برچسب: State

  • As ethnic studies mandate withers, it’s clear state leaders misled districts

    As ethnic studies mandate withers, it’s clear state leaders misled districts


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Last week, the California Legislature let its widely heralded 2021 high school ethnic studies bill, AB 101, silently lapse after it and Gov. Gavin Newsom passed a 2025-26 state budget that did not appropriate funds for it. Without that funding, school districts will not be bound by AB 101’s Fall 2025 deadline to offer students an ethnic studies course. 

    Ethnic studies’ popularity has been built on a false narrative: that California requires high school students to pass an ethnic studies course to earn a diploma. What’s been omitted from this narrative is that shortly before AB 101’s passage the Legislature added a barely noticed but hugely consequential sentence to AB 101 — that the ethnic studies graduation requirement will become “operative only upon an appropriation of funds” in separate legislation.

    In other words, from its inception, AB 101 was, and remains, aspirational. 

    Upon learning this surprising news, Mountain View-Los Altos High School District Superintendent Eric Volta dubbed the state’s ruse “a hot mess” (view recording hour 3:37). “Everyone was moving in one direction until December,” he said, scrambling with limited resources to meet the state’s pressing deadline.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee estimated that an ethnic studies requirement would cost taxpayers a staggering $276 million a year — for a subject rife with controversy and concern.

    California’s decision not to trigger AB 101 was undoubtedly made easier given the turmoil wracking school districts that had already prepared this coursework, including Newsom’s alma mater, Tamalpais Union. Heated school board meetings extended into the night when ethnic studies landed on board agendas. Parents statewide were distraught to see their districts selecting “liberated” ethnic studies like in Tamalpais, centered on race-based resentment that seemed to encourage armed militancy.

    Attorney General Bonta, in a rare Legal Alert sent to all local superintendents and school board members, obliquely signaled the state’s hesitation to move forward. This public alarm and skittishness followed state leaders’ receipt of a detailed June 2023 policy paper from the non-partisan Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, cc’d to 3,000 school board superintendents and trustees, alerting them that the California Legislature did not appear to require ethnic studies after all. The Los Angeles Times and EdSource confirmed it, EdSource reporting that state officials agreed — “no money, no requirement to develop or offer classes.”

    The California Department of Education’s (CDE) years of silence on this funding caveat, pertaining to the first change in the state’s graduation requirements in decades, is not what local education leaders and taxpaying parents should expect from a state agency with a $300 million annual administrative budget and a duty to help districts operate their schools. 

    This silence was not just consequential for California’s 430 school districts with high schools. It became a recurring issue for the University of California’s Academic Senate and its governing bodies as they contemplated making passing an ethnic studies course a UC admissions requirement, grounded largely in the mistaken belief that the state requires high school students to enroll in it. The Academic Senate rejected that proposal in April after a letter signed by hundreds of UC faculty members pointed out its many flaws, including this faulty premise.

    It appears that CDE’s silence about this funding caveat was intentional. Believing for years that ethnic studies was mandated, school districts developed courses expecting the state to cover their expenses. Neither the CDE nor the State Board of Education advised school districts differently. In fact, CDE’s website states that students must take ethnic studies to graduate. The state board’s comment that ethnic studies is not required was in 2025, and directed only to the University of California’s Academic Senate

    Over one-quarter of California school districts with high schools now offer ethnic studies, 85% employing the controversial liberated ethnic studies framework according to my recent sampling. Liberated Ethnic Studies is political education, teaching students to view the world through the narrow lenses of skin color and oppression, often so they will try to change it with anti-Western activism.

    School districts just now learning about this reprieve are reversing course or pausing their ethnic studies work. In January, San Dieguito Union turned its new required 9th-grade Ethnic Studies English course into an elective, only to discover that student interest in the course was so low that it might not offer the class at all its high schools. This spring, Ramona Unified, Glendora Unified, Chino Valley Unified, and others paused their work mid-stream. Parents in San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Newsom’s Tamalpais Union are pressing their school boards to do the same.

    The lesson here for local school leaders: verify narratives before acting, including those advanced by California state education officials.

    •••

    Lauren Janov is a California lawyer, education policy analyst, and political strategist. She is a legal consultant for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, advised the University of California faculty team which opposed a proposed Ethnic Studies admissions requirement, and co-founded the Palo Alto Parent Alliance. The opinions expressed are her own.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Report finds Chico State followed existing policies in investigating embattled professor

    Report finds Chico State followed existing policies in investigating embattled professor


    Chico State University followed proper procedures in how it handled the sex investigation of suspended professor David Stachura and its lengthy aftermath, including not informing faculty and students that Stachura allegedly threatened gun violence on campus, an independent investigation has found.

    The 20-page report by San Diego lawyer Nancy Aeling was released late Monday afternoon by the university, nearly a year after EdSource first reported on findings that Stachura had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student and allegedly threatened to shoot two colleagues who cooperated in an investigation of the matter, and was later named the university’s Outstanding Professor of the 2020-21 school year.

    “The university acted consistently with policy by not notifying the Chico State community of Stachura’s alleged threats of violence,” Aeling wrote. Stachura, according to court testimony by his estranged wife, had told her of his intent to kill two professors who cooperated in the 2021 investigation that found he had an inappropriate relationship, which included sex in his office, with a student. Separately, a biology lecturer revealed — and later testified — that Stachura spoke to her about committing a shooting in the biology department.

    Aeling did not respond to a phone message left at her office on Monday.

    The report was also not critical of the university’s Campus Violence Consultation Team, which recommended that Stachura be allowed to return to campus after investigating the alleged threats against his colleagues and “did not find that he posed a threat of violence.”

    A member of that team, Chico State Police Chief Christopher Nicodemus, testified in a court proceeding earlier this year that he did not agree with the team’s findings.

    “There were concerns” about Stachura, Nicodemus said on the stand in a legal proceeding that resulted in a judge issuing a three-year workplace violence restraining order against Stachura that bars him from going on campus or near the people he threatened.

    Nicodemus said on the stand that he believed “it’s safer to err on the side of caution” when making a threat assessment. He added that it would have been better to have mistakenly fired Stachura than live with the aftermath of a violent event.

    Aeling wrote in the report that she did not consider “the appropriateness of Stachura’s actions or communications with his colleagues nor his colleagues’ responses to Stachura and his continued presence on campus, or the overall effectiveness of the procedures or policies in place to address the situation presented by (his) actions or communications.” Rather, the report was limited to “whether (the) responses were reasonable given the information available at the time and were consistent with the policies and procedures governing them.” The report makes no policy recommendations.

    A faculty union officer ripped the report Monday night.

    “It’s absolutely demoralizing and heartbreaking that no one has taken any accountability for what has happened,’’ Lindsay Briggs, a public health professor and a California Faculty Association Chico Campus Executive Board member, wrote in an email to EdSource.

    “This is why survivors of violence don’t speak out and why we don’t feel safe at our jobs; because we’re not. No one cares to do anything other than offer empty platitudes.” Eleven “months of hand wringing and we’re no better off than we were before,” she said. 

    Gordon Wolfe, a professor who turned over court records about Stachura’s alleged threat to kill witnesses, said in a phone interview Monday evening that he received an email from Chico State saying that Aeling wanted to interview him, but that “she never followed up.”

    Stachura remains on administrative leave as the university finishes an investigation of his alleged threat to kill witnesses in the sex case. He was recently ordered by a judge to pay more than $64,000 for the legal fees of a lecturer he unsuccessfully sued for libel. His lawyer did not respond to a request to comment on Aeling’s report.

    In a prepared statement that accompanied the report’s release, Chico State President Stephen Perez said, “I appreciate the thorough review and the opportunity to consider our practices moving forward.” 

    Without mentioning her by name, the report found that former Chico State President Gayle Hutchinson considered the sex case against Stachura as well as the alleged threats he made when approving “Stachura’s promotion to” full professor in 2021. Hutchinson found him “to be a highly productive citizen of the academy, with a strong record of teaching, service and research,” the report states.

    Hutchinson retired in June. She could not be immediately reached Monday night.





    Source link

  • Allegations of sexual violence at Fresno State resurface at nearby City College

    Allegations of sexual violence at Fresno State resurface at nearby City College


    The center photo features Tom Boroujeni, Fresno City College academic senate president.

    Credit: Mark Tabay, Fresno City College & Fresno State/Facebook

    A Fresno City College communication instructor and president of the school’s academic senate was found to have committed an “act of sexual violence” against a professor and former colleague at nearby Fresno State University, where he taught for years until he resigned under pressure last year, documents show.

    The allegations against Tom Boroujeni stayed hidden from public view, EdSource found, before surfacing in 2020, when Fresno State opened an investigation based on the federal anti-discrimination law known as Title IX, records show. 

    That investigation determined that Boroujeni committed the sexual violence in 2015, when he was a graduate student and part-time instructor at Fresno State. The case wasn’t fully resolved until February, when the alleged victim reached a $53,300 settlement with the university after claiming it hadn’t done enough to protect her, university records show.

    Boroujeni was also a part-time instructor at Fresno City College while finishing a master’s degree at Fresno State in 2015, records show.

    Boroujeni, 38, of Clovis, is also known as Farrokh Eizadiboroujeni and Tom Eizadi, documents show.

    City College’s parent agency, the State Center Community College District, became aware of the matter in August 2021 when the alleged victim, who also teaches there part-time, “requested a no-contact order” against Boroujeni “as a result of a sexual misconduct investigation” at Fresno State, according to an internal district document obtained by EdSource. 

    The district granted the order based on a report by its former general counsel, Fresno attorney Gregory Taylor, who conducted interviews and combed through Fresno State’s investigation. Taylor concluded Fresno State’s finding was “well-reasoned and supported by sufficient evidence.”

    In 2023, despite the findings and stay-away order, the State Center Community College District gave Boroujeni tenure. A district spokesperson said laws governing the granting of tenure were followed.

    In both Fresno State’s investigation and in interviews with EdSource, Boroujeni denied committing what Fresno State concluded was “an act of sexual violence.”  

    Asked if he raped the alleged victim, Boroujeni replied in a sharp tone, “No, I did not.” 

    Boroujeni claimed he and the alleged victim, who was a professor at Fresno State at the time, had consensual sex in her apartment in June 2015, shortly after they started dating. But the investigation found that she told Boroujeni “no” when he asked if they could have sex. He then “pinned down (her) upper region” and she “zoned out” during what followed, according to the 2021 university report. 

