اینترنت

برچسب: State

  • Homeless youth advocates call for dedicated state funding, local flexibility

    Homeless youth advocates call for dedicated state funding, local flexibility


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Advocates are calling for $13 million in dedicated state funding and for the adoption of a bill that would support homeless students and youth exiting foster care as schools face the expiration of significant pandemic-era federal funding this year.

    The call comes from the Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law, which is also co-sponsoring Assembly Bill 2137.

    The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, proposes making it easier for local organizations that serve foster youth to provide direct services. It also mandates those same programs be informed when foster students opt out of applying for federal financial aid, and it requires districts to detail how they plan to increase identification of students experiencing homelessness.

    Youth exiting the foster care system face a disproportionate risk of homelessness, and some state programs dedicated to offering them housing support would be eliminated if the state’s proposed budget is approved as it currently stands.

    “If we do not have the basic infrastructure in the state to identify them and do any preventative work, we are going to continue to fail this population and then see chronic adult homelessness grow, which is the issue everyone says they care about,” said Margaret Olmos, director of the National Center for Youth Law’s compassionate education systems team in California.

    The proposed funding allocation would partially replace the federal money — which must be obligated before October and spent by January next year — while the bill seeks to implement three provisions, directing existing resources toward supporting foster and homeless youth while working to increase their high school graduation and college enrollment rates.

    The bill “really highlights the need that we have to do all we can … to be very intentional about our foster youth and outcomes of them maybe having a pathway straight into homelessness unless we intervene,” said Quirk-Silva. “This is a way to work with them through the education system.”

    The call for state funding specific to homeless youth, which school staff and advocates have long campaigned for, and for the adoption of the bill, come in a year that California faces a budget deficit in the billions and as rates of student homelessness in many counties have surpassed pre-pandemic rates.

    “We’re not deaf to the environment. … What we know is when there is a budget deficit that the number of families and children experiencing homelessness is just going to go up,” Olmos said.

    Advocates see both the call for $13 million in dedicated state funding and the adoption of Assembly Bill 2137 as necessary steps in preventing the rise of youth homelessness.

    State data and recent studies show that students experiencing homelessness and those in the foster care system are significantly more likely to be chronically absent from school, be suspended, have lower grades, experience higher school instability, or drop out of school.

    Dedicated state funding

    In 2021, California received nearly $100 million to aid in the identification, enrollment and school engagement of youth experiencing homelessness. This was one-time federal pandemic-era funding under the American Rescue Plan.

    Since then, school staff have hailed the funding as critical in their efforts to stay current on which of their students were homeless and how to best support them, whether by offering their families short-term stays in motels after an eviction, hiring staff to contact families they believe might be experiencing homelessness, distributing debit cards for gas, and more.

    Students identified as homeless in California are eligible to receive some resources, but the state does not dedicate funding that is specific to this population of students. Some states, such as Washington, have allocated state dollars toward replacing the American Rescue Plan funds before they sunset.

    While the state’s funding formula for education gives some funds for high-needs students, including those identified as homeless, it’s not proportionate to the number of homeless students living across the state. In practice, homeless students account for less than 1% of planned spending in the funding formula, according to a report published last year by the Public Policy Institute of California.

    Additionally, this state funding is tied to first identifying students who are homeless — an effort that school staff say in and of itself needs to first be funded.

    “This is the one subgroup that has to self-identify,” said Olmos. “None of this works if you do not have somebody who is there to count and care about that population.”

    There is some dedicated funding at the federal level, such as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, but those grants are distributed in California as part of a competitive grant process, making them extremely limited. During the 2018-19 school year, for example, just 73 of California’s nearly 2,300 local education agencies were awarded McKinney-Vento funding; only 103 applied for the grants, according to a state audit.

    McKinney-Vento grants to California totaled about $13 million annually prior to the pandemic, and the call for $13 million in state funding would match that amount.

    That amount would not have the same statewide impact that schools felt with the American Rescue Plan funds, but Olmos said that “it’s at least, for the first time, a commitment” from the state.

    Proposal to refine current resources

    Quirk-Silva, the legislator who introduced Assembly Bill 2137, hopes the bill will help prevent youth homelessness by supporting current foster youth in schools. She was an elementary school teacher for 30 years before being elected to represent District 67, which includes cities from Cerritos in Los Angeles County to Fullerton in Orange County.

    “We know they’re part of the population (of homeless youth), and we have to do everything we can before they leave their placements,” said Quirk-Silva. “Some do go to college, and that does help them, but many of them aren’t on that track, and that’s where they become even more vulnerable.”

    In refining existing resources, the bill seeks to implement three provisions with the goal of keeping foster youth engaged in school by addressing their individual needs.

    The first of the bill’s provisions would increase flexibility for county Foster Youth Services Coordinating Programs, which coordinate with local educational agencies to provide resources such as tutoring and FAFSA support for foster youth students, when offering direct support services to students.

    Currently, the county programs, known as FYSCPs, can only offer such services after receiving written certification from the local educational agency confirming they are “unable, using any other state, federal, local, or private funds, to provide the direct services.”

    This requirement, according to the bill co-sponsors, which also includes advocacy organization John Burton Advocates for Youth, is a barrier because many local educational agencies, or LEAs, “are reluctant to provide written certification that they cannot address the needs of foster youth resulting in FYSCPs having to forgo providing these services, even when clearly indicated and when funding is available to do so.”

    The second provision would request that the coordinating programs be informed if students fill out a form opting out of applying for federal financial aid, so they may intervene and advise foster youth about their options post-high school.

    The third and final provision in the bill would require districts to detail in their three-year strategic plans how they plan to increase identification of students experiencing homelessness.

