اینترنت

برچسب: settle

  • LAUSD agrees to issue $500 million in bonds to settle sexual abuse claims

    LAUSD agrees to issue $500 million in bonds to settle sexual abuse claims


    The Los Angeles Unified school board did not discuss the bonds for settling sexual abuse claims before members authorized them on June 3.

    Credit: Livestream recordings of LAUSD board meetings

    The article was updated on June 18 to include LAUSD’s previously undisclosed information revising total costs of the bonds it authorized to settle sexual abuse claims against it.

    Top Takeaways
    • School trustees authorize bonds without comment or public explanation.
    • The total cost of $500 million in bonds could reach $765 million.
    • Other districts also face massive costs in response to a 2019 state law.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board has quietly authorized issuing a half-billion dollars in bonds to settle decades-old sexual abuse cases involving former students. 

    And that will likely not be enough to settle all the claims the nation’s second-largest school district is facing under 2019 legislation that allows victims of abuse by school employees to seek damages for incidents dating back decades.

    Since Jan. 1, 2020, LAUSD has received approximately 370 child abuse claims under Assembly Bill 218, of which 81 cases have been settled or dismissed, according to data that LAUSD released this week. The district stated it is currently defending against more than 275 claims; approximately 76 allege abuses dating back to the 1940s through 1970s, while 45 to 50 claims allege abuses in the 1980s. 

    Board members approved the expenditure on June 3 without comment or a public presentation, agreeing to borrow up to $500 million through judgment obligation bonds.  Unlike bonds for school construction, they did not require voter approval. The claims are not covered by insurance carriers. 

    The scant information in the meeting agenda estimated the total cost of the bonds, including principal and interest, at $899 million. It assumed a now outdated 6.10% interest rate, documents show (see Page 3).

    On Monday, the district lowered its estimate. It said it would initially issue $303 million in 15-year bonds, instead of 20-year bonds, at the current interest rate of 5.6%. At that rate, the total cost of $500 million in bonds would be $765 million.

    “The board has been talking about judgment obligation bonds for, I would say, about a year and a half,” board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said in an interview. Spreading out the payments means “the district’s current students aren’t punished by depleting resources,” she said.

    No public hearings were held. Board members were briefed about the matter in small groups, she said. “We also had several conversations in closed sessions, as we typically do with legal cases.” She did not disclose the number of claims made against the district or how many were settled.

    The district administration will likely ask the board to approve more borrowing next year to settle additional claims, Ortiz Franklin said. 

    The district is far from alone in facing massive payouts to victims who have filed claims under the legislation, Assembly Bill 218, which experts say is impacting local public agencies throughout the state.

    Los Angeles County alone is facing $4 billion in settlements involving formerly incarcerated juveniles and foster youth.

    By taking on long-term debt to deal with the AB 218 cases, LAUSD is “lessening any potential impacts to (its) core education programs in the near term,” by spreading out the settlement costs, supporting documents provided to board members stated. Nonetheless, issuing $500 million in bonds would reduce spending on students by tens of millions of dollars annually from the district’s general fund during the years it takes to pay off the bonds. 

    In a statement this week that pointed to potential costs that could “bankrupt entire school systems,” LAUSD urged state leaders and advocates to work with districts “to ensure we can meet our moral obligation to survivors while still protecting the essential right to a free, high-quality public education for all students.”

    “Los Angeles Unified unequivocally believes that survivors of sexual abuse deserve to be heard, supported, and empowered to pursue justice on their own terms. AB 218 has enabled victims of childhood sexual assault to seek justice with less legal limitations,” it stated. 

    “However, we must also acknowledge the very real and unintended consequences”  on  school districts that “may face lawsuits from decades past, even when current leadership, policies, and practices have changed dramatically,” it continued.

    AB 218, brought by then-Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, rolled back the statute of limitations for abuse claims involving public employees like teachers to “22 years from the date the plaintiff” becomes an adult “or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after” reaching adulthood was caused by sexual assault. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill on Oct. 13, 2019.

    Messages left at Gonzalez’s office were not returned. 

    Legislative records show that proponents of AB 218 argued that sexual assault scandals involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts showed that victims of child sexual abuse sometimes took years to come forward, often after the statute of limitations to seek damages had expired. 