    EdSource doesn’t identify sexual-abuse victims. The alleged victim declined to be interviewed for this story.

    Boroujeni appealed the findings to the California State University’s Chancellor’s Office in June 2021.  The appeal was denied a month later.

    EdSource sought documentation about the case from Fresno State earlier this year. 

    “Given that Mr. Boroujeni remains active in the educational community and is teaching at a local community college, there is strong public interest in knowing that a college instructor has been previously found to have committed an act of sexual violence at another university.”

    John Walsh, the CSU system’s general counsel

    Walsh wrote in an Aug. 4 letter to Boroujeni’s lawyer, Brooke Nevels, informing her the report would be released as “a matter of public interest.

    Boroujeni said his 2015 graduate-student status should have blocked the release of the investigative report to EdSource under the state’s public records act. He also was a part-time instructor at the time. But in a decision made at the CSU system’s Chancellor’s Office, the report was released over his objections.

    Boroujeni complained to the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Policy Privacy Office, claiming the release violated the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, according to a generic confirmation email he provided to EdSource. The response states the complaint wouldn’t be answered for at least 90 days. The department didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    A tale of two colleges

    January 2015 – Graduate student Tom Boroujeni begins working as a substitute instructor and teaching assistant at Fresno State University.

    May 2015 – Boroujni begins working as an instructor at Fresno City College 

    June 21, 2015 – Boroujeni allegedly commits an “act of sexual violence” against a Fresno State professor.

    June 22-30, 2015 – The alleged victim confides in friends that she was assaulted. She declines to call police, telling a friend she is afraid making a report would negatively impact her at Fresno State, where she is working toward tenure.

    2016 – Boroujeni finishes his master’s degree at Fresno State and continues working at the university, becoming coach of the school’s debate team. 

    2016 -The victim of the alleged sexual violence begins teaching as an adjunct at Fresno City College in addtion to working at Fresno State. 

    Aug. 2019: Boroujeni gets a tenure track instructor position in Fresno City College’s Communication Department.

    Oct. 2019 – Boroujeni is told he will be assigned to non-debate classes and removed as debate team coach at Fresno State. 

    July 9, 2020 – Boroujeni files a complaint with Fresno State alleging that the alleged victim had made “unwelcome advances of a sexual nature” to him in 2015. He claimed he entered into a relationship with her only because he feared that not doing so would hurt his chances of receiving his master’s degree and full-time employment at the university. He further claims his removal as debate coach and change in teaching assignments is retaliation for her  rebuffing further advances in 2016.

    Oct. 6, 2020 – While being interviewed about Boroujeni’s complaint against her, the alleged victim tells an investigator that on June 21, 2015, Boroujeni allegedly committed an act of sexual violence against her. Fresno State opens an investigation.

    May 2021 – Boroujeni becomes president-elect of Fresno City Colleges academic senate for a two-year term, meaning he will ascend to the senate presidency in 2023.

    May 18, 2021 – Investigator Tiffany Little issues two findings. She rejects Boroujeni’s claims of sexual harassment and finds that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Boroujeni committed an act of sexual violence against the victim.

    May 25 2021 – The alleged victim is notified that the university’s remedy is that she and Boroujeni have no contact with each other. A no-contact order is issued by Fresno State.

    June 16, 2021 – Boroujeni appeals the finding to the CSU Chancellor’s Office of Investigations Appeals and Compliance. His appeal was rejected on July 29, 2021.

    August 2021 – The alleged victim asks Fresno City College – where she and Boroujeni both still teach – for a no-contact order on campus, similar to what was put in place at Fresno State. The order is issued months later.

    2022 – The alleged victim tells Fresno State that it “failed to take adequate actions” to address her safety concerns with Boroujeni. She threatens to take legal action against the university.

    Feb. 8, 2022 – Boroujeni files a grievance with Fresno State over a decision to place the report on the act of sexual violence in his personnel file as he approaches a performance review for a three-year lecturer contract.

    March 7 2022 – Boroujeni tells Fresno State that he intends to resign at the end of the academic year. 

    March 11, 2022 – Fresno State places Boroujeni on administrative leave, pending the outcome of an unrelated allegation of misconduct.

    May 5, 2022 –  Boroujeni resigns from Fresno State, agreeing that he “will not apply for, seek, or accept employment with CSU Fresno or any other campus or department of California State University or its auxiliaries.” 

    Nov. 14 2022 – Boroujeni received a letter of reprimand from the dean of Fresno City College’s Division of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts in part for unprofessional conduct including an allegation he referred to a colleague with an apparent racial slur and threatening “to get” that person. 

    Feb. 8,  2023 – The alleged victim settles her claim with Fresno State over her safety concerns. She is paid $53,300 and is given a paid year off from teaching to do academic research.

    March 7, 2023 – the State Center Community College District board of trustees grants tenure to Boroujeni and 24 other faculty members at Fresno City College.

    May 10, 2023 – Boroujeni becomes academic senate president of Fresno City College

    “It was in the greater good of the public to disclose it,” Debbie Adishian-Astone, Fresno State’s vice president for administration, said of the heavily redacted 43-page document. “The public has a right to know.” EdSource obtained an unredacted copy of the report. 

    CSU’s Title IX history

    In May 2023, Boroujeni started a two-year term as Fresno City College’s academic senate president, a position that gives him input on behalf of the faculty on academic policy and personnel matters and puts him in frequent contact with college and district leaders. “I am a politician. I am a public figure,” he told EdSource. 

    The revelations about Boroujeni come as Fresno State attempts to move past a CSU-sanctioned report released earlier this year that said the school had “the most high profile and incendiary Title IX issues plaguing the CSU.” That’s a reference to the scandal that took down former CSU Chancellor Joseph Castro, who resigned in 2022 after it was revealed that while serving as Fresno State’s president, he ignored years of sexual misconduct allegations against Frank Lamas, his vice president of student affairs.

    When the allegations were finally investigated, Castro agreed to let Lamas resign in exchange for a $260,000 settlement, retiree benefits and a promise of a glowing letter of recommendation.  

    The Boroujeni case also raises questions regarding the State Center Community College District’s response after learning of Fresno State’s determination of sexual violence and how Boroujeni went on to receive tenure and become academic senate president.

    The Fresno State case was not taken into account as Boroujeni became senate president at Fresno City College and achieved tenure in 2023, even after the district investigated the alleged victim’s request for a stay-away order and found that sexual violence occurred. 

    The president of the State Center Community College District’s board of trustees, Nasreen Johnson, declined to talk to EdSource, and Chancellor Carole Goldsmith declined to be interviewed and answered questions through a district spokesperson.

    Other than the no-contact order, the district “took no other action as there were no civil or criminal findings, judgments and/or convictions surrounding (Boroujeni) at Fresno State, nor were there accusations or reports of similar misconduct” at Fresno City College, district spokesperson Jill Wagner wrote in an email to EdSource. The no-contact order requested by the alleged victim wasn’t effective until the spring of 2022, in part because the process of obtaining records from Fresno State was “slow and arduous.”

    Wagner said the tenure committee assigned to Boroujeni “considered multiple factors in favor of granting tenure. Areas of concern were not identified” at the time Boroujeni was reviewed. Asked if the committee that considered Boroujeni’s tenure had access to or was aware of Taylor’s report confirming that an act of sexual violence had occurred, Wagner did not respond directly. She wrote that the district followed state law and the district’s union contract, “which prescribes what information can be included in tenure review.”  

    Boroujeni told Edsource that he “got tenured with the district’s knowledge of everything that had happened.”

    Boroujeni resigned from Fresno State on May 9, 2022, agreeing to a demand that he never apply for, or accept employment, in the 23-campus California State University system again, according to the resignation document.

    When he accepted those terms, he was being investigated for other unrelated misconduct allegations that were later found to be not substantiated, documents show.

    Despite its findings about the 2015 incident, Fresno State couldn’t discipline Boroujeni — such as suspending or firing him — because he was a graduate student when the alleged act of violence occurred, Adishian-Astone, the school’s vice president for administration, said in an interview. 

    Boroujeni started working for Fresno State as a teaching assistant and part-time instructor in January 2015, nearly six months before the incident, records provided by the university show. But Adishian-Astone said his status at the time was as a graduate student. 

    The university can’t “discipline an employee for something he did as a student,” she said. But the findings still contributed to Boroujeni leaving his faculty position at Fresno State.

    Boroujeni told EdSource that he agreed to resign because if he hadn’t, the act-of-sexual-violence report would have been placed in his personnel file. He said he was up for a performance review at the time and a three-member committee of communication-department academics would have had access to the report. He said he was concerned his reputation would be harmed and his contract not renewed.

    “They threatened me, basically,” Boroujeni claimed. “They said, ‘If you don’t (resign), we’re going to hand this over to your department for review.’ They said, ‘It becomes part of your employment record.’”  

    Although the university couldn’t directly discipline Boroujeni, Adishian-Astone said placing the report in his personnel file was allowable. If Boroujeni hadn’t resigned, the university would have done that, “particularly given the egregious nature of this incident,” she said.

    Information sharing limited

    California has no mechanism for its three public higher-education systems — CSU, the University of California and the California Community Colleges — to share information about employees with sexual misconduct-allegation records.  

    In response to EdSource’s questions, Wagner, the State Center Community College District spokesperson, said the district is now calling on the state to require that “educational institutions have a mechanism to share information about employee misconduct, harassment and sexual violence.”  

    The practice of someone in higher education being employed at another college despite sexual misconduct allegations is dubbed “Pass the Harasser,” which the Chronicle of Higher Education once called “higher education’s worst kept secret.”

    Boroujeni’s employment at Fresno City College after resigning from Fresno State is a variation of that, said Michigan State University professor Julie Libarkin. She tracks alleged offenders through the Academic Sexual Misconduct Database, which aggregates abuse cases based on news reports. It contains nearly 1,100 cases nationwide, which she said is just a fraction of what occurs.

    Too often, she said, faculty members move to another institution after being disciplined or fired. “It’s a problem all over the country,” she said, enabled by secrecy and schools that “don’t want to have their names sullied” by publicly identifying an abuser. If an accused person quietly resigns, they’re often able to keep their records confidential, she said.  

    In Boroujeni’s case, he was already working as a Fresno City College instructor when Fresno State made its findings. There was no communication between the schools about the matter until the alleged victim asked for the stay-away order.