    Assemblymember Quirk-Silva said she expects her colleagues to support the bill. There are currently no estimates for how much the bill would cost, if adopted.

    “What I’ve seen as a classroom teacher is this is a very vulnerable population,” she said. “Often they need the most support and many times they get the least amount of support.”





    Source link

  • Cal State extends general education requirements for transfers to first-time freshmen

    Cal State extends general education requirements for transfers to first-time freshmen


    Students walking on CSU San Marcos campus.

    Anne Hall/CSU San Marcos

    New general education requirements created for transfer students will now apply to all students, including first-time freshmen in the California State University. 

    Cal State trustees voted Wednesday to create a unified, simplified general education pathway for all students, despite opposition from faculty and students that the decision would eliminate classes that contribute to lifelong learning. 

    The decision effectively replaces the “CSU GE Breadth” and reduces the number of general education required credits from 39 to 34, by eliminating additional humanities and arts courses and classes identified as lifelong learning and self-development. However, it also adds a laboratory class to the requirements. Students would still be able to take many of these courses as electives. 

    The simplified pathway, known as Cal-GETC or the California General Education Transfer Curriculum, was first proposed in May 2022 as part of the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act of 2021 as a way to improve the transfer experience for community college students entering the University of California and Cal State systems. The curriculum was developed by the academic senates of the CSU, the UC and the community colleges and goes into effect in the fall of 2025. 

    Although the new transfer pathway was created with community college students in mind, Cal State administrators and trustees chose to apply it to first-time freshmen, too.

    About 60% of Cal State’s first-year applicants have some type of transfer credit, many of them earned through dual enrollment courses taken in high school, said April Grommo, CSU’s vice chancellor for enrollment management, adding that some continuing CSU students also complete general education courses through their local community colleges. Without creating one pathway, Grommo said about 25% of undergraduates would have to complete more general education requirements. 

    “Aligning general education for all CSU students provides an equitable set of degree requirements for all undergraduate students,” she said. 

    Trustees said proceeding with two different systems could lead to equity concerns. 

    “I am concerned that if we have one path for community college transfers and one path for those students who begin with us, that there might be a feeling of inequity,” trustee Jack Clarke Jr., said. 

    Although most Cal State faculty support the new simplified path for transfer students, many said they opposed applying it to students who enter the system as freshmen. 

    Beth Steffel, chair of CSU’s academic senate, said despite claims that students can still take these courses, there is a chance that courses will be eliminated if not designated as part of general education. 

    “If a course is not required, it will not be offered,” Steffel said. “Resource constraints ensure this reality.” 

    Eliminating the courses from general education requirements could also have unintended consequences by reducing the potential for students to learn other languages through arts and humanities and create costs by adding an additional science laboratory, Steffel said.

    Steven Filling, an accounting professor at Stanislaus State, said losing the courses provided in CSU GE Breadth rquirements would be detrimental to students who enter the system as freshmen because they would miss out on the extra skills gained from social learning, communication and critical thinking. 

    For example, kinesiology classes, which is the study of movement, fall under the lifelong learning and self-development courses. Students interested in business fields like accounting, for example, could take golfing courses to prepare them for meeting with clients.

    “If you’ve never played golf and have no clue about it, well, you may have a little bit of trouble,” Filling said. 

    These classes are called “lifelong learning” because they help students discover how to cope and deal with the world around them, he said. 

    There’s another reason some CSU faculty oppose Cal-GETC: Much of the curriculum was chosen with the UC system in mind. 

    “The UC has a pretty strong position of, ‘Well, if we don’t agree to it, we’re not going to do it,’” Filling said. “If you look at Cal-GETC, you’ll notice a strange similarity between that and the UC’s present (general education) programming.” 

    Filling said one problem with that is the UC and Cal State systems have different missions and, although there is overlap, educate different types of students. For example, the UCs are tasked with admitting the top 9% of high school graduates.

    “To think that somebody in the top 5% of their high school class is going to be at exactly the same level as somebody who is at the 30th percentile is unrealistic,” he said.

    “It’s clear our students need different things than what UC students do,” he said. “It may be the case that the community colleges, with the resources they have, can provide the additional support those students need to get them up to the level where UC students are. It’s far from clear to me that that works for students coming into the CSU.” 

    The new simplified pathway represents both systems, said Laura Massa, Cal State’s interim vice chancellor for academic and faculty programs. For example, Cal-GETC includes ethnic studies and oral communication requirements that were required for CSU but not UC.

    Student trustee Diana Aguilar-Cruz said some of the opposition from students arises from their rising distrust of the board and administration’s decisions. Students have been calling for some analysis of the current general education path before making any change. 

    “Especially with all the prior decisions that we’ve been making throughout the year,” Aguilar-Cruz said, referring to the tuition increase. “They really need to see this data. … That has really fractured the trust that students have.” 

    However, trustees said they did not want to proceed with two different systems for meeting general education requirements.

    Despite opposition from faculty and students to the change, Cal State officials said they worked collaboratively with both groups on understanding the pros and cons and took both groups into consideration. 

    “Shared governance doesn’t always mean agreement,” CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia said. “The success, sustainability and continued growth of our institution depends on our ability to recruit, serve and guide our students through our universities to remove barriers that sometimes we put in their way and provide clear and direct pathways to a degree and a fulfilling profession for us. And for me, I believe a single GE pattern for all CSU students achieves that goal, and it advances our mission of student success for all.” 