    “Victims who are ready to come forward today deserve an opportunity to expose their perpetrators and those who covered up the abuse,” members of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Victim Policy Institute told lawmakers, records show.

    Opponents of the bill, including the California Association of School Business Officials and other groups, expressed concerns about cost.

    “It will be impossible for employers to effectively defend against these claims when evidence is likely gone, witnesses have moved or passed away, and there has been a turnover of staff,” a summary of opponents’ concerns in legislative archives stated. “With these barriers, schools will be unable to adequately respond to these claims. This failure will result in diversion of funding intended to educate students and serve communities to financing increased legal costs, whether or not the claim is valid.”

    A Senate staff analysis warned of “unknown, potentially major out-year costs to local entities and school districts to the extent litigation is successfully brought outside the current statute of limitations and/or the entities are liable for damages.”  The bill was unanimously passed by both the Senate and the Assembly.

    Last week, in an interview, an advocate for taxpayers was critical of the debts the legislation created for school districts and other agencies. 

    “These bonds are going to hang around the necks of school districts for decades,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “There has to be a statute of limitations,” he said. “Witnesses are probably gone. All cases have to be time-barred at some point. This is bad policy.”

    School districts across the state are facing similar claims allowed by AB 218 and facing crises of how to pay for settlements, according to a January report by the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, or FCMAT. As the matter evolves, there is no firm number of the number of claims so far brought against districts, “but the best estimate is $2 billion to $3 billion.” 

    “A comprehensive analysis of claims is not available,” the report states. “But what we can conclude is that the impact is significant.” 

    FCMAT concluded that “the goal should be to completely eliminate childhood sexual assault in public schools” and to “increase mandated training to build awareness of, and reporting options for, childhood sexual assault.”

    Other recommendations, such as creating a victim compensation fund to eliminate claims brought against individual public agencies, have received little support in the Legislature and were opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the FCMAT’s chief executive officer, Michael Fine, said in an interview.

    The claims and settlements, Fine said, continue to pile up. “The data changes daily.”





    Source link

  • LAUSD agrees to fund $900 million to settle sexual assault lawsuits

    LAUSD agrees to fund $900 million to settle sexual assault lawsuits


    The Los Angeles Unified school board did not discuss the bonds for settling sexual assault lawsuits before members authorized them on June 3.

    Source: Livestream recordings of Los Angeles Unified board meetings

    Top Takeaways
    • School trustees authorize bonds without comment or public explanation.
    • Lawmakers were warned of the financial impact of erasing the statute of limitations.
    • Other districts also face massive costs in response to a 2019 state law.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District board has quietly approved borrowing nearly $900 million — including interest — to settle decades-old sexual assault cases involving former students. 

    And that will likely not be enough to settle all the claims the nation’s second-largest school district is facing under 2019 legislation that allows victims of abuse by school employees to seek damages for incidents dating back to the 1970s. District spokesperson Britt Vaughan would not say how many claims the district faces, the number that have been settled and what they have cost to date.

    Board members approved the expenditure on June 3 without comment, agreeing to borrow up to $500 million through judgment obligation bonds with an estimated 6.10% interest rate, documents show. Unlike bonds for school construction, they did not require voter approval. The debt is due to be paid off in 15 years. The claims are not covered by insurance carriers. 

    This fiscal year, the district’s undisclosed number of settlement claims was roughly $302 million, Vaughan said.

    “The board has been talking about judgment obligation bonds for, I would say, about a year and a half,” board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said in an interview. Spreading out the payments means “the district’s current students aren’t punished by depleting resources,” she said.

    No public hearings were held. Board members were briefed about the matter in small groups, she said. “We also had several conversations in closed sessions, as we typically do with legal cases.” She did not disclose the number of claims made against the district or how many were settled.

    The district administration will likely ask the board to approve more borrowing next year to settle additional claims, Ortiz Franklin said. 

    The district is far from alone in facing massive payouts to victims who have filed claims under the legislation, Assembly Bill 218, which experts say is impacting local public agencies throughout the state.

    Los Angeles County alone is facing $4 billion in settlements involving formerly incarcerated juveniles and foster youth.

