برچسب: signs

  • Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring All Colleges to Submit

    Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring All Colleges to Submit


    Trump signed an executive order requiring colleges to prove that they are not continuing to practice affirmative action on behalf of racial minorities. He seems obsessed with the idea that Black students are gaining entrance to college without the right test scores. He wants to call a halt to it.

    Conservatives believe that admission should be based solely on grades and test scores. They ignore the fact that colleges have other goals they want to meet: students who can play on sports’ teams; who can play in the band or orchestra; who want to study subjects with low enrollments, like advanced physics or Latin. There are also legacy students whose parents went to the college. And students whose parents are big donors, as Jared Kushner’s father Charles was when he pledged $2.5 million to Harvard the year that Jared applied, a story told by Daniel Golden in his book The Price of Admission. RFK Jr. was admitted to Harvard by signing a form with only his name.

    Annie Ma and Joycelyn Gecker of the Associated Press reported:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions.

    In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.

    Trump’s Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination.

    The role of race in admissions has featured in the administration’s battle against some of the nation’s most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds. For example, the executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public.

    Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures.

    The executive order makes the same argument. “The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,” said a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing.

    The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges’ diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next.

    Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year.

    Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant’s background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling.

    “Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court’s conservative majority.

    It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges, which are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents.

    “Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,” Fansmith said. “But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.”

    Because of the Supreme Court ruling, schools are not allowed to ask the race of students who are applying. Once students enroll, the schools can ask about race, but students must be told they have a right not to answer. In this political climate, many students won’t report their race, Fansmith said. So when schools release data on student demographics, the figures often give only a partial picture of the campus makeup.



    Source link

  • Gov. Gavin Newsom signs executive order for a master plan for career education

    Gov. Gavin Newsom signs executive order for a master plan for career education


    Gov. Gavin Newsom signs an executive order that charges the state’s educational and legislative leaders with creating a master plan for career education.

    Credit: Office of the Governor

    In recent years, the state has poured billions of dollars into a dizzying array of programs under the banner of career education. The only problem, said Gov. Gavin Newsom, is that there is no cohesion between these programs.

    “Tens of billions of dollars invested in the last few years, 12 different agencies, but not a cohesive, connective tissue, not a compelling narrative that drives a vision and drives a focus forward,” Newsom said Thursday, during a news conference at River City High in West Sacramento.

    Newsom took aim at that disconnection by signing an executive order calling for the state to create a master plan for career education in the next 13 months.

    The governor’s executive order promises to knock down the barriers that students in California face on their journey from the K-12 system to college and ultimately a fulfilling, well-paying career.

    “California will be the model of the nation in making sure that we educate all Californians to be career-ready, back in their neighborhoods where they lift their neighborhoods,” said CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia.

    Newsom signed the order while flanked by a heavy-hitting lineup of state education leaders who pledged to knock down the “silos” between the institutions.

    That includes the leaders of all the educational systems: Garcia, UC Chancellor Michael Drake, Community College Chancellor Sonya Christian and State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond. It also includes Assembly Education Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, and Senate Education Committee Chair Josh Newman, D-Fullerton. It also included the secretary of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, Stewart Knox.

    “This is a team effort; it is a collective effort, and it is long overdue,” Newsom said.

    Input for the master plan, due Oct. 1, 2024, will come, not just from education leaders, but from labor leaders, business leaders, community groups, students, parents and families, the governor said.

    The order lays out the importance of building connections not just between different education agencies but also between education institutions and employers.

    It lays out some specific strategic goals, such as building an online portal for any job-seeking Californian and rethinking the concept of a student transcript.

    Newsom introduced the concept of a “career passport” that would look beyond grades. That means a student’s transcript would include marketable work skills and experience developed through classes as well as apprenticeships, internships or other experiences outside the classroom.

    Newsom said it’s important to look at a student “broadly,” adding “I say that as someone who didn’t get very good grades.”

    The plan will require public progress reports to the Legislature. The first deadline is Dec. 1 — shortly before the next legislative session — when agencies are requested to provide preliminary recommendations to the governor’s office.

    The master plan describes the state’s three goals for career education. One is ensuring that ninth grade students are encouraged to explore well-paying careers and that they are guided on a pathway to that career. The second is that students have opportunities to learn real-life career skills in their education, preferably for pay. Lastly, the executive order states that students shouldn’t have to take on substantial debt or navigate complicated bureaucracies as they prepare for their careers.

    The state has already made substantial investments in this arena, particularly during recent years when the state budget was flush.