    Source link

  • Survey: Californians are worried about student health, lukewarm toward a state school bond

    Survey: Californians are worried about student health, lukewarm toward a state school bond


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Californians remain anxious about the mental health of public school students four years after the Covid virus closed down schools, according to a new survey released Wednesday. They also indicated they’re lukewarm toward passing a statewide school construction bond.

    In the Public Policy Institute of California’s survey of 1,605 California adult residents, 81% of all adults and public school parents said they were strongly or somewhat concerned  about students’ mental health and well-being – a view that, for most part, cut across race, political party affiliation and family income. The number reflects a continuing worry about the persistent impact of the pandemic two years after students returned to the classroom following school closures of more than a year.

    SOURCE: PPIC Statewide Survey, April 2024. Survey was fielded from March 19-25, 2024 (n=1,605 adults, n=1,089 likely voters, and n=252 public school parents).
    PPIC

    Advocates for a statewide bond to build and repair TK-12 school facilities may face an uphill battle to pass it – assuming Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators put the issue before voters in November.

    Only 53% of likely voters said they would vote for a state bond, while 44% said they’d vote no, with only 3% undecided, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, which on Wednesday released its annual survey of voters’ view on TK-12 education issues. The number is well below 60%, the standard level of favorability that comforts backers of an initiative heading into a campaign.

    The mid-March survey also found mixed views on how Newsom and the Legislature are handling the state education system; 51% of all Californians and 60% of public school parents said they liked how he had managed education. That’s the lowest number since his election in 2018, and consistent with PPIC’s most recent survey on his overall job performance. The survey had a margin of error of 3.3% plus or minus. 

    Newsom’s highest rating was in April 2020, when 73% of likely voters approved and 26% disapproved of his performance on TK-12 education. That coincided with the emergence of the coronavirus, and his decision to close schools. “Newsom got a bump in the early days of the crisis for responding decisively amid the shock of the pandemic,” said Mark Baldassare, survey director and chair of public policy for PPIC. 

    The Legislature and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond also received roughly 50% approval in the latest survey; however, the poll also showed that most Californians agreed with their positions on social and political issues that captured headlines in the past year.

    • 69% of all adults said they strongly (43%) or somewhat (26%) oppose individual school boards passing laws to ban and remove certain books from classrooms and school libraries; a smaller majority of public school parents (30% strongly, 25% somewhat) agreed. Last year, Newsom threatened to fine Temecula Valley Unified and replace a social studies textbook that the board rejected because it included a reference to the late gay activist Harvey Milk; the board reversed its position.
    • 58% of all adults and 55% of public school parents oppose individual school boards creating policies to restrict what subjects teachers and students can discuss in the classroom.
    • More than 80% of adults and public school parents strongly or somewhat favor teaching about the history of slavery, racism, and segregation in public schools; more than 50% of all respondents strongly held that view.
    • Local schools got good marks for preparing students for college, but less so the workforce. 60% of all adults and 72% of public school parents said their schools did well preparing students for college, while 51% of all adults and 65% said they did a good job preparing students for jobs and the workforce.  Only 45% of African American respondents said the schools did a good job for college, compared with 64% of Asian Americans, 61% of Latinos and 61% of Whites.

    As with these and many of the issues surveyed, there was a sharp partisan division, with most Democrats supporting Newsom’s positions and most Republicans opposing them.

    California adults were about evenly split (50% support, 49% oppose), however, on whether to allow books with stories about transgender youth in public schools. Three in four Democrats support this, while eight in 10 Republicans oppose it, and independents are divided (51% support, 48% oppose). Only 42% of public school parents support the idea, and 57% said they oppose it; they also opposed including lessons on transgender issues by the same breakdown.

    Newsom and the Legislature have committed billions of dollars to phase in voluntary transitional kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. Two-thirds of all adults, including 77% of public school parents, 80% of Democrats, 41% of Republicans, 84% of Blacks, and 57% of Whites, said that’s a good idea.  

    Uncertainty about bond issue

    Newsom said in January that he supports placing a school construction bond on the November statewide ballot; voters last passed a state bond in 2016, and the state has run out of money to contribute to districts’ share of new construction and renovations.

    However, Newsom and legislative leaders have not negotiated the specifics. School consultant Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors, said that polling results could affect the size and scope of a bond. Instead of a $15 billion bond that legislative leaders have discussed, it could be much less; instead of including money for the University of California and California State University, which polls less favorably than TK-12, it could include money only for TK-12 and community colleges, he said.

    Gordon and Baldassare disagreed on how much to read into the 53% support of the bond eight months before the election.

    “All of the not-so-good news about the state budget, with billions of dollars in red ink, has had an impact on voters’ attitude that affects the bond issue now,” Gordon said. “But after this summer, with a balanced budget adopted, and with economists optimistic about the latter part of 2024, voters’ attitude could change.”

    Credit: Public Policy Institute of California, April 2024 survey

    Four years ago, voters rejected a state bond 46% to 54% in the March 2020 primary election. But, Gordon said, voters have never defeated a state bond initiative in a November election, which attracts more people to the polls.

    Baldassare said the bare majority support in the survey shows “there is a lot of economic anxiety among voters over inflation and anxiety over taking on more debt.” That showed in the bare passage last month, with 50.2% of the vote, of Proposition 1. It will determine how to spend money on housing for unhoused people suffering from mental illness.

    The survey also produced mixed, and perhaps puzzling results to the same questions asked in previous surveys:

    Asked “how concerned are you that California’s K-12 public school students in lower-income areas are less likely than other students to be ready for college,” 39% this year said “very concerned.” That’s the lowest percentage since the question was introduced in 2010, when 59% said they were very concerned.

    Asked, “How would you rate the quality of public schools in your neighborhood today,” 49% of likely voters gave their schools an A or B. That’s nine percentage points higher than last year and in pre-pandemic 2019.