    By taking on long-term debt to deal with the AB 218 cases, LAUSD is “lessening any potential impacts to (its) core education programs in the near term,” by spreading out the settlement costs, supporting documents provided to board members stated. Nonetheless, the cost of paying down the bonds will reduce spending on students from the district’s general fund by tens of millions of dollars annually for the 15 years after the bond is issued. 

    AB 218, brought by then-Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, rolled back the statute of limitations for abuse claims involving public employees like teachers to “22 years from the date the plaintiff” becomes an adult “or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after” reaching adulthood was caused by sexual assault. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill on Oct. 13, 2019.

    Messages left at Gonzalez’s office were not returned. 

    Legislative records show that proponents of AB 218 argued that sexual assault scandals involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts showed that victims of child sexual abuse sometimes took years to come forward, often after the statute of limitations to seek damages had expired. 

    “Victims who are ready to come forward today deserve an opportunity to expose their perpetrators and those who covered up the abuse,” members of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Victim Policy Institute told lawmakers, records show.

    Opponents of the bill, including the California Association of School Business Officials and other groups, expressed concerns about cost.

    “It will be impossible for employers to effectively defend against these claims when evidence is likely gone, witnesses have moved or passed away, and there has been a turnover of staff,” a summary of opponents’ concerns in legislative archives stated. “With these barriers, schools will be unable to adequately respond to these claims. This failure will result in diversion of funding intended to educate students and serve communities to financing increased legal costs, whether or not the claim is valid.”

    A Senate staff analysis warned of “unknown, potentially major out-year costs to local entities and school districts to the extent litigation is successfully brought outside the current statute of limitations and/or the entities are liable for damages.”  The bill was unanimously passed by both the Senate and the Assembly.

    Last week, in an interview, an advocate for taxpayers was critical of the debts the legislation created for school districts and other agencies. 

    “These bonds are going to hang around the necks of school districts for decades,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “There has to be a statute of limitations,” he said. “Witnesses are probably gone. All cases have to be time-barred at some point. This is bad policy.”

    School districts across the state are facing similar claims allowed by AB 218 and facing crises of how to pay for settlements, according to a January report by the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, or FCMAT. As the matter evolves, there is no firm number of the number of claims so far brought against districts, “but the best estimate is $2 billion to $3 billion.” 

    “A comprehensive analysis of claims is not available,” the report states. “But what we can conclude is that the impact is significant.” 

    FCMAT concluded that “the goal should be to completely eliminate childhood sexual assault in public schools” and to “increase mandated training to build awareness of, and reporting options for, childhood sexual assault.”

    Other recommendations, such as creating a victim compensation fund to eliminate claims brought against individual public agencies, have received little support in the Legislature and were opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the FCMAT’s chief executive officer, Michael Fine, said in an interview.

    The claims and settlements, Fine said, continue to pile up. “The data changes daily.”





    Source link

  • California agrees to target the most struggling students to settle learning-loss lawsuit

    California agrees to target the most struggling students to settle learning-loss lawsuit


    Students work together during an after-school tutoring club.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    In an agreement ending a 3-year-old lawsuit brought by families of 15 Oakland and Los Angeles students, the state will target billions of dollars of remaining learning-loss money to low-income students and others with the widest learning disparities.

    State officials have also agreed to pursue statutory changes that would commit districts and schools to measure and report on student progress using proven strategies, like frequent in-school tutoring, in ways that the state hadn’t required in other post-Covid funding. If the state reneges or the Legislature fails to follow through, the plaintiffs can revoke the deal and return to court for trial.

    The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Rosenbaum, director of the Opportunity Under Law project for the nonprofit law firm Public Counsel, said he was optimistic that won’t be necessary.

    “The state stepped up in focusing on those kids who have been hardest hit,” Rosenbaum said. “The urgent vision of this historic settlement is to use strategies that not only recoup academic losses but also erase the opportunity gaps exacerbated by the pandemic.”

    Districts are receiving the state block grant based on the proportion of low-income students, foster children, and English learners enrolled, although they can currently use the funding for all students. The program lists various possible uses to “support academic learning recovery and staff and pupil social and emotional well-being,” including more instructional time, learning recovery materials, and counseling. The money can be spent through 2027-28. 