    The governor named a few of these programs: dual enrollment in high school and college classes, apprenticeships, the state’s volunteer corps, the cradle-to-career data system and college-and-career savings accounts. He added two funding programs, one aimed at retraining oil and gas workers and the other to address workforce shortages and future demand in the fields of health care, education, climate and technology.

    “California, like most states in the nation, has workforce shortages in just about every single sector,” said State Superintendent Thurmond. “This presents the opportunity for us to use our pathway programs to propel our students into the workforce.”

    The state is focused on knitting together the disparate parts of its career education strategy, but the governor noted that some of this work is already funded and happening at the regional level through its K-16 collaboratives and its California Economic Resilience Fund.

    The governor’s executive order also takes aim at the way the state hires its own workers. It charged the Department of Human Resources with reviewing any position where a bachelor’s degree is a requirement and determining whether there is data to back up that job requirement. Newsom said the state has already reclassified 169 positions that previously required a degree, but this executive order charges the state with updating its existing policies to make this process official.





    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill creating new transfer pilot program between UC and community colleges

    Newsom signs bill creating new transfer pilot program between UC and community colleges


    The Transfer and Reentry Center in Dutton Hall at UC Davis helps transfers get acclimated to their new environment.

    Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

    In a bid to make it easier for California’s community college students to transfer to the University of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation Tuesday to create a new transfer pathway between the two systems.

    The transfer pathway created by Assembly Bill 1291 will start as a pilot program at UCLA, with students getting priority admission if they complete an associate degree for transfer in select majors beginning in the 2026-27 academic year. The specific majors haven’t yet been determined, but UCLA will have to identify at least eight and another four by 2028-29. At least four of the majors will be in a science, technology, engineering or math field.

    The new pathway would expand to at least four additional UC campuses, also in limited majors, by 2028-29.

    The bill doesn’t, however, guarantee students admission to their chosen campus. If a student is not admitted to their preferred campus, the student will be redirected and admitted to another campus.

    Supporters of the legislation say it would help to streamline the state’s complex transfer system since students can already earn an associate degree to get a guaranteed spot in the California State University system.

    “By working together, California’s three world-leading higher education systems are ensuring more students have the freedom to thrive, learn, and succeed,” Newsom said in a statement. “With this new law, the Golden State is streamlining the transfer process, making a four-year degree more affordable for transfer students, and helping students obtain high-paying and fulfilling careers.”

    Newsom signed the bill despite opposition from the statewide student associations representing UC and community college students. In a statement last month urging Newsom to veto the legislation, they said they were dissatisfied because it doesn’t give students a guaranteed spot at the campus of their choice.

    The bill’s author, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, said in a statement that it will help to “tackle a long-standing goal in California: to simplify and streamline the transfer paths” for community college students. “This bill gets UC into the game with universal transfer pathways and will increase economic opportunity and prosperity for all Californians to help our state economy thrive,” he added.

    Currently, UC lacks a systemwide transfer guarantee for community college students. There are separate transfer admission guarantees at six of the system’s nine undergraduate campuses — each of them except UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego. But those separate guarantees each have different requirements for admission. And students who are also interested in transferring to Cal State have to simultaneously deal with that system’s own distinct requirements.

    Earlier this year, McCarty authored another bill, Assembly Bill 1749, that would have gone further than the more recent legislation by requiring UC to admit all eligible students who complete any associate degree for transfer, like the California State University system already does.

    UC opposed that bill, arguing that it would be a disservice to students in certain STEM majors because they would enter UC underprepared for some upper-division courses. UC officials then negotiated the details of AB 1291 with the governor’s office, McCarty and other key lawmakers.

    “I am proud that 27 percent of University of California undergraduates begin their educational journey at a California Community College and go on to thrive on our campuses,” Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, said in a statement. “The University is committed to attracting and supporting transfer students, and we look forward to continuing to partner with transfer advocates such as Governor Newsom, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, and others in the state legislature on streamlining the transfer process.”





    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over

    Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over


    A big crowd was on hand when the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board voted last August to mandate that parents be told if their child shows any indication at school of being transgender.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    A trailblazing state law prohibiting California school boards from passing resolutions that require teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender isn’t likely to put an end to this polarizing issue. 

    The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday. It will prohibit school districts from requiring staff to disclose to parents information related to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and will protect school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which will go into effect Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    “California is the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting school districts from enacting forced outing policies in the nation,” said Mike Blount, spokesperson for the author of the bill, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

    The legislation was passed in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex. At least seven California school districts passed the controversial policies, often after heated public debate.

