    There is less incentive for rural residents to run for school board because they are usually more satisfied with their schools and less likely to think of a school board seat as a springboard to higher political office, like candidates in more populated areas of the state might, Calderon said. 

    The absence of school board candidates on the ballot suggests an erosion of what many regard as a pillar of American democracy in places where there is reluctance or unwillingness to run for board positions.

    Cities, suburbs also have a shortage of candidates

    “One of the dynamics that’s been playing out has been people reluctant to hold onto their seats, and then people are reluctant to run for office because there’s a lot of hostility out there, and sometimes threatening behavior that are prompting either existing school board members or potential school board members to rethink whether or not they want to hold this office,” said John Rogers, director of the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at UCLA.

    The shortage of willing school board candidates is also impacting urban and suburban areas, according to the EdSource analysis. In Los Angeles County, for example, 252 candidates are running for 174 seats, meaning 90 seats have only one candidate and will not be on the ballot. The same goes for Sacramento County, where there are only 54 candidates running for 31 seats and San Diego County where 169 candidates are vying for 100 seats. 

    Calderon and Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools Allan Carver agree that potential candidates are sometimes wary about running for a board seat because of the political divisiveness that has been playing out at school board meetings.

    “It’s kind of one of those thankless jobs,” Calderon said. “And there has been a lot in the media about controversial issues and people becoming very, more so than just polarized, kind of aggressive with their positions. And I think that people shy away from wanting to get involved in that.” 

    Some rural district seldom hold elections

    The lack of candidates is so common in some rural districts, school boards routinely fill empty seats by appointing people – often the incumbents – after the filing deadline ends. Some districts rarely have elections.

    “It’s very typical,” said Krystal Lomanto, San Benito County superintendent of schools. “We have seven rural districts and many of those districts do not have board members that actually run for seats – they end up appointing them. So, it is a consistent practice, at least in our community. We don’t often have – in our rural school districts – board members that run against each other, so it happens quite often.” 

    San Benito County, a rural county in the Central Coast region, has some of the smallest school districts in the state – 15 districts with a total enrollment of 11,969 students. 

    In Siskiyou County, the northernmost county in the state, there are 30 candidates running for 67 school board seats in 25 districts. Fourteen school districts have no candidates for any of their open board seats and six districts have 11 seats with candidates running unopposed. 

    Carver expects the number of vacancies to dwindle by January when many of the open seats will be claimed by incumbents who did not file candidacy paperwork, but will continue to hold their seats by appointment.

    “A lot of these vacancies, they’d hardly even consider them vacant because I bet more than half of those — probably 20 of the 37 — the (incumbent) board members are like, ‘No, I’m happy to serve. I just didn’t get my paperwork in, so just appoint me,’” Carver said.

    Finding candidates for board seats in extremely small districts can be difficult. The result is often multiple family members sitting on one board. Delphic Elementary School District in Siskiyou County is governed by a board made up of a mother, father and their adult daughter, Carver said. The single school serves 65 students, many from outside the district — limiting the number of parents eligible to run for school board, he said. 

    “This family happens to own property that borders the school and their driveway goes right by the school,” Carver said. “Their kids went to school there, and they’ve had a long history of supporting it. So, talk about local control.”

    Stipends, insurance could attract candidates

    Carver is doing what he can to make being a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Education more attractive. He recently convinced the board to raise the monthly stipend from $40 to $100 so that he could attract more candidates. He said the board, like many other rural school boards, was reluctant to increase their own pay.  The board also receives health insurance. 

    Most school districts in Siskiyou County can’t afford to pay their board a stipend to cover expenses or to offer them insurance, Carver said. 

    What happens if no one runs for a seat?

    If no one runs for a board seat, school boards can either appoint a trustee or hold a special election. Most boards opt to appoint a trustee to avoid costly special elections.

    Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent Kris Munro sent a letter to families last month asking parents to consider applying for a seat on the board that does not have a candidate in the upcoming election. District officials also sent news releases about the available seat, advertised it in video updates and on the district’s social media accounts, and placed a legal notice in a local newspaper, said Sam Rolens, district spokesperson. 

    The district, which serves 4,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, along the state’s Central Coast, has three open seats. The two other seats that are available have one only candidate each, meaning they also will not be on the ballot.

    Applicants for the open Santa Cruz seat without a candidate had until Oct. 18 to file their applications. Three days before the deadline, two people had applied, Rolens said. The district offers its trustees a $50 monthly stipend, according to Santa Cruz Local. 

    Santa Cruz County has even fewer residents interested in running for school boards this year than in the previous election, according to Santa Cruz Local. Three-quarters of the open board seats in Santa Cruz County, including those in Santa Cruz City Schools, will not be on the ballot on Nov. 5, according to the news site. 

    Boards must have quorum to conduct business

    Having a full board is imperative for conducting the school district’s business. In order to vote on agenda items, a school board must have the majority of its board in attendance. Five-member boards, for example, must have at least three, and seven-member boards must have at least four members present to take action on an agenda item. 

    If the school district cannot fill enough board seats to have a quorum, the county Office of Education can send one of its board members to act as a substitute until the district can make an appointment. 

    Having a member of the Board of Education sit on school boards isn’t common, but it has happened a few times in Siskiyou County, Carver said. In one case, a county Board of Education member became a temporary board member at a tiny district serving 25 students after it lost two members of its three-person board. In another case, a board member sat on a district board for three months until they found a willing appointee, Carver said.

    Despite the dire shortage of school board candidates, Carver says he tries to encourage people who will be willing to learn and consider all sides of an issue to run for office.

    “You know, we always want to encourage people who have the right faculties and demeanor, and seek to truly govern for all and don’t have just one specific issue they’re concerned about,” Carver said.





    Source link