    Adishian-Astone said Fresno State “would not have advised (the State Center Community College District) about this matter on our own as it was a confidential personnel matter and at that time the respondent was already an existing (district) employee. If (the district) had reached out about a reference for the hiring of a new employee, we would have advised them accordingly. Our system does not track if faculty also teach at other institutions.”

    Shiwali Patel, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, said the alleged victim could be “in a vulnerable position” at Fresno City College with Boroujeni serving as president of the academic senate.

    Boroujeni “shouldn’t have any impact on her experience there, promotions or anything to do with her employment. If he holds this position of power over the victim who told the community college about what happened at the other institution, she could be in a vulnerable position,” she said.

    The district “should have checked with the victim to see what impact that could have on her, given that she’s employed by the same institution,” Patel said. 

    Asked about the alleged victim, Wagner wrote in an email that the district “unequivocally supports survivors of violence.” 

    A dean’s complaint

    Boroujeni told EdSource he is also facing allegations regarding his interactions with three other women at Fresno City College. They have each filed pending complaints against him, which he characterized as allegations of “gender discrimination.”

    Wagner, the district spokesperson, said she could not discuss the complaints because they are personnel matters. Boroujeni said one is a Title IX investigation and the others are being treated as grievances. The women declined to discuss their complaints. 

    He identified one of the women as Dean Cyndie Luna of the college’s Fine, Performing and Communication Arts Division. He declined to provide details of her complaint. 

    Last year, Luna reprimanded Boroujeni for incidents of unprofessional conduct that she wrote were “becoming more frequent and aggressive” and “causing me grave concern as your supervisor,” according to a November 2022 letter of reprimand, which EdSource obtained from a source.

    Luna also wrote that in a conversation with her, Boroujeni referred to a colleague with an apparent racial slur and, in a “menacing and threatening” tone, said he “will get” the colleague for gossiping about him. 

    Boroujeni told EdSource that Luna fabricated the accusations in the letter. “She makes up a lot of things,” he said. Luna declined to discuss his allegation or the letter of reprimand.

    Boroujeni said other aspects of the reprimand challenge actions he’s taken as senate president, which he claims cannot be subject to a reprimand. The senate’s executive committee, which he heads, filed a lengthy response to the portion of the reprimand dealing with administrative matters. More than a year later, Boroujeni is trying to get the reprimand withdrawn.

    Luna’s “using my employment as a way to mitigate a political situation,” he said, claiming that she is trying to reprimand him for positions he has taken on behalf of the faculty. 

    “She’s punishing me for doing my job when she’s not even my supervisor as the president of the academic senate. We don’t have supervisors,” Boroujeni asserted.

    ‘Unwelcome advances’ 

    Born in Iran, Boroujeni said he lived in Greece before eventually coming to the United States and enrolling at Fresno State. In Greece, he said he started using Tom as a first name instead of Farrokh and continued using it in America. He also began shortening his last name to Boroujeni — although Eizadiboroujeni remains his legal last name, according to voter registration and other public records.

    Boroujeni was ambitious about a career in academia. He began working in Fresno State’s communication department as “substitute instructional faculty,” in 2015, records show, while finishing his master’s degree, and beginning to climb the teaching ranks. 

    By 2020, Boroujeni was worried that a job within Fresno State’s communication department was being taken away from him, Fresno State records show. 

    He was the coach of the school’s nationally prominent debate team, the Barking Bulldogs. But he was losing the job, and the classes he was assigned to teach were being changed in a communication department shakeup, documents show. The publication Inside Higher Ed reported on Boroujeni losing the debate coach job in October 2020.

    A few months before the Inside Higher Ed story was published, he retroactively filed a complaint stating that in 2015, when he was a graduate student, a professor lured him into a romantic relationship — the same professor he would eventually be found to have committed an act of sexual violence against.

    Boroujeni claimed she sexually harassed him with “unwelcome advances.” But he began a relationship with her because “he feared rejecting (the) advances would jeopardize both his ability to graduate from Fresno State with his master’s degree and his future employment opportunities because (the professor)” taught in the communication department, the investigative report states. 

    Five years after the alleged harassment, he claimed “the personnel changes were made because of the termination of the relationship with” the professor. But the investigator assigned to Boroujeni’s complaint found communication department leaders had “legitimate reasons” for the personnel shakeup and that no harassment occurred.

    But the harassment complaint led to revelations about a deeply held secret.

    The investigator, Tiffany Little, found that the alleged victim had confided in a conversation with a close friend “in which (she) described the experience as rape,” Little’s report shows. 

    Little met with the alleged victim. She confirmed what she had told her friend in 2015, making “an allegation of sexual violence” against Boroujeni, Little wrote.

    Boroujeni told EdSource that the alleged victim fabricated the claim as retaliation for his harassment complaint.

    Dating colleagues

    Boroujeni and the alleged victim were the same age — 30 — when they began dating in 2015, after he had taken one of her classes as a graduate student.

    On the night of June 21, 2015, they were at her apartment. Both were married. She was in the process of divorcing. He told her he had worries about his own marriage, documents show.  

    Both acknowledged that during a make-out session, Boroujeni asked her if they could have sex. He claimed she said yes and that she provided a condom in a pinkish wrapper, according to documents.

    But the alleged victim told Little that she didn’t consent. She first said she couldn’t remember if there was a condom, then later said she was sure she hadn’t provided one, as Boroujeni claimed, because she did not keep condoms in her apartment.

    Little’s report states that when the alleged victim told her friend what happened, the friend wanted to call the police. But the alleged victim did not want to make a criminal complaint because “she did not want any of this to come out to the university because she was this young tenure track professor,” Little wrote. 

    In his statement, Boroujeni said he asked the alleged victim if she wanted to have sex and she replied “mhm,” which he understood as consent.  

    The alleged victim continued to see Boroujeni, the report states. As she did, the alleged victim described to a friend how he “disregarded (her) boundaries sexually,” Little wrote. That friend told Little that the alleged victim had told her there were times she did not want to have sex with Boroujeni, but “he pressured her until she did.”

    Another person told Little that the alleged victim confided in 2017 that Boroujeni “forced me to have sex with him.”

    Boroujeni refused to speak with Little, choosing instead to answer her questions in writing. Those answers, Little noted, were written “with the benefit of first having seen (the alleged victim’s) account and the details she provided and didn’t provide.”

    Boroujeni said he didn’t speak to Little because “I was seriously worried about criminal exposure.”

    He said he couldn’t get legal representation for an interview because of scheduling problems. 

    He described Little as untrained and “just somebody who works in an office in CSU who is now in charge of a very serious allegation. … How do they hire these people? They are not an attorney. (sic) They are not an investigator. (sic) They go through minimal training.” 

    Little, who received a law degree from the University of Illinois in 2014, is now the director of civil rights and Title IX Compliance at Northwestern University. She didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

    Unlike Boroujeni, the alleged victim spoke with Little.

    She “didn’t have time to reflect upon, ponder, deliberate about, and compose her answers. Instead, she answered this investigator’s questions in the moment, and based only on her personal recollection. Put simply, a reasonable person could find that (her) manner of testimony supports a finding that her account was credible.”   

    Little wrote that Boroujeni told her “there are text messages that corroborate his account and requested that (the victim) submit these materials.” But the alleged victim told Little she had already submitted all the texts she had. There was nothing in them that matched what Boroujeni described, Little wrote.

    “Told this,” Boroujeni “never submitted or described the messages” himself, Little wrote. Boroujeni told EdSource he’d deleted the messages.

    “A reasonable person could find Boroujeni‘s assertion that there is evidence to corroborate his account, and his failure to produce or describe such evidence … to diminish the likelihood that his version of events can be corroborated and therefore the credibility of his account,” Little wrote.  

    Little concluded that she found the alleged victim had proven herself credible. Boroujeni, she wrote, “did not likely obtain consent for sexual intercourse.” 

    Fresno State ordered Boroujeni and the alleged victim to avoid each other on campus. He continued teaching.

    The alleged victim wasn’t satisfied that the university was doing enough to protect her. She then filed a grievance and gave notice to CSU “of her plans to pursue litigation,” records show.  

    She reached a settlement in February. The university paid her $53,300 with a paid year off from teaching to conduct research.

    In March 2022, Fresno State notified Boroujeni about a new allegation of misconduct against him. The university placed him on administrative leave. He was notified on July 25, 2022, that the complaint was not substantiated. 

    By then, he had resigned from Fresno State and was pursuing his career at Fresno City College.





    Source link

  • State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says

    State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says


    Wards at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility talk at a table in Merced Hall in Stockton, Calif.

    Credit: Lea Suzuki / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    California is failing to provide a high-quality education to students in the juvenile justice system by not addressing the inadequacies of academic data collection practices, according to a recent report from the national Youth Law Center. Current collection practices, the report authors argue, do not accurately measure student needs and outcomes.

    “A failure to design better metrics would be a disastrous choice on the part of California stakeholders to keep these students out of sight and out of mind,” the report’s authors wrote.

    The report, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” is a follow-up to a 2016 report that similarly found the state to be failing in its mission of providing students in juvenile detention with high-quality education via its disproportionate representation of multiple student populations, high rates of chronic absenteeism, low high school graduation rates, inaccurate or incomplete data, and more.

    The most recent report highlighted data from two school years — 2018-19 and 2021-22 — using publicly available data from the California Department of Education as well as public records requests sent to 10 county offices of education that oversee court schools, which are education facilities for youth in the juvenile justice system. Students enroll in court school as they await adjudication or disposition, after they’ve been committed to a juvenile facility, or if they’re in a home placement under the supervision of probation.

    During 2018-19, nearly 20,000 students attended court schools in the state. In the 2021-22 school year, the number dropped to 10,891. This decrease likely reflects the lower number of youth in the juvenile justice system, which has trended downward in recent years, per the report.

    California’s current academic data system does not capture one crucial data point — that the majority of students attend a court school for less than 31 instructional days, the report noted. This means that few students attend for an entire school year, which is typically the time frame that data collection practices are based on.

    What’s more, currently available data does not distinguish between academic needs and outcomes of students who spend days or weeks attending a court school versus those who attend for years.

    The report highlighted that it has long been anecdotally understood by researchers, probation staff and others working in education within the juvenile justice system that student attendance is often transitory given the dynamic nature of the legal system. The report’s authors argue that instructional programming should reflect this knowledge by calculating any partial credits earned by recording them in student transcripts once they leave juvenile detention. Students also need additional services to more seamlessly move back into their local schools.