    Asked whether the quality of education has gotten worse over the past few years, 52% of adults said it was worse, 11% said it had improved, and 34% said about the same. That was an improvement from last year, when 62% said education had gotten worse and only 5% said it had improved – and far better than in 2011. That was during the depths of the Great Recession, when school districts were slashing budgets following cuts in state revenue: that year, 62% said schools had gotten worse.





    Source link

  • Transgender athlete wins, shares state honors, creating questions about inclusion 

    Transgender athlete wins, shares state honors, creating questions about inclusion 


    Flanked by fourth-place winner Ellie McCuskey-Hay, left, and first-place winner Loren Webster, right, second-place winners AB Hernandez, center right, and Brooke White share the podium during a medal ceremony for the long jump at the California high school track-and-field championships in Clovis.

    Credit: AP Photo / Jae C. Hong

    Top Takeaways
    • Transgender athlete AB Hernandez was unflustered amid controversy and protest over her participation in girls’ sports.
    • Under revised rules for the championship, she shared two first-place and a second-place medals with cisgender competitors.
    • President Trump threatened to defund California if she participated.

    A lone boo. A jeering yell of “That’s a boy.” Rhythmic clapping cheering on her and others. A scream of “let’s go” from the crowd. A nation watching. 

    Unrattled by the controversy around her participation in girls’ track and field events, AB Hernandez, an openly transgender student-athlete, achieved two first-place victories and a second-place win in the state championship on Saturday. She shared the podium and recognition with cisgender females as a result of new rules hurriedly adopted last week.

    Sparked by threats from the federal government, just days ahead of this past weekend’s Track and Field State Championship, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) changed its rules regarding the number of girls who could qualify for and would win in events with a transgender athlete.

    The state faced backlash over Hernandez’s participation with President Donald Trump threatening to cut federal funding to California and demanding that the state bar her inclusion. In response, California officials tweaked the rules to expand the number of cisgender girls who could qualify if a trans athlete was participating. Under the changed rules, a cisgender girl displaced by a transgender competitor was awarded whichever medal she would have claimed had the transgender athlete not been competing.

    Local leaders in the conservative-leaning Clovis, which hosted the championship, called it unfair to include a transgender female in sports with cisgender females, The Fresno Bee reported.

    Hernandez, a junior at Jurupa Valley High in Southern California, was unflappable in the Veterans Memorial Stadium at Buchanan High School, even when insulted or met with silence in the packed venue. 

    She has “consistently displayed more dignity, maturity, and grace than the many adults, from the president on down, who chose to attack and bully her to score political points,” said Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, the state’s LGBTQ+ civil rights organization. “We could not be prouder of the way this brave student-athlete conducted herself on and off the track.” 

    Hernandez qualified as the top competitor in the long jump and triple jump Friday, outperforming others by 6.25 inches and 9.75 inches, respectively, and in high jump, scoring the same as five other athletes. 

    During the championship round Saturday, she was outperformed in the long jump and continued to tie with other athletes in the high jump. 

    Even though she is not ranked as a top athlete nationally, she held on to California’s top marks in the triple jump. 

    This past weekend’s championship revealed conflicting stances on the issue of transgender females competing in women’s sports that point to unresolved questions about what should be done to ensure fairness and inclusion. 

    Friday’s qualifier featured a “Free Speech Area” outside of the stadium that remained empty most of the day. No signs were allowed in the event, but a plane flew a “No boys in girls’ sports!” banner.

    Signs reminded attendants of the importance of sportsmanship at the State Track and Field Championships at Veterans Memorial Stadium at Buchanan High School in Clovis on Friday, May 30, 2025.
    Lasherica Thornton/ EdSource

    Also outside the event, along the roads or in other areas, small groups protested Friday and Saturday — much smaller crowds than the dozens who questioned Hernandez’s participation at the southern region qualifier events over the last couple of weeks. 

    Donning a “Make America Great Again” hat and American flag-themed attire, Mimi Israelah, a self-proclaimed activist from Long Beach, traveled more than four hours to witness Hernandez, whom she referred to as “the trans,” compete in the girls’ field events. 

    “I don’t know why they’re allowing that because women’s sports is supposed to be for women,” Israelah said, often referring to Hernandez as “he.” She said transgender athletes should have their own division if they wish to compete. 

    Including transgender athletes 

    So far, research on the fairness of transgender athletes, published by the Journal of the Endocrine Society, finds that testosterone is the “only established” advantage men have over women. 

    More specifically, males who have gone through puberty reportedly have 15 times the amount of circulating testosterone than females who’ve gone through puberty, equaling at least a 10% performance advantage in running and swimming and a 20% advantage in jumping events, according to a 2018 Endocrine Review. 

    “He might be transitioned, but he is still a male,” Israelah said. “It’s not fair for the women, and it is destroying women’s sports.”

    Until late 2021, the Olympics required transgender women to reduce their testosterone levels to below a certain threshold to compete. Under the former medical requirement, transgender women had to undergo gender-affirming care, such as testosterone-reducing medication. The Olympics have since eliminated the requirement related to testosterone levels, leading to polarizing debates even in professional sports.

    California’s high school athletics guidelines, outlined by CIF, allow athletes to participate in sports aligned with their gender identity, even if it’s different from their assigned sex at birth, including transgender athletes. 

    ‘Her own competition’ 

    Trump has criticized Hernandez for being “less than average competitor” as a male but “practically unbeatable” as a female. 

    “Her numbers are not unbeatable,” said Sabrina Gomez, whose daughter Jazmaine Stewart, a Redwood High junior from Visalia, competed against Hernandez in long and triple jumps. 