    The settlement covers what’s remaining of the $7.5 billion Learning Recovery Block Grant, which Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature reduced to $6.3 billion in the current state budget. The largest Covid pot of relief money for districts — $12 billion from the federal government under the last phase of the American Rescue Act — expires on Sept. 30.

    The settlement would limit funding to the lowest performing student groups and chronically absent students, including Black and Hispanic students, and would narrow the list of permitted uses while requiring strategies backed by evidence that they are effective. Districts would create a plan for the money, which is not currently required, and track the outcome of at least one strategy over the following three years.

    Newsom kept the remainder of the block grant intact in his proposed 2024-25 budget, although he based the budget on optimistic revenue forecasts. To guard the block grant from future cuts, the settlement would guarantee a minimum of $2 billion will be protected.

    “One of the reasons that animated our settlement was, we didn’t want to go to trial and then, at the end of the trial, get a decision and then find that the cupboard was bare,” Rosenbaum said.

    In a statement on behalf of the Newsom administration, State Board of Education spokesperson Alex Traverso called the agreement’s use of one-time dollars “appropriate at this stage coming out of the pandemic.”

    “We look forward to engaging with the Legislature and stakeholders to advance this proposal and focus learning recovery dollars on serving the students with the greatest needs,” he wrote.

    Did the state fail its constitutional duty?

    Public Counsel and the San Francisco law firm Morrison Foerster filed Cayla J. v. the State of California, State Board of Education, California Department of Education, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in November 2020, eight months after Covid-19 forced a statewide shutdown of schools and a quick transition to distance learning. The state was slow to provide computers and connections, and the Legislature, anticipating a recession, initially included no extra funding for them. Billions of federal and state dollars specifically for learning loss came later.

    The rollout of distance learning and equipment was uneven among districts. The quality and extent of remote learning also varied widely among districts initially and when schools restarted in the fall.

    The lawsuit charged that “the delivery of education left many already-underserved students functionally unable to attend school.”

    “In addition,” it said, “students are being harmed by schools that fail to meet minimum instructional times, which the state has done nothing to enforce.”

    The lawsuit pointed to then 8-year-old twins Cayla J. and her sister Kai J., from a low-income family and attending third grade in Oakland Unified. They had remote classes only twice between March and the end of school in 2020. Because some of the students in the class lacked the equipment for remote learning, the teacher told their mother that classes were canceled for the other students, according to the lawsuit. 

    Oakland and Los Angeles Unified had among the fewest minutes of live daily instruction during distance learning and were among the last districts to return to in-person learning in spring 2021. Los Angeles Unified students missed 205 in-person days, and Oakland students missed 204 days.

    In subsequent court filings, as the case dragged on, the California Department of Education pointed to the massive state and federal Covid aid for districts, the minimum daily minutes of instruction that the Legislature set, and the many webcasts and guidance that the department gave on strategies for remote instruction and learning recovery. It cited districts’ authority to make decisions under local control and the transparency requirements for reporting spending through their Local Control and Accountability Plans.

    Rosenbaum told EdSource when the lawsuit was filed that the state was shirking its constitutional obligation to prevent education inequality. “The state cannot just write big checks and then say, ‘We’re not paying attention to what happens here,’” he said. “The buck stops with the state. The state’s duty is to ensure that kids get basic educational equality and that the gaps among the haves and the have-nots do not widen.” 

    Providing expert testimony for the plaintiffs, Lucrecia Santibañez, professor at UCLA’s School of Education & Information Studies, wrote, “Our decentralized school system in California, and the minimal guidance that was received from the state appears to have left many (districts) to their own devices.”

    “Data collection was minimal to non-existent, and monitoring of the learning and continuity plans was superficial at best,” she wrote.

    Dispute over test scores

    Meanwhile, chronic absences soared to set new records in 2022-23, and test scores fell sharply. In 2022-23, 34.6% of students met or exceeded standards on the Smarter Balanced math test, which is 5.2 percentage points below pre-pandemic 2018-19. Only 16.9% of Black students, 22.7% of Latino students, and 9.9% of English learners were at grade level.