    While the report’s authors acknowledge that less time in the juvenile justice system is most beneficial, they maintain that the time youth do spend attending a court school should be as minimally disruptive as possible to their education. Minimizing disruption, they said, could include a heightened focus on the transition process out of juvenile detention.

    An ongoing challenge with inadequate data collection is that improvements are difficult to highlight. For example, the report authors found that the college-going rate at 10 court schools exceeded the average for the state’s alternative schools.

    “The data doesn’t really care if it’s positive or negative. The limitations exist on both sides,” said Chris Middleton, an Equal Justice Works fellow at the Youth Law Center and a primary author of the report. “And I think here where a really positive story could be told, there’s still a set of limitations that’s very evident.”

    Much of the data contained in the report reflects a dire reality.

    For example, the overall number of youth in the juvenile justice system decreased significantly from 2018 to 2022, yet the number of students with disabilities rose from 20.1% to 29.8%.

    The report suggests a few potential reasons: improved screening and identification, improved communication between schools regarding disability status, or a failure to capitalize on the systemic changes that drove the decrease in youth detention statewide.

    The report’s authors also found that foster youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.

    While foster youth represent less than 1% of all students enrolled in California schools, in 2018-19 they made up 21.44% of court school enrollments; by 2021-22, they were almost 31 times overrepresented in court schools versus traditional schools. This data was either redacted or unavailable for 27 of 51 court schools.

    “The extremely high rate of disability status and the extremely high rate of foster care overlap,” Brady said. “We have long known that young people with disabilities are more likely to be impacted by the juvenile justice system. … The numbers for foster care were still surprising.”

    Similarly, high rates of students experiencing homelessness were found at some court schools, but the data for this population of students was particularly unclear; much was either redacted or unavailable. While foster youth status is centrally tracked by the state, homelessness is largely screened by school districts — an identification process that has only in recent years improved through legislation and enforcement.

    Regarding chronic absenteeism, the rate was 12.9% among court schools and 12.1% statewide during the 2018-19 school year, and by the 2021-22 school year, that rate was 16.8% among court schools and 30% statewide.

    Though lower than the state average, this was alarming for the report’s authors.

    Students who attend a local education agency for less than 31 days are not eligible to be considered chronically absent, which indicates that the true rate of chronic absences is much higher, given that most court school students attend for less than 31 instructional days, the report authors wrote.

    Additionally, the authors found while some students refuse to attend class, some cannot attend due to decisions made by probation staff. Two examples shared in the report include a practice in Los Angeles County “of barring entire living units of young people from attending school if one of them misbehaved” and refusal by probation staff to provide “timely transport” of students to school.

    According to the report, “A necessary element of addressing chronic absenteeism in court schools must include better documentation of missed instructional time and the reasons why students are absent from class.

    “Additionally, efficient and effective coordination between probation and school staff is critical to ensuring the basic educational responsibility of students being present in their classrooms is met.”

    While the rate of chronic absences was lower among court schools during the 2021-22 school year, it should be noted that the percentages across court schools varied. Some schools reported a rate of over 30% while other schools reported 0%.

    One recent allocation of $15 million toward post-secondary education programs for youth in the juvenile justice system might turn the tide on better understanding outcomes. The funding will create and expand community college programming inside juvenile facilities, and a portion is intended to go toward evaluating such programs.

    This ongoing funding “is the single most positive and exciting thing that’s going on in the area of juvenile justice and education right now,” said Lauren Brady, managing director of the legal team at Youth Law Center.

    Many of the issues with data collection that researchers found were due to unavailable data or redactions — when a group includes fewer than 10 students, data is withheld to protect student privacy.

    “We can’t tell the complete story. That’s where we’re at right now. … In order to truly transform the experience for students and to give them the best chance to have a brighter future, we have to be able to measure what they’re experiencing,” report co-author Middleton said. “And I think that we have the capability. I have faith in California and our institutions that we are able to properly develop these measures and ensure that the data’s actually being reported.”





    Source link

  • State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says

    State data collection systems failing students in juvenile detention, report says


    Wards at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility talk at a table in Merced Hall in Stockton, Calif.

    Credit: Lea Suzuki / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    California is failing to provide a high-quality education to students in the juvenile justice system by not addressing the inadequacies of academic data collection practices, according to a recent report from the national Youth Law Center. Current collection practices, the report authors argue, do not accurately measure student needs and outcomes.

    “A failure to design better metrics would be a disastrous choice on the part of California stakeholders to keep these students out of sight and out of mind,” the report’s authors wrote.

    The report, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” is a follow-up to a 2016 report that similarly found the state to be failing in its mission of providing students in juvenile detention with high-quality education via its disproportionate representation of multiple student populations, high rates of chronic absenteeism, low high school graduation rates, inaccurate or incomplete data, and more.

    The most recent report highlighted data from two school years — 2018-19 and 2021-22 — using publicly available data from the California Department of Education as well as public records requests sent to 10 county offices of education that oversee court schools, which are education facilities for youth in the juvenile justice system. Students enroll in court school as they await adjudication or disposition, after they’ve been committed to a juvenile facility, or if they’re in a home placement under the supervision of probation.

    During 2018-19, nearly 20,000 students attended court schools in the state. In the 2021-22 school year, the number dropped to 10,891. This decrease likely reflects the lower number of youth in the juvenile justice system, which has trended downward in recent years, per the report.

    California’s current academic data system does not capture one crucial data point — that the majority of students attend a court school for less than 31 instructional days, the report noted. This means that few students attend for an entire school year, which is typically the time frame that data collection practices are based on.

    What’s more, currently available data does not distinguish between academic needs and outcomes of students who spend days or weeks attending a court school versus those who attend for years.

    The report highlighted that it has long been anecdotally understood by researchers, probation staff and others working in education within the juvenile justice system that student attendance is often transitory given the dynamic nature of the legal system. The report’s authors argue that instructional programming should reflect this knowledge by calculating any partial credits earned by recording them in student transcripts once they leave juvenile detention. Students also need additional services to more seamlessly move back into their local schools.

    While the report’s authors acknowledge that less time in the juvenile justice system is most beneficial, they maintain that the time youth do spend attending a court school should be as minimally disruptive as possible to their education. Minimizing disruption, they said, could include a heightened focus on the transition process out of juvenile detention.

    An ongoing challenge with inadequate data collection is that improvements are difficult to highlight. For example, the report authors found that the college-going rate at 10 court schools exceeded the average for the state’s alternative schools.

    “The data doesn’t really care if it’s positive or negative. The limitations exist on both sides,” said Chris Middleton, an Equal Justice Works fellow at the Youth Law Center and a primary author of the report. “And I think here where a really positive story could be told, there’s still a set of limitations that’s very evident.”

    Much of the data contained in the report reflects a dire reality.

    For example, the overall number of youth in the juvenile justice system decreased significantly from 2018 to 2022, yet the number of students with disabilities rose from 20.1% to 29.8%.

    The report suggests a few potential reasons: improved screening and identification, improved communication between schools regarding disability status, or a failure to capitalize on the systemic changes that drove the decrease in youth detention statewide.

    The report’s authors also found that foster youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.

    While foster youth represent less than 1% of all students enrolled in California schools, in 2018-19 they made up 21.44% of court school enrollments; by 2021-22, they were almost 31 times overrepresented in court schools versus traditional schools. This data was either redacted or unavailable for 27 of 51 court schools.

    “The extremely high rate of disability status and the extremely high rate of foster care overlap,” Brady said. “We have long known that young people with disabilities are more likely to be impacted by the juvenile justice system. … The numbers for foster care were still surprising.”

    Similarly, high rates of students experiencing homelessness were found at some court schools, but the data for this population of students was particularly unclear; much was either redacted or unavailable. While foster youth status is centrally tracked by the state, homelessness is largely screened by school districts — an identification process that has only in recent years improved through legislation and enforcement.

    Regarding chronic absenteeism, the rate was 12.9% among court schools and 12.1% statewide during the 2018-19 school year, and by the 2021-22 school year, that rate was 16.8% among court schools and 30% statewide.

    Though lower than the state average, this was alarming for the report’s authors.

    Students who attend a local education agency for less than 31 days are not eligible to be considered chronically absent, which indicates that the true rate of chronic absences is much higher, given that most court school students attend for less than 31 instructional days, the report authors wrote.

    Additionally, the authors found while some students refuse to attend class, some cannot attend due to decisions made by probation staff. Two examples shared in the report include a practice in Los Angeles County “of barring entire living units of young people from attending school if one of them misbehaved” and refusal by probation staff to provide “timely transport” of students to school.

    According to the report, “A necessary element of addressing chronic absenteeism in court schools must include better documentation of missed instructional time and the reasons why students are absent from class.

    “Additionally, efficient and effective coordination between probation and school staff is critical to ensuring the basic educational responsibility of students being present in their classrooms is met.”

    While the rate of chronic absences was lower among court schools during the 2021-22 school year, it should be noted that the percentages across court schools varied. Some schools reported a rate of over 30% while other schools reported 0%.

    One recent allocation of $15 million toward post-secondary education programs for youth in the juvenile justice system might turn the tide on better understanding outcomes. The funding will create and expand community college programming inside juvenile facilities, and a portion is intended to go toward evaluating such programs.

    This ongoing funding “is the single most positive and exciting thing that’s going on in the area of juvenile justice and education right now,” said Lauren Brady, managing director of the legal team at Youth Law Center.

    Many of the issues with data collection that researchers found were due to unavailable data or redactions — when a group includes fewer than 10 students, data is withheld to protect student privacy.

    “We can’t tell the complete story. That’s where we’re at right now. … In order to truly transform the experience for students and to give them the best chance to have a brighter future, we have to be able to measure what they’re experiencing,” report co-author Middleton said. “And I think that we have the capability. I have faith in California and our institutions that we are able to properly develop these measures and ensure that the data’s actually being reported.”





    Source link

  • Cal State faculty striking next week in series of one-day actions

    Cal State faculty striking next week in series of one-day actions


    Students, faculty and staff protest a potential tuition increase across the California State University system on Sept 12, 2023.

    CREDIT: MICHAEL LEE-CHANG / STUDENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION

    Thousands of California State University faculty are preparing to shut down their classes and strike for one day next week as labor negotiations have stalled. 