    Stewart finished seventh in Friday’s qualifier for the long and triple jump. She earned a fifth-place spot in the long jump and a sixth-place position in the triple jump for the championship, rankings that are one spot higher since Hernandez shared the podium for her wins. 

    “For my daughter, doing track has always been an individual sport for her, so she’s her own competition,” Gomez said. Even so, with the state championship as a goal, they’d long been aware of and prepared to face off against Hernandez’s numbers. 

    Gomez said she couldn’t characterize Hernandez’s participation as unfair after researching her marks, which fall within the range of other female athletes. 

    In fact, Gomez said, if not for Trump, there wouldn’t have been contention about Hernandez’s participation, which is aligned with CIF’s decade-plus-old policy. 

    According to its materials on gender diversity, CIF is one of 16 state sports associations with gender-inclusive policies that facilitate the participation of transgender, nonbinary and other gender-diverse students in school athletics. 

    Since February 2013, the CIF has had philosophy and eligibility rules for participation based on gender identity. 

    Trump has threatened other states with cuts in federal funding if they continue to allow transgender athletes in youth and women’s sports. Trump began gutting federal education dollars from Maine, and the matter ended up in court. 

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom in March agreed that it was “deeply unfair” for people born as biological men to compete in women’s sports, breaking from most Democratic leaders. 

    CIF policy consistent with state law

    The California Interscholastic Federation’s addition of gender identity participation and eligibility rules in 2013 followed legislation that allows students to participate on sports teams based on their gender identity. The CIF guidelines go further to state that athletes will participate in programs consistent with their gender identity or the gender they most consistently express.

    The statewide policy for high schoolers does not have a legal or medical requirement, such as a documented name change or gender-confirming care, for transgender students to compete. Student participation is based solely on their gender identity or expression.  

    A transgender student-athlete, according to CIF documents, has a protected right to privacy if they choose not to disclose their gender identity. 

    There have been instances of teams forfeiting games due to the belief that their opponent had a transgender player.

    But Hernandez is not the first openly transgender athlete to compete in California, and this isn’t her first time competing. 

    Hernandez has reportedly participated on the track team for three years and told Capital & Main that this is the first year her presence has garnered controversy.

    In early May, a few Christian high schools — JSerra Catholic High School, Orange Lutheran High School and Crean Lutheran High School — penned a letter, expressing “disappointment in CIF’s failure to respect and protect our female athletes and our strong opposition to CIF’s Gender Identity Policy.”

    Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” to ensure women and girls can compete in safe and fair sports; much like his other orders, he threatened federal funding for noncompliance. In response, CIF at the time said it would enforce its existing policy consistent with state legislation. 

    U.S. Justice department opens title Ix investigation of California

    Title IX is a 1972 landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education, applying to colleges and schools that receive federal funding. 

    It protects students from being denied access to educational and athletic opportunities. 

    The federal investigation will investigate whether California is violating Title IX by allowing transgender athletic participation in sports, specifically Hernandez competing in track and field.

    This week, as the U.S. Justice Department launched a national civil rights investigation into the policy, the CIF implemented a “pilot entry process” to allow cisgender female athletes who failed to qualify to compete in the championships in Clovis — a “reasonable, respectful way to navigate this complex issue without compromising competitive fairness,” Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, told The Sacramento Bee. 

    Another temporary rule change said any cisgender girl who was displaced by a transgender competitor would be awarded whichever medal she would have claimed had the transgender athlete not been competing.

    Based on Friday’s results and Hernandez’s participation, 13 student athletes qualified in the girls’ long, triple and high jump categories rather than the traditional 12 for Saturday’s championship.

    Among the athletes who competed, there were conflicting views about the fairness of the CIF policy and rule change. 

    For example, southern regional second-place long jump finisher Katie McGuinness, who placed sixth Friday behind Hernandez and four others, spoke out leading up to this past weekend’s championship. 

    In an exclusive with Fox News, McGuiness, a La Cañada High senior, said she felt discouraged facing the trans athlete due to apparent “genetic” disadvantages. 

    Meanwhile, other athletes and teams, including those in Clovis Unified which hosted the championship, declined EdSource interviews so that athletes could focus on their performance and not be distracted. 

    At Saturday’s championship, Long Beach’s Wilson High senior Loren Webster clutched the long jump title over Hernandez. Hernandez shared the second-place honor with River City High School senior Brooke White, reflecting CIF’s rule change. McGuinness finished third instead of fourth due to the second-place title being shared. 

    For the first-place triple jump medal, though Hernandez’s score beat her competitors, she shared the podium with St. Mary College High junior Kira Gant Hatcher. 

    In the high jump, there was a three-way tie as Hernandez, Monta Vista High junior Lelani Laruelle, and Long Beach Polytechnic High senior Jillene Wetteland hit the same marks. 

    Other states are also reckoning with transgender athletic participation – and victory. 

    In Washington, a transgender athlete defied their critics after being booed on the podium. This was the second year that Veronica Garcia of East Valley of Spokane was reportedly heckled by fans. In Oregon, track and field athletes who outperformed a transgender athlete refused to take the podium next to the trans athlete.

    Gomez, the parent of the Redwood High student athlete, said that how community members, coaches, parents, and others respond or react will set an example for the students looking up to them. 

    “Learning how to respond,” she said, “to what the world throws at you makes a difference to the attitude that you’ll have going into a situation.”





    Source link

  • Colleagues remember Delaine Eastin, the only woman to be elected state superintendent

    Colleagues remember Delaine Eastin, the only woman to be elected state superintendent


    Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin.