    First lawsuit filed

    By Tuesday evening, the conservative nonprofit Liberty Justice Center said it had filed a lawsuit challenging the new law on behalf of Chino Valley Unified, which passed a parental notification policy last year.

    “School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have a constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school,” said Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center in a press release. “Parents are the legal guardians of their children, not Governor Newsom, Attorney General (Rob) Bonta, or Superintendent (Tony) Thurmond. We will continue to defend parents’ rights and children’s well-being by challenging invasive laws like AB 1955 in court, at no cost to taxpayers.”

    Other opponents, including Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, indicated that the issue will be settled in court. He is “committed to challenging the bill in court, and he’s confident he’s on the right side constitutionally,” said Shawn Lewis, Essayli’s chief of staff. Essayli plans to work with a coalition of advocates to challenge the bill, Lewis said.

    Election issue

    Parental rights is the overarching issue for the Republican Party, but right now it is focused on the parental notification issue, Essayli said in an August interview with EdSource. “This is an issue we want to run on in 2024,” he said.

    The newly passed legislation also resulted in a flurry of press releases and social media comments from opponents and supporters. Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk weighed in, calling the new law the “final straw” in his decision to move the headquarters for X, formerly known as Twitter, to Texas.

    “I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” Musk wrote on X.

    Proponents of the parental notification policies have said that parents have the right to know what is going on with their children at school and that minors do not have a right to privacy. Opponents say these policies could endanger already vulnerable students who should be able to decide when they want to come out to their parents.

    Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, Murrieta Valley Unified and Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County, Orange Unified in Orange County, Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County, and Rocklin Unified and Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Placer County are among the districts that have passed parental notification policies.

    California’s parental notification board policies have their origin in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Essayli, which was denied a committee hearing at the state Capitol last year. After that, Essayli, parents’ rights groups and attorneys wrote a model board policy for school boards.

    On Monday, Essayli released a statement about the new law: “Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955 which codifies the government’s authority to keep secrets from parents,” he said. “AB 1955 endangers children by excluding parents from important matters impacting their child’s health and welfare at school. Governor Newsom signing AB 1955 is both immoral and unconstitutional, and we will challenge it in court to stop the government from keeping secrets from parents.”

    Eight states have passed laws requiring school districts to inform parents if their children ask to use names or pronouns associated with another gender, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

    LGBTQ+ rights threatened

    School parental notification policies have impacted the mental health of LGBTQ+ students and can lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination, according to a press release from Ward’s office.

    “Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Ward, who introduced the legislation along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

    “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family,” he said. “As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.”

    The California Teachers Association and its members have been major opponents of parental notification policies, saying that they drive a wedge between educators and students, and endanger already vulnerable students. Teachers working in districts with parental notification policies have worried they could lose their jobs if they do not comply with the district requirement or end up in court if they disobey federal and state laws and policies.

    “This historic legislation will strengthen existing protections against forced outing and allow educators to continue to create a safe learning environment where all students feel accepted, nurtured, and encouraged to pursue their dreams,” said California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    “As educators, we are charged with providing a high-quality education to every student. No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students.”

    Policies spawn lawsuits

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said parental notification policies break California state law and violate students’ civil rights and their right to privacy. He issued warnings to districts and filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County last year.

    A lawsuit was also filed against Temecula Valley Unified by a coalition of students, teachers and parents who oppose the district’s parental notification policy, along with a policy that bans “critical race theory.”

    California courts have had differing opinions. In San Diego, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez last year ruled that Escondido Union School District violated parents’ rights when it followed California state policy and allowed students to decide whether to tell their parents they identify as transgender.

    In Sacramento earlier that year, U.S. District Judge John Mendez dismissed a lawsuit against Chico Unified. The suit claimed that district policies allowed school staff “to socially transition” students and prohibited staff from informing parents of the change. Mendez said students have a right to tell their parents about their gender and sexuality on their own terms.

    The new law will also require districts to provide support or affinity groups and safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students; anti-bullying and harassment policies and complaint procedures; counseling services; anti-bias or other training to support LGBTQ+ students and their families; suicide prevention policies and procedures; and access to community-based organizations to support LGBTQ+ students as well as local physical and mental health providers with experience in treating and supporting families of LGBTQ+ youth.

    California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman said the legislation reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth.

    “I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill,” Eggman said. “Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day, that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify.”





    Source link

  • Trump Signs Executive Order Urging CPB to Stop Funding NPR and PBS

    Trump Signs Executive Order Urging CPB to Stop Funding NPR and PBS


    The Constitution says Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. The president executes the funding decisions of Congress.