    The series of one-day rolling strikes will begin at Cal Poly Pomona on Monday, with San Francisco State following on Tuesday, Cal State LA on Wednesday and Sacramento State on Thursday. Some faculty from other campuses are expected to join their colleagues and not teach on those days. 

    Salary remains the largest disagreement between the 23-campus Cal State system and the California Faculty Association, which represents about 29,000 professors and lecturers. The faculty is fighting for a 12% general salary increase for this year and has not specified the size of the raises it will seek after that. However, the university system is proposing a total increase of 15% over three years, including this year. 

    “A lot of what we’ve been offered by management is dependent on the state budget,” said Kate Ozment, an English professor at Cal Poly Pomona who will participate in the strike. “That doesn’t work for faculty who have to pay bills right now.”

    Many faculty members have student loan debt and want to start families or are struggling to support the families they do have, she said. 

    “So many of us chose to work for the CSU specifically because we believed in the mission and we believe in the student body,” Ozment said. “The CSU talks a really big game about recruiting first-generation faculty and underrepresented faculty, but the reality is those populations are less likely to have generational wealth to fall back on, and they’re way less likely to have had good jobs that helped them save before they went to graduate school.” 

    But CSU officials say the system can’t afford to give more than 5% a year to the faculty group. 

    “We recognize the need to increase compensation, and we are committed to doing so. But our resources are limited, and our financial commitments must be fiscally sustainable,” said Leora Freedman, CSU’s vice chancellor for human resources, during a call with media. “CSU is prepared to return to bargaining with CFA at any time.” 

    Freedman added that the university system has already successfully negotiated 5% annual increases with four other labor unions. However, negotiations have also stalled with Teamsters Local 2010 representing 1,100 of CSU’s skilled trades workers. The Teamsters also announced they plan to join the faculty in their strike. 

    “Any larger salary increases would force very difficult and painful decisions on our campuses and would trigger a reopening of salary negotiations with other labor unions,” Freedman said.

    In August, the faculty union and the CSU entered a state labor mediation process. A fact-finding report written by a third-party labor negotiator was released by both sides Friday. The negotiator ultimately recommended a 7% general increase in faculty salaries for one year while noting that this would be below the rate of inflation. 

    In an email to its members, the faculty association said it appreciated the fact-finder’s work but believes the 7% proposal is not enough to address the loss in buying power. 

    The fact-finding report also highlighted that reaching an agreement has been challenging because the union and the university system have “radically different views” of the ongoing financial situation. The faculty union, as well as some student groups, have argued that the university system can use its reserves to cover expenses like faculty salaries. However, CSU has stated that its reserves are intended for one-time emergency purposes and can’t go to salary increases.

    Much of the wage dispute comes as CSU has granted salary increases to campus presidents and hired the new system chancellor with a nearly $800,000 base salary, even as the system faced a budget deficit. 

    As for the series of one-day strikes, Ozment said at the start of this semester that she alerted her students to the potential disruption of their classes in her syllabus. 

    “Being a teacher is about transparency and consistency, so I felt that if I told them from the beginning about a possible disruption they would be emotionally and intellectually prepared for it,” she said. “My students have been really upset when they learn how many of their faculty are not paid a living wage, especially how many classes are taught by lecturers who can’t afford rent or are constantly driving from campus to campus in order to put food on the table.” 

    Ozment said she did receive some concerns about the impact of the strike on grading or the ability to graduate on time even though just one day’s classes will be canceled.  

    “I told them the same thing that I always tell them, which is: ‘I’ve got your back,’” she said. “There’s going to be a disruption. That’s the nature of the thing I have to disrupt, but I’m disrupting management. I’m not trying to disrupt (students). I encouraged them to be a part of it because the better the disruption, the quicker this is over and the quicker they get the education they deserve.” 

    Students have also received communications from the chancellor’s office about the strikes and have been encouraged to speak with their faculty members about the impact on their courses and grades. And not every faculty member will participate in the strike, Freedman predicted.

    The chancellor’s office is caught between “a rock and a hard place,” she added. 

    “We need to be responsible and protect the university and our students and our operations,” Freedman said. “At the same time, we also need to pay our employees fairly and competitively. We are in a very tough situation. I wish we had more money. I wish we had more money to use and to make different choices, but we’re very limited.”





    Source link

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts $19 billion state budget deficit for schools and community colleges

    Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts $19 billion state budget deficit for schools and community colleges


    California State Capitol

    Credit: Christopher Schodt for EdSource

    Schools and community colleges likely will face a $19 billion, three-year state funding deficit, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reported Thursday. The funding for TK-12 this year is $108 billion.

    The LAO’s annual projection is a forecast of what to expect from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first pass next month on the 2024-25 state budget. It reflects a decline in funding in Proposition 98, the 35-year-old constitutional amendment that determines the portion of the state’s general fund that must go to schools and community colleges. Complicating the picture is that about half of the education deficit covers money that schools and community colleges spent in 2022-23.

    The overall projected state general fund budget deficit of $68 billion could also jeopardize 5% annual increases for the University of California and California State University systems that Gov. Gavin Newsom had agreed to, as well as children’s services not covered by Proposition 98.

    The projected shortfall is the largest financial challenge schools and community colleges will face since the Great Recession budget of 2009. However, the LAO said that schools are better positioned now because of an education rainy-day fund that the Legislature was required to sock away in the record-high revenue years of the past half-decade.  

    Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, cautioned that state leaders must avoid the sort of harsh cuts made during the Great Recession. They included forcing districts to borrow billions of dollars with the expectation they would be repaid later.

    Fortunately, we have tools, including the Proposition 98 reserve, that we can leverage to protect Proposition 98 funding levels,” he said. “Even during fiscal times like these, public education must be prioritized and protected. We must continue to build on our state’s great momentum and investments that have been made these past few years.”

    The LAO report lays out several options to balance school spending, some of them jarring for schools and community colleges.

    One option is for the Legislature to preserve TK-14 funding approved last June and find the full $68 billion in cuts in the general fund. That would spare schools, but other programs for children outside of Proposition 98 funding would more likely be hit, including support and subsidized costs for child care.

    The opposite approach — the most painful to schools and community colleges and politically risky for legislators — would be to revise the 2022-23 and the current 2023-24 Proposition 98 funding downward to meet the minimum required by law. That would slash funding by $9 billion from 2022-23 and $6.3 billion for the current year, with a ripple effect of lowering the minimum guarantee for 2024-25 by $3.5 billion.

    The Legislature could ease the burden by draining the $8.1 billion rainy day fund. That would still leave about $10 billion in cuts. Billions of dollars in one-time funding, whether unspent so far this year, or allotted by the Legislature for the next several years, could be targets. These could include $1 billion as yet unallocated for developing community schools or money set aside for learning recovery and for after-school extended learning time. It could be politically unpopular for legislators to make significant school cuts in an election year. And they would have to approve a resolution that there is a fiscal emergency to reduce the Proposition 98 appropriation.

    The third alternative is somewhere in the middle — cuts to K-14 and cuts from other general fund programs.

    The Legislature had an inkling that economic conditions were worsening but no hard numbers when they passed the 2023-24 budget in June: The deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16. So they didn’t know the impact on state revenues in 2022-23 and 2023-24 from slowing home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and from declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.

    The LAO’s forecast for state revenues for the general fund shows a big drop in 2022-23, a flat line in 2023-24 and a slight uptick in the next fiscal year. But the gray area shows the possibility of an additional decline or a quick recovery.
    Source: The Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    The LAO cautioned that economic conditions are volatile, and revenues will remain unpredictable. A graph of its revenue outlook shows slow growth in 2024-25, with a large gray penumbra of uncertainty above and below that line.

    Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento, said he was pleased that the LAO listed several options and did not recommend resetting funding to meet the Proposition 98 minimum, with “devastating cuts.”

    “The numbers are worrisome, but the approaches laid out are significant efforts to demonstrate how lawmakers might work to protect basic investment in education funding,” he said.





    Source link

  • What the new state budget holds in store for education

    What the new state budget holds in store for education


    California State Capitol in Sacramento.

    Credit: Juliana Yamada / AP

    This story was updated June 28 to reflect that Gov. Newsom signed the budget bills.

    Top Takeaways
    • Education remains largely protected despite a weak budget.
    • Compromise allowed UC and CSU to dodge large proposed cuts.
    • TK-12 schools see new funding for early literacy, after-school and summer school, and teacher recruitment and retention.

    Education will remain mostly shielded from the pain of weak projected state revenues in a 2025-26 budget compromise between Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature. The deal means that public universities, in particular, will dodge bigger cuts proposed by Newsom in January.

    The Legislature passed a budget on Friday, and Newsom signed a series of bills later in the day. They include Assembly Bill 121, which includes details on TK-12 and early childhood education; AB 123, which covers higher education, and AB 102, the overall budget.

    TK-12 schools will receive significant one-time funding for new or expanded programs, thanks in part to higher revenue in the current year than the Legislature expected.

    The surplus, along with deferrals – an accounting gimmick in which some payments to districts are delayed – will help bridge the gap from a drop in revenue expected in 2025-26. It will enable the state to keep transitional kindergarten on track to fully expand to all 4-year-olds this fall.

    Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors, called it “a remarkable budget in a remarkably bad budget year.”

    “There are so many really, really painful cuts being made on the non-school side of the budget,” said Gordon, who lobbies on behalf of hundreds of school districts statewide. “TK-12 does very, very well in comparison.”

    How well are schools funded in this budget?

    Schools and community colleges are guaranteed a minimum level of funding each year — typically 40% of the state revenues — thanks to Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988. Funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges is projected to drop $5 billion from 2024-25 to about $114.6 billion.

    The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in this budget is 2.3%. The federal formula that determines it feels anemic in a state with such high housing costs.

    “A COLA at that level, while relatively normal, will feel like a cut at the local level because fixed costs at a school district rise each year 4.5-5% without making any adjustments — just doing what they did the year before,” said Michael Fine, CEO of FCMAT, the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team. “That has to be made up locally some other way.”

    However, a new, one-time $1.7 billion discretionary block grant should help districts address any shortfalls created by declining enrollments and rising expenses.

    How about universities?

    The University of California and California State University systems were mostly spared. Neither system faces cuts, but 3% of their base funding will be deferred until 2026-27. That amounts to $129.7 million for UC and $143.8 million for CSU. In the meantime, both systems will be able to access a no-interest loan to cover the difference in 2025-26.