    Credit: John Joanino/Advancement Project California

    Delaine Eastin, the only woman elected as California’s superintendent of public instruction, died Tuesday from complications of a stroke. She was 76.

    She assumed the nonpartisan office in 1995, when the superintendent’s main power was persuasion. In a court decision preceding her election, the State Board of Education had wrested sole power to set state education policy from the state superintendent. But admirers said she used the public pulpit and verbal skills to effectively champion issues she cared about. These include raising academic standards, lowering class sizes and instilling the importance of nature in schools.

    “Delaine was regarded as one of the great orators of the Legislature,” said Jack O’Connell, a fellow Democrat who served with her in the Legislature and succeeded her as state superintendent. Next to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, Eastin was the most in demand on the speech circuit, he said. “Few could engender the kind of emotion and passion she delivered in every speech.”

    Delaine Eastin

    Calling her “a trailblazer in public education who will forever inspire us,” current State Superintendent Tony Thurmond said Eastin “was integral in establishing standards for what students should know and be able to do,” then developing statewide assessments and a school accountability system for the results. She also strengthened the framework for financial oversight of school districts through county offices of education and a quasi-state agency, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team.

     “When I came into office, there was no testing. There were no academic content standards. And there was no system of school accountability at all,” Eastin told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2003. “And we had the largest class size in America.”

    Taking advantage of the state’s financially flush years, she made smaller classes a priority and helped persuade Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature to invest $2.3 billion to cut the size of K-3 classes from 30 to 20 students.

    In 1995, she called for a garden in every school. With the help of Berkeley restaurateur Alice Waters, she inspired the establishment of gardens in more than 3,000 schools. California became the first state to join the Clinton Team Nutrition effort to improve school nutrition. She oversaw curriculum guides on how to teach the academic content standards through nutrition, gardening, and cooking.

    O’Connell called her “fearless in the constant fight for better school funding and put herself in the middle of every battle on behalf of kids.”

    She was an early advocate of early childhood education, establishing a preschool task force of educators, business leaders, civil rights and children’s advocates that called for universal preschool. She established the state’s Teacher of the Year program; Thurmond honored her in this year’s state ceremony.

    Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, a former school board member in San Jose, said Eastin left “an indelible imprint” on California’s school system. “Delaine was more than a colleague; she was a mentor and friend,” he said.

    Born in San Diego, she moved to San Carlos as a child and was the first in the family to graduate from college, earning a bachelor’s degree from UC Davis and a master’s from UC Santa Barbara in political science. After teaching women’s studies and politics at De Anza College and Cañada College, she worked as a strategic planner for what was then Pacific Telephone before being elected to the City Council of Union City. She served four years in the Assembly in a district representing pats of Alameda and Santa Clara counties.

    After serving the maximum two terms as state superintendent, she returned to politics in a brief run for governor as a voice for progressives in the 2018 Democratic primary. She was sixth with 3.4% of the vote. (For a transcript of an interview with then Executive Director Louis Freedberg during that campaign, go here.)  

    Eastin recalled to Orange County Register reporter Hanna Kang last year that women legislators were few and “especially close to each other” when she was in the Legislature. “Women did look after one another because we sort of had to, because we would be dismissed or spoken down to in some instances unless we stood up for each other.”

    “I remember in the early days, there were people who wouldn’t let me on the members’ elevator because I was a girl, and I couldn’t possibly be a member,” she said.

    Plans are underway for a public celebration to be held this summer.





    Source link

  • How California’s juvenile justice system changed since shutdown of state facilities

    How California’s juvenile justice system changed since shutdown of state facilities


    Santa Clara County has maintained near-zero rates of incarceration for girls and young women for several years. Soon, four new counties will follow suit.

    Photo: Santa Clara Probation Department

    In the months since California closed the last of its juvenile facilities, some of the counties now managing the new system have funded new higher education programming for incarcerated students, while others have spent much of that time addressing basic safety concerns inside their facilities.

    It is impossible to declare the juvenile justice system’s transition an outright success or failure. What is evident is that some counties are struggling much more than others to move toward the promises that came with closing the state facilities.

    The system’s transition from the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice, known as DJJ, to counties on June 30 last year was met by some with hope that the state’s long-troubled juvenile justice system might finally be on its way toward reform. Others, however, still remain doubtful that issues that were persistent under the state’s management, including a well-documented history of violence and low educational outcomes, would disappear immediately, if ever, with the transition.

    The promise of county control — and its limitations

    For years, advocates in support of the DJJ closures decried the state facilities as subjecting generations of California youth to “inhumane conditions and lasting trauma,” according to a 2019 report by the Center on California Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit organization that pushes to reform the system.

    “By placing youth in prison-like conditions at large institutions, DJJ exposes them to the trauma of incarceration, risking their immediate safety and limiting the possibility of rehabilitation,” wrote the report’s authors, Maureen Washburn and Renee Menart.

    In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 823 into law, requiring the state’s youth prisons to shut down by June 30, 2023, and disallowed counties from sending youth to DJJ as of July 1, 2021.

    SB 823 called for counties to provide the “least restrictive appropriate environment.” Such an environment would be as minimally punitive as possible while remaining appropriate and safe for the youth, the staff and the surrounding community. The bill also sought to “reduce the use of confinement by utilizing community-based responses and interventions.”

    Today, all youth remain in their home county or nearby, if their county does not have a juvenile facility, which is often the case in smaller counties with few, if any, incarcerated youth.

    Youth who were formerly sent to DJJ facilities — those adjudicated for serious crimes, such as burglary, assault, homicide and other crimes — are instead housed in secure youth treatment facilities, or SYTF, in their local counties. These facilities are separate units with a more restrictive environment than youth who are considered less risky. As of March 2023, 36 of the state’s 58 counties had facilities for SYTF youth.