    There was a similar drop in English language arts results by 2022-23: 46.7% of students overall met or exceeded standards. Only 29.9% of Black students and 36.1% of Latino students were at grade level, compared with 60.7% of white students and 74% of Asian students.

    The key issue in the case was whether the pandemic effects were disproportionate and whether the digital divide contributed to it. State officials acknowledged the impact of the pandemic but asserted that the declines were similar, within one or two percentage points, for all groups. In rebuttal, Harvard University education professor Andrew Ho, a nationally known psychometrician, charged that the state intentionally used “a biased calculation of achievement gaps” that led to the finding it sought.

    The state used the method displayed on the California School Dashboard that compares the percentages of student groups that met a single pre- and post-pandemic target — scoring at or above meeting standards from one year to the next. Ho wrote that it should have compared individual students’ losses and gains in scale points, a more refined measure that other states use.

    Using that methodology, Ho wrote, “California test scores show that racial inequality increased in almost all subjects and grades. Economic inequality also increased.” An independent analysis of state test data by EdSource corroborated that finding.  

    Advocates for a more precise system of measuring students’ growth on test scores have also called for the use of scale scores. In a move that could accelerate that adoption in California, the settlement calls for using scale scores to determine which student groups will be eligible for the block grant funding.

    Last August, in a decision that prompted negotiations to settle the case, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case and ordered the parties to go to trial. He concluded that the state had not established that it made adequate and reasonable efforts to respond to the pandemic’s impact and that Ho’s finding on increased learning disparities was credible. Under the settlement, the state would pay $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees.

    Credit to local nonprofits

    During the summer of 2020, Cayla J. and her sister turned to a nonprofit for help the district didn’t provide. Calling The Oakland REACH “a lifeline” for the two girls, the lawsuit said it “provided a safe space for learning and community advocacy” while offering enrichment online summer courses. Its family liaisons helped keep Cayla J. and Kai J. from falling further behind, it said.

    Oakland REACH’s counterpart in Los Angeles, the Community Coalition, provided similar services. Both signed on as plaintiffs.

    Efforts by The Oakland REACH evolved into a novel early literacy and early math tutoring partnership with Oakland Unified, employing trained community members and parents. In a nod to both nonprofits’ good work, the settlement calls for amending the education code to encourage districts to contract or partner with community-based organizations “with a track record of success” for services covered by the block grant.

    Michael Jacobs, a partner with Morrison Foerster working pro bono on the case, called the provision an important and landmark element of the agreement. 

    “We saw during the pandemic that community-based organizations filled critical needs,” he said. Pointing to The Oakland REACH, he said, “Now the evidence is in that the services made a significant difference in educational achievement.”

    Lakisha Young, CEO and founder of The Oakland REACH said she has been speaking with community partners in other districts about their work “building solutions for our kids to be reading proficiently.” She called the agreement a “historic win” and praised the families involved in the lawsuit for “the courage to step forward, not knowing their voices would make a difference.”





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom, school groups settle funding fight, with some more money coming as IOUs

    Gov. Newsom, school groups settle funding fight, with some more money coming as IOUs


    Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    The Newsom administration has settled a disagreement with K-12 education groups over multiyear funding that will provide nearly all of the money the groups had demanded, although deferring and delaying several billion dollars for at least a few years.

    Pending legislative approval, the compromise that the California Department of Education negotiated with the California Teachers Association (CTA) would remove an obstacle to resolving the 2024-25 state budget by the June 15 deadline.

    The deal would preserve Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise to exempt TK-12 schools and community colleges from appreciable funding cuts that other areas of the state budget would face, including the California State University and the University of California.

    The proposal also would meet the legal requirements of Proposition 98, the 4-decade-old formula that calculates the minimum portion of the general fund that must be spent on education. It was Newsom’s plan in his original January budget to spare schools and community colleges immediate cuts while scaling back Proposition 98 growth in future years that led CTA and the California School Boards Association to threaten to take Newsom to court with a lawsuit it had reasonable odds of winning.