    The budget also defers previously promised 5% funding increases for both systems until future years. In 2022, Newsom pledged 5% budget increases for UC and CSU in exchange for the systems working toward a number of goals, including increasing graduation rates and enrolling more California residents. Rather than getting those 5% increases in 2025-26, 2% of the hike will be deferred for both systems until 2026-27 and the remaining 3% will be deferred until 2028-29.

    There is also $45 million in new funding for Sonoma State University to help support a plan to turn around the campus, which has been forced to eliminate about two dozen degree programs and discontinue its NCAA Division II sports because of CSU cost reductions. 

    Who are the winners and losers in this budget?

    New initiatives for early literacy and a new mathematics framework are getting a lot of financial support. There’s a robust expansion of after-school and summer programming, as well as support for new teachers. More details about those are below.

    One of the biggest losers in this budget is ethnic studies. There’s no funding for the 2021 legislative mandate that was supposed to be offered at high schools this upcoming school year. It was supposed to be a required part of a high school diploma beginning in 2029-30.

    This is “extremely disappointing” for advocates of ethnic studies, according to Theresa Montaño, a professor of Chicano Studies at California State University, Northridge, who advocates for ethnic studies through the university level.

    Some districts will move ahead with their own ethnic studies requirements, but Montaño is worried that many districts will see it as an excuse to drop it altogether. Montaño said supporters will continue to advocate for legislators to fund ethnic studies, particularly through the professional development of teachers new to the discipline.

    Montaño doesn’t know specifically why the initiative was dropped from the budget, but she has heard rumblings that controversies in local districts and the federal government’s push to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives may have contributed to its demise.

    How is the budget balanced?

    Accounting maneuvers balanced the budget mostly through a combination of deferrals and one-time funding.

    The Prop. 98 rainy day fund will provide $405 million, which will be completely depleted by the end of 2025-26. The budget also defers $1.88 billion of Prop. 98 funds a few weeks after the end of this budget year.

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office, which offers nonpartisan fiscal analysis, isn’t a fan of these methods, and criticized them in the Governor’s May Revision. It recommended that the budget avoid deferrals and instead reject some of the new one-time spending proposals. That advice was largely not heeded in this final budget.

    Why is this such a tight budget year?

    California’s budget is always volatile due to its reliance on the whims of the stock market and the wealthy. We’re not in a recession, but federal tariff increases have created economic uncertainty. Newsom blamed federal economic changes for the shortfall between his January and May proposals.

    Devastating fires in Los Angeles have also, to a lesser extent, affected the state’s economy and resulted in increased state spending. 

    The outlook for the budget may worsen further, depending on whether there are cuts to education at the federal level.

    How else did community colleges fare?

    On top of the cost-of-living adjustment, the budget features new funding for the state’s system of 116 community colleges. That includes:

    • $100 million to support enrollment growth in 2024-25 and $139.9 million to do the same in 2025-26
    • $20 million for emergency financial aid
    • $15 million for Dream Resource Liaisons, college staff who support undocumented students
    • $25 million for the Career Passport initiative

    However, the budget also reduces some funding for the system, including cutting $150.5 million for the Common Cloud Data Platform, a project to help colleges share data with one another. 

    What about financial aid?

    The Cal Grant, the state’s main program for financial aid, will get more funding as a result of caseload increases. Funding for the Cal Grant will be $2.8 billion in 2025-26. 

    What is the state doing to recruit teachers?

    Over the past decade, the state has allocated $1.6 billion for strategies to counter the teacher shortage, which seem to be effective. One lingering question has been whether that priority will continue after Newsom leaves office.

    Newsom and the Legislature answered with $464 million in the 2025-26 budget — enough to continue three recruitment programs and add a new one, paying candidates seeking teaching credentials $10,000 stipends for student teaching. Unpaid student teaching has been cited as a primary reason teacher candidates fail to complete their credentials. The budget includes:

    • $300 million in new funding for student teacher stipends
    • $70 million to extend the Teacher Residency Program
    • $64 million to extend the Golden State Teacher Grant program, which offers college tuition for those who agree to teach in hard-to-staff subjects or underserved districts
    • $30 million to extend the National Board Certification program, which offers a professional learning community, pathways to leadership, and tools to deepen teachers’ impact

    How is California boosting early literacy?

    Newsom this year threw his support behind major legislation to change how children are taught to read, and is jump-starting the process with substantial funding. Advocates wish this had happened a few years ago when the state was swimming in post-Covid funding, but nonetheless are thrilled.

    Assembly Bill 1454, which is likely to pass the Legislature this fall, calls for the state to choose evidence-based textbooks and professional development programs that include phonics and strategies of “structured literacy.” The budget will include $200 million for training teachers in transitional kindergarten through grade 5 — enough money to reach about two-thirds of teachers, said Marshall Tuck, CEO of the advocacy nonprofit EdVoice, co-sponsor of the bill. And it will increase funding for hiring and training literacy coaches by $215 million, on top of the $250 million already appropriated.

    “Gov. Newsom has made early literacy a state priority in a tight budget year when there are few new expenditures. Investing nearly a half-billion dollars is great for kids,” Tuck said.

    What about math?

    Math instruction received some new money in the budget, although not of the magnitude of literacy. The $30 million in 2025-26 for professional development will be on top of the $20 million last year for training math coaches and school leaders in the new math frameworks adopted two years ago. County offices of education, working with the UC-backed California Mathematics Project, will lead the effort. An additional $7.5 million will create a new Math Network.

    The effort shows potential, but “implementation and rollout will be key,” said Kyndall Brown, executive director of the Mathematics Project. It will take hundreds of millions of dollars to provide for what’s very much needed: a math specialist in every elementary school, he added.

    What does the budget include for transitional kindergarten?

    The budget includes $2.1 billion to fund the final year of expansion of transitional kindergarten, an extra grade before kindergarten, which will be available to all 4-year-olds beginning in the fall. This includes $1.2 billion ongoing to reduce the ratio in TK classrooms from 1 adult for every 12 children to 1 adult for every 10 children.

    How is the budget tackling the state’s child care crisis?

    The budget provides $89.3 million to increase rates for subsidies provided to all child care and preschool providers that serve low-income children.

    It does not increase the number of children to be served by subsidized child care beyond the current year’s number. The Legislature set a goal to serve 200,000 new children by 2028, compared to 2021-22, but so far has only increased the number of subsidies available by 146,000.

    The budget also reduces the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program by $30 million. This program allows foster care families to have immediate access to child care for children placed in their care. The reduction is less drastic than what had been proposed by the governor.

    How did after-school and summer programs fare?

    More families will be able to take advantage of after-school and summer programs thanks to increases in the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program. These programs both extend the learning day for students and serve as a form of child care for working families.

    At the press conference for his May revision, Newsom touted this expansion as a “big damn deal.”

    This budget lowers the threshold for school districts to be eligible for this funding. Previously, only school districts where 75% of their students were socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners or foster youth were eligible. The budget drops that eligibility cutoff to 55%. 

    Will universal school meals continue?

    This budget continues to guarantee two free school meals a day for every child. There is also $160 million in one-time funding for kitchen infrastructure that improves a school’s capacity to serve minimally processed and locally grown food. That funding can also be used for that locally grown food itself. Of that, $10 million is specifically dedicated to nutrition staff recruitment and retention. 

    Does this budget address any cuts to education by the Trump administration?

    No.

    Education funding has been a major target of the second Trump administration. This includes some cuts — many challenged in court — to federal grants for teaching preparation and research. It also includes a bid to shrink and ultimately shutter the U.S. Department of Education. The administration has also specifically threatened California’s funding because of its inclusion of transgender students in athletics or sexual education.

    But you won’t find any attempt in the state budget to respond to what is happening in Washington. That’s partially a consequence of it being a weak budget year, but it’s also the right thing to do, despite the fact that educators are on edge about potential cuts, according to Gordon, who is a consultant for hundreds of school districts in the state.

    “If the state rushed in and paid for everything, it lets [the federal government] off the hook,” he said.

    Is there money for schools affected by the Los Angeles wildfires?

    The fires affected both school enrollment and taxes, which won’t be paid by those affected until fall. The budget sets aside $9.7 million to backfill taxes. TK-12 schools, including charter schools, that rely on attendance for their state funding will be held harmless for any major dips.

    Graphics by Andrew Reed.





    Source link

  • Rainy day fund would bail out schools, community colleges in Newsom’s 2024-25 state budget

    Rainy day fund would bail out schools, community colleges in Newsom’s 2024-25 state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom discusses his proposed state budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, during a news conference in Sacramento on Jan. 10, 2024.

    Credit: Office of the Governor

    Gov. Gavin Newsom would protect schools and community colleges from the brunt of an $11.3 billion projected drop in state revenue for education, under a proposed 2024-25 state budget he released on Wednesday. The budget calls for covering all current levels of funding and existing commitments for new and expanded programs, plus a less than 1% cost-of-living increase for next year.

    The three-year decline in revenue, both for schools and the overall $38.7 billion in the state general fund, is $30 billion less than the Legislative Analyst’s Office had projected a month ago, easing the burden of balancing the budget and avoiding the possibility of drastic budget cuts or late payments — at least for community colleges and TK-12.

    However, Newsom is proposing to defer the promised 5% increases in revenue to both the University of California and California State University systems. UC and CSU would borrow that funding this year and get reimbursed in next year’s budget.

    “We are deferring but not delaying, and there’s a distinction in the law that will allow UC and CSU just for one year to be able to borrow against that commitment,” Newsom said.

    Newsom would protect schools and community colleges by withdrawing about $7 billion from the $10.8 billion TK-14 rainy day fund to cover the current year’s shortfall and meet the minimum obligation in 2024-25. The state would not seek reimbursement for what turned out to be funding above the minimum Proposition 98 statutory obligation for the prior two years.

    Proposition 98 is the funding formula determining the portion of the state’s general fund that must be spent on TK-12 and community colleges. With the addition of transitional kindergarten, that share will rise about one percentage point to 39.5% of the general fund. In 2024-25, Proposition 98 funds will be $109.1 billion. That would be about $3.5 billion more than the revised projection for 2023-24, reflecting expectations of improved state revenues in the next fiscal year.