    The average daily population of all juvenile halls statewide was 2,793 in 2023, according to state data. This includes both SYTF and non-SYTF youth. During the fourth quarter of the same year, Los Angeles County had the highest average daily population at 508. The next highest was Kern County, with 182 youth.

    At the helm now is the Office of Youth and Community Restoration, or OYCR, the state office leading the juvenile justice system in place of DJJ.

    The office is clear about the limitations of its role: “OYCR is not a regulatory agency and does not have the authority to require local probation departments to make changes,” Katherine Lucero, director of the rate office, wrote in a recent email to EdSource. “Instead, our role is to provide guidance, share best practices and connect probation departments with resources, including grants.”

    In that capacity, OYCR seems to be pushing forward on some of the changes promised in this system transition: a forthcoming database to improve transparency on incarcerated students’ academic outcomes, the development of a “literacy intervention curriculum for older learners” that would be “based on their length of time in custody and special education needs,” and funding toward programming in environments that are less restrictive than juvenile detention centers.

    The office also coordinates an educational advisory committee that meets monthly and includes probation officers, county offices of education, the State Board of Education, Rising Scholars, Project Rebound, the Department of Rehabilitation, and the nonprofit Youth Law Center.

    Additionally, OYCR has pursued collaborations in support of incarcerated students’ access to higher education. Rising Scholars, for example, provides access to college courses for incarcerated youth, sometimes in person on a local community college campus. The program can currently be found in least 10 counties, including Kern, Humboldt and Santa Clara.

    A recent report compiled by Forward Change, a consulting firm for OYCR, sums up the shifting perspective: “Youth who were once seen as incarcerated people can now be seen as college students with bright futures.”

    Still, it is also clear that the Office of Youth and Community Restoration understands the paradox in the current state of California’s juvenile justice system because, in the same report, they noted the difficulty of overcoming the poor educational outcomes that students are up against.

    “Per some interviewees, a significant hurdle is the academic readiness of the incarcerated youth. Many students in confinement facilities who are still pursuing a high school education may not be academically prepared to handle college level coursework,” the report said.

    Student preparation, particularly for those who remain incarcerated for lengthy periods of time, largely comes down to the counties. That is, most often, where plans for academic achievement are either advanced or start to unravel before they can be implemented.

    “What’s available to young people in detention facilities in L.A. for the most part has sort of stayed the same,” said Megan Stanton-Trehan, a senior attorney at Disability Rights California. Most recently, she was the director of the Youth Justice Education Clinic at Loyola Law School, which provides special education advocacy and legal representation for many in the foster system or detained in L.A. County juvenile facilities.

    How Los Angeles and Alameda have handled the shift

    Los Angeles and Alameda offer real-time case studies of how two counties are changing the way they manage incarcerated youth.

    Los Angeles County is often cited negatively by advocates who have concerns about the safety of youth committed to their juvenile facilities — a worry that has only strengthened since the state transition. This is due to the county Probation Department continuing to face disciplinary actions for offenses ranging from a lack of documentation showing how and when youth are confined to their rooms, to inconsistent recreational programming, to high rates of student tardiness.

    Because of these infractions, four units across three juvenile facilities in L.A. County have been deemed “unsuitable for the confinement of minors” in the last year alone by California’s Board of State and Community Corrections. The first two units were at the Barry J. Nidorf facility in Sylmar and Central Juvenile Hall in Boyle Heights. Nidorf’s SYTF unit remained open because the state board did not have oversight power at the time.

    Youth detained at those facilities were transferred last year to the county-run Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, which had been shut down in 2019 after allegations of abuse by staff.

    But many of the same issues with noncompliance, including those related to educational programming that had caused the other closures, quickly surfaced, adding to reports of high levels of violence, drug abuse and an escape attempt.

    In February, Los Padrinos was similarly found “unsuitable for the confinement of juveniles,” but the state oversight board allowed it to remain open, citing that “outstanding items of non-compliance” had been sufficiently remedied less than two months later.

    “Would I be like, ‘Let’s reopen DJJ?’ No,” said Stanton-Trehan. “But I think there needs to be some real changes made here to improve what’s happening because it’s really almost worst-case scenario at this point.”

    Additionally, cases of violence and drug use have spiked inside the county’s facilities, leading to several overdoses, including one fatality. The result is an environment in which public conversation is centered on staffing issues and violence, rather than youth education and rehabilitation. Eight probation officers were placed on leave in December for standing by while a group of young people assaulted a peer. Last month, four more officers were placed on leave.

    The department’s chief, Guillermo Viera Rosa, said in a statement that the decision is “part of a comprehensive push to root out departmental staff responsible for perpetuating a culture of violence, drugs, or abuse in County juvenile institutions.”

    Staffing issues have persisted in other ways. The county Probation Department has been out of compliance with staffing requirements, with many officers assigned to juvenile hall not showing up for work. Most recently, several officers were reassigned to juvenile halls in order to meet staffing requirements, but advocates and families of incarcerated youth fear the reassignments will be temporary.

    Staffing is pertinent to students’ access to education. “All programming in juvenile halls and longer-term detention facilities is dependent on the availability of probation staff to escort students around the facility,” according to the recent OYCR report.

    “Due to staff shortages, classes are frequently canceled, student attendance is inconsistent, and probation staff in facilities are often unfamiliar with the youth in the facility due to temporary and rotating assignments,” the report stated.