    “This is a good deal for public schools. In its simplest terms, this agreement will protect the state’s core TK-12 investments, like the Local Control Funding Formula and new whole child programs,” said Derick Lennox, senior director of governmental relations and legal affairs for the California County Superintendents Association, who was briefed on the negotiations Tuesday. “If approved by the Legislature, the governor will be able to honor his commitment to protect school funding amidst a challenging budget.”

    Challenging is an understatement. Because the state will fall short of full funding for the current year, 2023-24, the Legislature would suspend Proposition 98 for the first time since the height of the Great Recession in 2010-11 by $5.5 billion. The money owed, an IOU called the “maintenance factor” under Proposition 98 terminology, would be repaid over multiple years, as determined by the growth in state revenue. The repayments would start with $1.3 billion in 2024-25.

    The deal would reintroduce funding deferrals — another accounting maneuver from the Great Recession, though at a smaller magnitude. As opposed to a funding suspension, a deferral is a late payment, in which the Legislature shifts funding by days or months from one fiscal year to the next, and districts are on the hook for money they’ve already spent.

    The settlement calls for three years of deferrals, ranging from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion, from 2023-24 through 2025-26. The last deferral, for $2.4 billion, would make up about 2% of funding to community colleges and school districts. Together, the three deferrals should have no appreciable impact on school and community college budgets but will require $2.4 billion in future school funding to pay off. They will involve an accounting shift from June, the last month of one fiscal year, to July, the first month of the next.

    “The agreement reached with the governor to protect public school funding is a critical step forward for California’s schools and communities,” said CTA President David Goldberg. “It ensures that students, educators, and families aren’t impacted by cuts to the classroom and includes protection against additional layoffs of educators.”

    The revenue conundrum reflects a slow rebound from an unexpected drop in state revenue following the Covid pandemic. Because of winter storms in early 2023, the federal government and California pushed back the filing date for taxes by six months. Without accurate revenue estimates when they set the 2023-24 budget in June, Newsom and the Legislature appropriated $8.8 billion more than the Proposition 98 minimum.

    Since TK-12 and community colleges had already budgeted and spent the money, Newsom promised to hold them harmless. But in his first budget draft in January and his May revision, Newsom proposed to treat the $8.8 billion as an off-the-books, one-time overpayment; CTA and school groups viewed it as an ongoing obligation, that, as spelled out by voters in approving Proposition 98, would become the base for the following year’s minimum level of the guarantee.

    “They arrived at a solution that gives the Governor and Legislature near-term budget flexibility while abiding by the state’s constitutional provisions related to minimum funding for schools,” education consultant Kevin Gordon said. “A negotiated suspension of Prop 98 has been the obvious solution since the outset of the debate.”

    Here’s how the negotiated deal resolves the dispute over the three-year period covered by the budget:

    2022-23

    Original Proposal: Newsom proposed an unorthodox move: holding the general fund, not Proposition 98, responsible for paying for the $8.8 billion shortfall over five years, starting in 2025-26, at $1.8 billion per year.

    Compromise: Shift an unallocated $2.6 billion in one-time funding from 2022-23 into 2023-24. That would lower the ongoing Proposition 98 increase from $8.8 billion to $6.2 billion. The effect would be to cut general fund repayments by $500 million to $1.3 billion per year for five years. And it would lower the calculation for the following year’s Proposition 98 minimum.

    2023-24

    The state would drain $8.4 billion from the Proposition 98 reserve fund, built up during a half-decade of good revenue years, to pay off a continuing Proposition 98 shortfall, including the $2.6 billion deferral from 2022-23.

    Compromise: The $6.2 billion rise in the Proposition 98 base in 2022-23 would raise the Proposition 98 minimum by $4.2 billion. Lacking the money to pay for it, the Legislature, by an anticipated two-thirds majority, would suspend the Proposition 98 base by $5.5 billion; this would include $1.3 billion, the first installment of the maintenance factor, due to be repaid in 2024-25. As a result of the $5.5 billion suspension, the Proposition 98 base would be lowered to $101.3 billion.

    2024-25

    The level of Proposition 98 is determined by several factors, called “tests,” that are tied to changing economic conditions, such as a rise in state spending or personal income, and the increase in the base from the year before. The 2024-25 Proposition 98 level, under Test 1, would be set at about 39% of the general fund: an estimated $110.6 billion. This would include a $1.3 billion maintenance factor repayment.