    The Legislature was handicapped when it passed the 2023-24 budget last June. There were indications but no hard numbers that economic conditions were worsening, because the deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16 in response to massive flooding last winter. As it turned out, state revenues had fallen sharply from slower home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.

    But with the stock market rebounding since then, Newsom said more optimistic revenue projections for next year and savings in state government operations would account for two-thirds of the difference between the state Department of Finance revenue projections and the legislative analyst’s forecast. A remedy for dealing with a two-year, $10-plus billion drop in Proposition 98 funding would account for the rest of the disparity. In a news conference, Newsom chided the “ready, fire, aim” projections of the news media and others for assuming a more dire financial outlook without the latest data.

    Many districts, nonetheless, will face financial stress. More than two-thirds are facing declining enrollment, which will lower their share of state funding. And the 1% inflation adjustment for 2024-25 will not cover cost increases and, for some districts, negotiated staff raises. Districts are receiving an 8% cost-of-living adjustment this year, down from a 13% bump in 2022-23.

    Newsom’s January budget will now undergo six months of negotiations with the Legislature over their priorities. Revenue updates by June will reveal whether his optimism will hold up, and what the Legislature must do if it doesn’t.

    Newsom reiterated that the state would uphold its education commitments to schools using record post-Covid revenues. These include the addition of transitional kindergarten and appropriating $8 billion combined to create community schools and add summer programs and after-school hours for low-income students.  These would continue to be funded at promised levels.

    Also surviving is an additional $300 million for the state’s poorest schools. The governor said that this proposal, known as an “equity multiplier,” is also a high priority by the California Legislative Black Caucus. Another priority that Newsom mentioned is funding for the UCLA Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.

    “In the face of a large deficit, it’s reassuring that the governor committed to maintaining his transformative investments in education, including community schools, universal TK, and the equity multiplier,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney for the student advocacy nonprofit Public Advocates. “That the governor particularly called them out with a ‘don’t touch’ message to the Legislature indicates he’ll fight hard to maintain them.”

    New ideas for mitigating student absences

    Despite $6 billion in one-time state funding for post-pandemic learning recovery, chronic absences soared to 30% in 2022-23 and remained high last year. Statewide post-pandemic test scores also plummeted in math and English language arts in 2022-23 statewide and almost remained flat last year.

    Recognizing that students can’t learn when they aren’t in school, Newsom is proposing changes in the law that will allow school districts to provide attendance recovery programs in response to chronic absences and loss in learning because of floods, wildfires and other climate conditions. Districts, in turn, would benefit from offsetting revenues lost from student absences. The new law would specify that districts could fund Saturday programs and intercessions to respond to students with many absences.

    Districts would be required to offer students access to remote instruction, including enabling families to enroll in neighboring districts “for emergencies” lasting five or more days. A budget trailer bill will spell out details, including whether students could seek tutoring under this option.

    The budget calls for $6 million to research hybrid and remote learning and develop new models.

    “We have to use the experiences of recent years to think forward for ensuring that kids can gain access to the learning and instructional opportunities that they deserve,” said Hedy Chang, founder and executive director of Attendance Works, a group that tracks chronic absenteeism.

    Addressing a teacher shortage

    Newsom also proposes to relax some requirements to become a teacher, due to a persistent teacher shortage. Teacher candidates will no longer have to take a test or coursework to prove they have the basic skills to earn a credential, according to the state summary of the budget. The state will now recognize completion of a bachelor’s degree as satisfying the basic-skills requirement.

    Currently, teacher candidates must pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test, a combination of other tests, or complete specific coursework to prove they have the basic skills to teach. The CBEST tests reading, math and writing skills and is usually taken before a student is accepted into a teacher preparation program.

    The governor’s budget calls for streamlining the process of credentialing aspiring arts teachers in response to the passage of Proposition 28, the groundbreaking arts education initiative. It directs the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education authorization for career technical education teachers. This pathway currently only exists for secondary education, and many arts education advocates have pressed to expand it to elementary school classrooms.

    “Governor Newsom’s proposal is an important step in the right direction,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “The money from Prop 28 is the enabler, but students will only benefit when schools use it to hire great arts teachers in all grade levels.”

    The budget summary also refers to several other proposals that will make it easier to become a teacher, although it offered no additional details about those proposals.

    The budget proposal also includes:

    • $20 million as the first step toward implementing the long-debated math framework that the State Board of Education adopted last July. A county office of education would be chosen to work with math experts and nonprofits to train math coaches and leaders, who in turn would teach high-quality instruction. State law would spell out that existing state learning loss funding should focus on teacher training in math.
    • $5 million to increase support for the California Cradle-to-Career Data System.
    • $122 million to increase funding for universal school meals.

    The budget contains good and bad news for districts seeking immediate funding for facilities. Newsom would reduce the General Fund by delaying $550 million for new and retrofitted facilities for adding transitional kindergarten. And he proposes to cut $500 million he committed to the state School Facilities Program, which has run out of state funding. However, Newsom committed to negotiate a multibillion-dollar school facilities bond with the Legislature for the November 2024 ballot.

    Questions on the size of the bond needed to win voter support and whether it should include higher education must be answered, Newsom said. “All that’s being worked on, but a real issue to address is that we’ve exhausted the previous bond, and it’s important to advance a new one.”

    Higher education

    In 2022, Newsom made agreements with both UC and CSU to give annual 5% base funding increases over five years in exchange for increasing enrollment and improving graduation rates.

    Under his latest proposal, UC and CSU would borrow a combined $499 million this year — $258.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU. That includes this year’s 5% increase for the systems as well as $31 million for UC to increase enrollment of resident undergraduate students.

    If lawmakers agree to Newsom’s plan, the two systems would receive two years’ worth of 5% budget increases in next year’s state budget to make up for this year’s deferrals.

    “These decisions will position our state and its students for a prosperous future once budgetary challenges subside,” Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, said in a statement Wednesday. “During economic downturns, the University of California’s role in California’s economic development is even more important, and we are grateful to state leaders for their visionary leadership and commitment to maintaining the funding compact.”

    Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said that given the state’s financial challenges, the governor’s plan acknowledges his financial commitment to CSU students while also attempting to address the state’s budget situation. But the proposal also puts the system in a precarious position. 

    “This proposal would deliver the same level of funding per fiscal year as originally outlined in the compact, although with additional risk to the CSU if the state’s budget condition further erodes and the state cannot fulfill this restructured commitment,” Garcia said. “We will explore our funding options to advance compact-related goals during the one-year delay and will proceed with financial prudence as we review the impacts and implications of this budget proposal.” 

    Newsom’s spending plan would not fund a significant expansion of the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid program. He and lawmakers agreed in 2022 to overhaul the Cal Grant beginning in 2024-25 by simplifying the awards and extending eligibility to more students, but only if state revenues were sufficient to do so. With the state facing a shortfall, the governor is not committing funding to that expansion, though negotiations on the issue are expected to continue through the spring. A spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance said Wednesday that the department will wait until May to make a final determination.

    Newsom also proposed doing away with a program that would provide interest-free loans to colleges and universities to build affordable student housing. In total, that would save $494 million for the state’s 2024-25 budget: $194 million that was appropriated last year plus $300 million this and every year through 2028-29.

    Mike Fong, chair of the Assembly’s higher education committee, said in a statement that he’s disappointed that Newsom proposed eliminating the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and didn’t include funding to reform the Cal Grant. 

    “We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education,” Fong said.

    Early education   

    The budget largely holds steady for early education and child care. It maintains ongoing funding for the newly expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and earmarks $1.7 billion toward long-awaited increased pay for child care providers. It also continues to gradually add subsidized child care slots, with about $2 billion going to fund about 146,000 new slots to be filled by 2024-25, toward an ultimate goal of 200,000 new slots.

    “Overall, the proposed budget stays true to the historic investments California has made in pre-K and child care,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit organization that runs many Bay Area child care and preschool centers. “Yet schools and child care providers are struggling to expand due to a lack of staff, facilities funding, and post-pandemic challenges. We must do more now to support this growth, otherwise low-income babies and preschoolers will be left out.”

    EdSource reporters Michael Burke, Ashley S. Smith, Mallika Seshadri, Betty Márquez Rosales, Karen D’Souza, Diana Lambert and Emma Gallegos contributed to the article. 





    Source link

  • Advocates, education leaders speak out on Newsom’s initial plan for state budget

    Advocates, education leaders speak out on Newsom’s initial plan for state budget


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom presented the first pass on the 2024-25 state budget.

    It includes his ideas for addressing an $11 billion drop in funding for TK-12 and community colleges and a larger projected general fund deficit affecting child care and higher education.

    We asked a cross-section of education leaders and advocates for their initial impressions of the governor’s proposals.

    Their contributions reflect diverse perspectives on education, from preschool through CSU and UC.

    What follows are excerpts of conversations and public statements. We will seek other voices as budget negotiations between Newsom and the Legislature, tempered by revenue updates, continue through the budget’s passage in June.

    — John Fensterwald, Editor-At-Large


    Yolie Flores, CEO and president, Families in Schools

    “We are deeply concerned about the governor’s proposal to lower teacher requirements to address teacher shortages. Parents want, and their children deserve, highly qualified educators, especially in the face of pandemic-related learning loss and alarming literacy rates among third graders. 

    Lowering standards would be inconceivable in addressing shortages in the nursing and medical professions. Instead of lowering standards, parents would support better incentives for teachers, improved working conditions, and investments in teacher training programs so that “lowering requirements” stops being the go-to measure. 

    We urge the governor to prioritize the long-term well-being of our students by maintaining rigorous qualifications for educators.”

    Jeff Freitas, president, California Federation of Teachers

    “The governor’s budget presented a $38 billion deficit over a three-year span, and he has staved off steep cuts. Not saying that there aren’t some cuts to education, but steep cuts to education didn’t happen, demonstrating that public education is a priority for him, which we appreciate.

    The budget doesn’t address some of the issues that we need to address in education — the staffing crisis, as well as student services that we need to increase in support of all of our education system. And when I talk about public education, I’m talking early childhood through the university system. So we have housing issues for our students at the higher ed level as well as other student support services at the K-12 level.

    We’re the fifth-largest economy in the world. We should have an equivalent education system that matches being the fifth largest economy in the world. We don’t have that. And so we believe that legislators and the leaders and the governor need to be bold and take action. Taxes or revenue should not be taken off the table. That’s the only way to achieve what we think is a fully funded education in California.”