    Yesterday Trump called on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding public radio and public television. Never mind that National Public Radio brings news to listeners in areas totally saturated by rightwing Sinclair stations. Never mind that PBS is the best source of documentaries about science, history, nature, medicine, other nations, and global affairs. PBS is educational television at its best.

    The Washington Post reported:

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday evening seeking to prohibit federal funding for NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order, which could be subject to legal challenge, called the broadcasters’ news coverage “biased and partisan.”

    It instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cease providing direct funds to either broadcaster. It also orders CPB to cease indirect funding of the services through grants to local public radio and television stations.

    CPB is the main distributor of federal funds to public media. It receives about $535 million in federal funds per fiscal year, which it mostly spends on grants to hundreds of stations nationwide. The stations spend the grants on making their own programming or on buying programming from services such as NPR and PBS.

    CPB, created by an act of Congress in 1967, also sometimes provides direct grants to NPR and PBS to produce national programs.
    Thursday’s order instructs the CPB board to ensure that stations receiving its grants “do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.”



    Source link

  • Trump signs executive order to dismantle Department of Education

    Trump signs executive order to dismantle Department of Education


    President Donald Trump, left, holds up a signed executive order as young people hold up copies of the executive order they signed at an education event in the East Room of the White House in Washington on March 20, 2025.

    Credit: Ben Curtis/AP Photo

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday directing U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to work toward eliminating the Department of Education, pushing forward a campaign promise to dismantle an agency that has long been maligned by conservatives.

    With a group of students as a prop busily working on school desks behind him, Trump said, “My administration will take all lawful steps to shut down the department.” 

    The order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.” 

    The federal government funds less than 10% of public school budgets, though much of that money supports especially vulnerable students. The department also oversees programs that help students pay college tuition, including Pell grants for low-income students.

    The White House has already taken steps to gut the Education Department by roughly halving its workforce of 4,100, but officially eliminating the Cabinet-level agency would require congressional action.

    The administration has also vowed to ship other critical functions to other federal departments — services for students with disabilities and low-income students to the Department of Health and Human Services and student loans to the Treasury Department. 

    “Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” McMahon said in a statement. “We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition.”

    Children’s advocates were skeptical. The executive order “could result in a catastrophic impact on the country’s most vulnerable students and cutting much-needed funding will specifically impact students of color, students with disabilities and students in low-income communities,” the Association of California School Administrators said in a statement.

    Over the decades, Republicans have repeatedly called for shutting down the department, although doing so would require 60 votes in the Senate — unlikely because Republicans now hold only 53 seats.

    Nonetheless, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chairman of the Senate education committee, said in a statement, “Since the Department can only be shut down with congressional approval, I will support the President’s goals by submitting legislation to accomplish this as soon as possible.”

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, praised the order in a post on X “President Trump is keeping his promise and returning education to the states,” but didn’t pledge to bring the issue to a vote. David Cleary, who worked on education issues on Capitol Hill for two decades, indicated he wouldn’t be surprised if Johnson didn’t.  

    “Leaders don’t like to spend time on things they know can’t get over the finish line,” he told the Washington Post.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has sued the administration over the wholesale firing of federal employees and abrupt cancelation of research contracts, said he would monitor how the executive order is carried out. 

    While acknowledging the obligation to go through Congress, “the Administration continues to do everything it can to destroy the department’s ability to carry out its most vital, congressionally mandated functions — with the clearly stated ‘final mission’ of shuttering the Department for good,” he said in a statement. “My office will be looking at what this executive order actually does — not what the President says it will do.”

    Trump used the executive order to continue his attack on equity-focused education programs. The Secretary of Education will ensure that Department of Education funds will follow federal law and administration policy, it states, “including the requirement that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.”

    In response, Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, said the continued attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion and dismantling of the department “will leave millions of students and their families vulnerable to discrimination and deny them the opportunity to succeed in school, achieve their individual potential, and prepare for the future workforce. We cannot allow this administration to steamroll students and communities to achieve its agenda.”

    Guillermo Mayer, President and CEO of the nonprofit Public Advocates, attributed the executive order to the Administration’s larger aim.

    “Nobody should be fooled,” he said. “While this order purports to reduce federal bureaucracy, it’s part of a longer-term plan to eliminate federal oversight in education and give states free rein to redirect billions of dollars away from public schools and towards private school vouchers. The ultimate goal is to erode the public’s trust in our system of public education.” 





    Source link