    The Department of Finance says that “overall, the Agreement provides stability for schools both in the short and long-term.”

    That’s true as long as the governor’s revenue projections for the next two years hold. But if they come up short, expect additional deferrals or cuts without a state rainy day fund to cushion the impact; many districts were already required to reduce their local rainy day funds this year. And heading into 2025-26, the state will still owe districts and community colleges a $4.5 billion maintenance factor, an IOU with no immediate deadline for repaying it.   

    “We’re encouraged that the administration has found a way to address the constitutional concerns, and this might be the best funding package that schools could hope for in this budget environment,” said Rob Manwaring, a senior adviser for the nonprofit Children Now. “At the same time, it is difficult to support suspending the constitutional funding guarantee when California schools are still in the bottom five states in terms of student-teacher ratios and other staffing supports.”





    Source link

  • Santa Ana to drop contested ethnic studies courses to settle closely watched lawsuit

    Santa Ana to drop contested ethnic studies courses to settle closely watched lawsuit


    Diane Diederich for iStock

    To avoid further embarrassing and expensive litigation, Santa Ana Unified has agreed to terminate three staff-created high school ethnic studies courses starting next fall and to start again from scratch. Next time, according to a settlement released Thursday, the district will comply with the state’s open meeting law it sought to evade and to seek public input, including Jewish advocacy organizations that brought the lawsuit and signed the settlement with the district.

    The 13-page agreement ends a lawsuit that the American Jewish Committee and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed in September 2023. The lawsuit asked the board to reject ethnic studies courses that it had approved in violation of the Brown Act, the open-meetings law. The lawsuit also claimed that the courses included sections on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that were biased against Jews and Israel.

    The deal followed a hearing in Orange County Superior Court in December and two months of negotiations.

    “We hope this is a cautionary tale to all the districts in California and anyone else who’s hoping to infuse ethnic studies with antisemitism, especially if they’re doing it in secret,” said Marci Miller, director of legal investigations for the Brandeis Center, Thursday. Miller said that the terms of the settlement should act as a deterrent for other districts.

    The agreement also could help other districts avoid similar conflicts. It spells out the procedure for “meaningful, substantive input from members of the public.”  There will be at least one public meeting no sooner than seven days before a school board considers an ethnic studies course;  representatives of community groups will be invited to offer their comments. The district will prominently publish drafts of course outlines on its website at least a week before the meeting.

    The Brandeis Center has also filed related state or federal discrimination complaints against Berkeley Unified, Fremont High School and Santa Clara Unified. A separate nonprofit law firm, the Deborah Project, has filed antisemitism lawsuits against a San Jose charter school and another Bay Area district, Sequoia Union High School District.

    In a statement that Santa Ana Unified provided Friday, district Superintendent Jerry Almendarez cleared up “some misperceptions” that led to the filing of the lawsuit.

    “At no time has the district supported the teaching of instructional content to students that reflects adversely on any group on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin as alleged in the lawsuit,” Almendarez’s statement said. “The settlement of this lawsuit affirms that principle and resolves any misunderstanding that may have occurred.”

    Board President Hector Bustos signed the agreement for the district.

    The lawsuit focused on the work of the school board’s ethnic studies steering committee, which was led by two board members, Carolyn Torres, a seventh-grade teacher and longtime ethnic studies advocate; and Rigo Rodriguez, an associate professor in the Department of Chicana/o and Latina/o Studies at CSU Long Beach. He lost his re-election bid in November.

    The lawsuit said the committee members “consisted of a narrow and insular group of individuals who were ‘handpicked’ to promote a ‘very pro-ethnic studies’ vision, without any ‘naysayers.’”  

    Damaging court documents

    The district adopted three ethnic studies courses grounded in Liberated Ethnic Studies, a doctrine that stresses that the forces of white supremacy and capitalism are continuing to oppress minorities. It has made the conflict in Israel, which it characterizes as an oppressor state and a modern example of  “white settler colonialism,”  a central element in its curriculum.