    Manny Rodriguez, director of policy and advocacy for California, The Institute for College Access & Success

    (Rodriguez is addressing the proposal to eliminate the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Program and the failure of the budget to act on reforming the Cal Grant program.)

    “We see housing investments, especially affordable student housing investment programs, as the different side of the same coin on college affordability. On one side, you have those direct drivers of cost — housing, books, supplies. On the other side, there is financial aid: how to get dollars into the pockets of students to pay for the drivers of cost.

    If we can’t guarantee investments to help students with housing now or into the future because of the budget situation, and we’re not investing in financial aid, it will be harder for students to afford the continually rising cost of attending college.”

    Scott Moore, CEO, Kidango, a nonprofit operator of child care and preschool centers  

    “Overall, the proposed budget stays true to the historic investments California has made in pre-K and child care. Yet schools and child care providers are struggling to expand due to a lack of staff, facilities funding, and post-pandemic challenges.  We must do more now to support this growth, otherwise, low income babies and preschoolers will be left out.”

    John Gray,  president and CEO, School Services of California, a consulting firm

     “Although still somewhat skeptical, many in the education world must be sighing in relief with the governor’s budget. We had been expecting the worst since the (Legislative Analyst’s Office’s) economic forecast. The governor’s budget would benefit from historic rainy day funds to address spending levels exceeding revenues generated in 2022-23.

    While they won’t experience mid-year cuts, deferrals, or unfunded COLAs, many districts will nonetheless face the combination of a COLA below 1% and significant declining enrollment. Their reprieve may be short-lived.”

    Lance Christensen, vice president of education policy, California Policy Center

    “The governor presented a budget that is delusional, because he calls for a budget emergency to be declared without declaring the budget emergency. It will require the Legislature to do a bunch of things he’s not willing to do himself. The budget will require further, deeper cuts in Proposition 98 funding, and I don’t believe that when the April personal income tax revenues come out, the state situation’s going to be any better. 

    It will be fascinating to watch what will happen in the Legislature, where nearly one-quarter of the legislators have not had to deal with a budget problem yet. We have a new speaker and new Senate president pro tem, too. We will see what their priorities are. Unfortunately, I think legislators will leave a lot of the hard choices to the local school boards, especially if they have to go back to temporary revenue anticipation notes and other borrowing while the state defers payments.”

    Sara Noguchi, superintendent of Modesto City Schools

    “As California faces a deep revenue shortfall, I’m encouraged that the proposal continues to prioritize the investments that we’ve made over the last five years. Maintaining the Local Control Funding Formula is also encouraging.

    I am interested in the career education master plan and am encouraged by what might come out of that as we expand opportunities for our students to learn about and prepare for the jobs of the future that will fuel our economy in California and beyond. I am pleased that the governor promised to continue the commitment to work with the Legislature for a facilities bond. It is greatly needed, especially as we add another grade with transitional kindergarten.”

    Anya Hurwitz, executive director, SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language)

    “Everybody is pleasantly surprised that, at least at this stage, education overall seems to be at less of a dark and awful cliff than what was predicted. I’m appreciative for the governor and his commitment to education and particularly the focus on equity.

    We want to continue to underscore the need to invest in and recognize that multilingual education requires specific attention and focus, and so will continue to beat the drum around the need to prioritize multilingual education and understand that it requires commitment and investment. If we’re ever going to get to the vision of the English Learner Roadmap or certainly the Global California 2030 Initiative, that’s going to require a concerted effort. There’s a lot more work to be done.”

    Josh Hagen, policy director, Campaign for College Opportunity

    “The governor has largely protected higher education from funding cuts. The bottom line is that the funding will be there. It may be through a deferral, it may be coming next year, but that work can ultimately continue, and we’re really grateful for that.” 

    The theme for us (in negotiating with the Legislature) is going to be promoting stability and maintaining those investments.”

    Martha Hernandez, executive director, Californians Together

    “We’re applauding the governor’s commitment to education. We did see a commitment to universal TK, before- and after-school programs and, of course, the equity multiplier.

    There’s a commitment to expanding the teacher pipeline, and we’re hopeful that this also includes the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development grant. We got funding, but we know that with the budget deficit, things can get scooped up, so we’re hoping that it remains in the budget.

    We’re very focused on the math framework. We want to make sure that materials and professional development related to the math framework include access and equity to the math content.”

    Alberto Carlvaho, superintendent, Los Angeles Unified

    “We thank Governor Gavin Newsom for proposing a state budget that protects school funding and continues the course of implementing recent initiatives such as Universal Transitional Kindergarten and universal school meals.

    The revised 2024-25 cost-of-living-adjustment is significantly lower than currently reflected in Los Angeles Unified’s multiyear projection, which will make it more challenging as school districts transition away from the one-time Covid-relief federal funding.  We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and the Legislature to implement fiscal solutions that recognize varying economic realities across the state such as cost of living and inflation, and minimize the impact and disruption to our school communities.”

    Vincent Stewart, vice president, policy and programs, Children Now

    “While we recognize the deficit affecting the governor’s budget proposal, we can’t continue the decades-long trend of de-prioritizing California’s kids that has led to alarmingly poor outcomes. Education and early care, from preschool to post-secondary, should be first in line for any increases and last for any decreases. 

    We applaud the governor’s prioritization of child care rate reform, youth mental health, and educational equity through continued investment in LCFF, TK, and higher education compacts. We are, however, concerned with eliminating the 24/7 hotline for youth in foster care, taking back dollars from state preschool, and a low COLA triggering possible teacher layoffs. We look forward to working with the governor and Legislature to restore these cuts and secure California’s investment in its future.”

    Mala Batra, CEO, Aspire Public Schools 

    “We serve some of the state’s most vulnerable students and always favor bringing an equity lens to funding. We are pleased funding for community schools and expanded learning opportunities, especially following the height of the Covid pandemic, are preserved.  

    There’s a lot of public facilities funding that we’re not eligible for. It would be really helpful to see that SB 740 in particular (establishing annual grants to offset facility costs for charter schools that service a high percentage of low-income students) remains intact.  Not having access to many of the public facilities, bond offerings and various funding streams makes that a critical funding stream for us.”

    Eric Premack, executive director, Charter Schools Development Center 

    “I’d call the governor’s budget proposal “blessedly boring.” We would like to see more on the teacher supply front, especially to streamline California’s Byzantine teacher credentialing mandates in lieu of nickel-and-dime programs that don’t address the needless complexity. 

    We also look forward to seeing the details of his instructional-time proposals. California is stuck in the Stone Age regarding attendance accounting and punishes schools for making efforts to provide more instruction. There are a number of things in current law that make it really hard to provide extra instruction for students. 

    The state is spending a tremendous amount of money funding what we call phantom kids for declaring enrollment protection. In our view, money is increasingly being used to delay inevitable cuts rather than to prepare for action and make the changes needed to adjust to a smaller student population. That money should be redirected into providing additional instruction.”

    Sarah Lillis, executive director, Teach Plus California

    “We understand that this is just the beginning of the budget process, but we are pleased and appreciate the governor’s ongoing commitment to our students and transforming TK-12. As the conversation continues and the understanding of resources may change, we hope that that commitment continues. It becomes harder and harder to ensure that we’re protecting and serving our students, in particular our most marginalized students, when it comes to making cuts or deferrals or belt-tightening.

    Our teachers are pleased about the ongoing commitment to invest in a sustainable and diverse educational workforce. And in particular, we are pleased there is a pot of funds for professional development around the new math frameworks. The transformational potential of some of these policy changes requires ongoing investment in the training of support of teachers and educators to implement that change.”

    Rachel Ruffalo, senior director of Strategic Advocacy, Education Trust-West 

    “We are relieved that Governor Newsom isn’t addressing the state budget deficit by mortgaging the futures of our students of color and multilingual learners. Instead, we appreciate that he has chosen to protect and, in some cases, expand recent leaps forward in educational justice. 

    We appreciate that the governor has chosen to shield and even accelerate several promising TK-12 programs that are on the cusp of benefiting students of color. We are especially glad to see that his budget proposal would rightfully protect the rollout of key TK-12 initiatives (e.g. transitional kindergarten, expanded learning opportunities, and the Golden State Pathways Program) and expand the implementation of the new math framework. We will continue to work with lawmakers to ensure that these equity-centered programs are prioritized. “

    Mike Fong (D-Alhambra), chair, Assembly Higher Education Committee 

    “I appreciate the work on this draft budget and understand the difficulty and challenges that the 2024-25 fiscal year presents; however, I am disappointed in the governor’s proposal to eliminate the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and provide no allocation to implement the 2022 Cal Grant Reform Act. We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education.

    I avidly support the governor’s goal to ensure our students are prepared to enter the workforce. Developing a Master Plan for Career Education will require collaboration with diverse stakeholders and the Legislature.  I look forward to working with the governor’s office and all parties on this critical issue.”

    Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

    “I am grateful to Governor Newsom that there are no major reductions or pullbacks in vital education programs. By preserving our Educator Workforce Investments, Community Schools Investments, and Learning Recovery Investments, we ensure that our students, families, and educators have what they need to improve literacy, math proficiency, and social–emotional wellness. We are pleased to see the Proposition 98 guarantee slightly up from its projected value but disappointed in the Average Daily Attendance decline, with COLA at .76 percent when it was projected to be at 3.5 percent.

    Even as we tighten our belts in a tough budget year, we refuse to return to the days when children went hungry at school simply due to missing paperwork or a lack of lunch money. We must show moral clarity about the resources our children need to learn, grow, and thrive, and this budget reflects that clarity.” 

    Albert Gonzalez, president, California School Boards Association

    “The governor reinforced his commitment to education by funding schools above the Proposition 98 Minimum Guarantee, maintaining the Local Control Funding Formula at existing levels, providing for the full rollout of universal transitional kindergarten, preserving resources for student mental health, safeguarding previous gains in special education funding and signaling support for a potential school facilities bond on the November 2024 ballot. 

    The budget proposal isn’t perfect — we’re concerned to see a cost-of-living adjustment below 1%, reduced school facilities funding, the continued use of unfunded mandates, and a lack of consideration for the unique challenges faced by small, rural and basic aid school districts. Yet, overall, the governor’s decision to tap into the Proposition 98 Reserve and avoid cuts to critical funding for TK-12 schools and early education demonstrates a fairly prudent approach during a difficult budget year.”





    Source link