    Promoted by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium as an alternative to the mainstream state-adopted ethnic studies curriculum framework, the liberated approach has been adopted by more than two dozen school districts in California.

    Emails, documents, text messages, and chats obtained by attorneys during the discovery process revealed Santa Ana steering committee members’ biases. In a summary of the remarks submitted to the court, one unnamed member referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist [Z]ionists” to whom the district should not “cave.” Additionally, in a chat, the same employee referred to the lone Jewish member of the steering committee as a “colonized Jewish mind,” as well as a “pretender,” a “f—— baby,” and as “stupid” because of the person’s reservations about some of the committee’s work.

    In an online chat, the Jewish member summarized what he heard as members were preparing to meet with the Jewish Federation: “Jews greatly benefit from White privilege and so have it better,” and “We don’t need to give both sides. We only support the oppressed, and the Jews are the oppressors.”

    According to the lawsuit, the federation had asked to contribute its perspective to the committee. Instead, the committee worked “under the radar” to avoid public scrutiny. When deciding when to present two proposed ethnic studies courses to the board, two senior district officials in text messages suggested scheduling it on a Jewish holiday so that Jews would not attend.

    “We may need to use Passover to get all new courses approved,” one suggested.  The other official responded, “That’s actually a good strategy.” 

    In March 2023, the steering committee submitted the proposed World Geography and World Histories ethnic studies courses to the school board. There was no discussion, public comment or presentation by the select committee. The plaintiffs’ memorandum said the agenda item consisted of “merely reading the titles of the courses. The entire ‘presentation’ was over in less than 30 seconds.”

    The school board approved the courses at a subsequent meeting, again without discussion. Jewish residents learned about the courses’ content only after their adoption, the lawsuit claimed.

    “There is reason to require that meetings have to be open to the public,” Miller said. “When nobody is watching, people will be left to their own prejudices.”’

    Details of the settlement

    Other points in the agreement include:

    Santa Ana’s previous steering committee and subcommittee that created the ethnic studies courses will be abolished.

    The superintendent, not the school board, will appoint members to future committees considering an ethnic studies course; board members will not be involved in that work until the final approval process.

    The district will recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial issue; as such, any classroom instruction or curriculum will comply with the district’s own policy on dealing with controversial issues. Many districts have adopted a similar document consistent with state law. Among the provisions:

    • The issue provides opportunities for critical thinking, for developing tolerance, and for understanding conflicting points of view
    • All sides of the issue are given a proper hearing using established facts and primary evidence.
    • Teachers do not use their positions to press their own bias
    • The discussion does not reflect adversely on anyone because of their race, sex, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, handicap or occupation.

    To create the ethnic studies courses, Santa Ana hired the Xicanx Institute for Teaching and Organizing (XITO); its leader, Sean Arce, is a team member of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. According to records, the district contracted $300,663 for its services, plus $79,200 for another Liberated ethnic studies contractor. Under the agreement, the district will stop using XITO’s services and any individuals associated with it.

    Arce did not respond to a request for comment.

    Under the agreement, Ethnic Studies World Geography; Ethnic Studies World Histories; and Ethnic Studies Honors: Perspectives, Identities and Social Justice courses can continue for the rest of 2024-25 under the condition that materials and instruction with claims like “the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor” will not be taught — unless done so in a way that complies with the controversial issues policy. A glossary by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Coalition will be stripped from the courses.

    The district may have time to create new courses. A 2021 state law would require that school districts offer a semesterlong ethnic studies course starting in fall 2025 and that students must take it to graduate as of 2030-31. However, Assembly Bill 101 requires funding to become a mandate, and the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have not provided money so far. Last month, Newsom did not include ethnic studies funding in his proposed 2025-25 state budget.

    The district will also reimburse $43,091 in plaintiff lawyers’ direct costs, like filing expenses. But the agreement did not cover attorney fees, which would easily have been so much more than the direct costs, at a time when the district faces laying off up to 300 employees.  The law firm Covington and Burling, doing pro bono work, and the Anti-Defamation League were co-counsels on the case,

    Miller said that was a deliberate choice in the negotiations. “Money was not the main goal of the lawyers,” she said. “Making systemic change was.” 





    Source link