    More broadly, an ongoing challenge in meeting the education needs of youth detained statewide is an apparent disconnect between the various agencies involved in the daily operations of juvenile facilities, particularly probation departments and the county offices of education.

    That disconnect is not unique to Los Angeles County.

    Last year, for example, library staff working inside an Alameda County juvenile detention facility emphasized the difficulty of teaching students how to read when the staff aren’t privy to details regarding students’ court cases. Interruptions are common in students’ educational programming, staff stated. A court date might be scheduled during a time slotted for a visit to the library, for example, which might be a student’s only opportunity during the week to check out a book. And if there is a lockdown at the facility, a student might be unable to visit the library for an extended period.

    Atasi Uppal, an attorney and the director of the Education Justice Clinic at the East Bay Community Law Center, said she has begun to see a small but positive change in bridging the disconnect since the shift to county control of the juvenile justice system.

    For example, the county has hired additional staff to provide new post-secondary options for incarcerated high school graduates.

    “We have seen a renewed interest from Probation, the DA’s office and community providers in understanding education rights and options for students who are incarcerated,” said Uppal, who recently co-authored a report that states that the five largest county offices of education in California lacked the transparency required to evaluate the quality of education being offered because of a lack of “clear public-facing information about curriculum or student support systems.”

    That disconnect has often resulted in the disruption of “students’ participation in instruction during incarceration due to perceived safety or disciplinary concerns,” Uppal said in a recent email. “As an outsider to the system, this disruption seems arbitrary and without coordination with the Alameda County Office of Education.”

    Down in Los Angeles County, Stanton-Trehan shared a similar concern.

    She said she works with people at the county’s Office of Eucation who “try to advocate and do the best they can for our clients.” But when there are delays in implementing a student’s individualized education plan, or IEP, student progress is further delayed.

    It’s a cycle Stanton-Trehan often finds herself pushing against when legally representing incarcerated students, even now after the shift to county control.

    “A client who isn’t getting their accommodations and they try to request those accommodations and then they’re told, ‘No, you don’t have those’ — they get agitated and upset. And then that’s a behavior problem, so they’re removed from school when they were just trying to advocate for themselves,” Stanton-Trehan said.

    Labeling a student as having behavioral problems that require specific support creates an entirely new academic issue to confront.

    Stanton-Trehan provided the example of a client with a 17-page-long discipline log. That student, whom she did not name for privacy reasons, had an IEP that did not include a behavioral plan, despite well-documented behavioral challenges.

    Complicating the local efforts to improve educational access and outcomes is the limited access to academic data that young people attending court schools have. At times, this is due to a lack of documentation by probation staff. Other times, it comes down to censoring data to protect privacy, such as when there are fewer than 10 students at any given data point, which is often the case in many court school classrooms.

    “Of course, I believe in confidentiality for young people, but how are we supposed to look at whether these systems are improving or able to improve?” said Stanton-Trehan, echoing what many advocates say regarding data transparency for this student population.

    Hope for the future?
    For its part, OYCR said it will soon make available an interactive map that includes school data for court schools in every county. It is being “designed for easy access for parents, families and community members,” Director Lucero wrote n a recent email.

    According to Lucero, the map will include Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation status, dashboard performance, local control and accountability plans, local control funding formula budget overviews, school accountability report cards, and Rising Scholars support resources.

    It remains to be seen whether these measures will provide the transparency that advocates of incarcerated students have called for. The state’s juvenile justice system is historically tied to reforms that have fallen short of significant change. Even so, OYCR seems steadfast in its messaging.

    As OYCR’s recent report states, “California is presented with an unprecedented opportunity to vault to the forefront of national juvenile justice practice by transforming its youth incarceration system from one focused overwhelmingly on punishment to one that can offer youth in confinement genuine opportunities to dramatically improve their lives.”

    This story has been updated to reflect Megan Stanton-Trehan’s employment at the time of publication.





    Source link

  • A conversation with Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia

    A conversation with Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia


    Mildred Garcia, chancellor of the California State University System.

    Credit: Cal State Fullerton/Flickr

    In October 2023, Mildred Garcia stepped into her role as chancellor for the California State University, becoming the first Latina in the nation to lead a four-year public university system. Formerly the president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Garcia joined the CSU system at a time of post-pandemic turbulence.

    Garcia sat down with California Student Journalism Corps reporter Alexcia Negrete in early May for an interview to discuss Garcia’s leadership goals, with student concerns being the primary focus.

    The discussion ranged from underrepresented groups having increased access to the CSU system, to Title IX (sex discrimination) issues, to enrollment and tuition challenges.

    This interview was edited for clarity and length.

    What are the main goals that the CSU, or the main goals that you have to continue supporting students in the next school year?

    My North Star is student success, equity, affordability, graduation, retention, everything. The reason I am here is because of the students we serve. We serve the first-generation, the low-income, the students of color, and the adults in the majority in California, with a four-year degree and beyond. 

    And we are going to be the role model — or we are the role models — on how we graduate students from diverse backgrounds to reach their highest potential. Everything I do is centered on that — how does this affect the students, the families and their goals to reach where they want to be? 

    And sometimes that goes against people’s perceptions; but this is mine, right? Because I am a first-generation college student. I know how it changes lives. I know we came from a very poor family. And I know how now people that come after me — my nieces and nephews and family members — will say not ‘Will I go to college?’ The question is, ‘What college am I going to go to?’ And so for me, it’s part of my passion, my mission and my life’s work.

    You have been president of two Cal State universities, Dominguez Hills and Fullerton, and you have been able to work with students one-on-one during that time. But as a chancellor, that can sometimes feel a little separated. What would you want students to know about you?

    I think No. 1 is that I had a similar background that they had. … I grew up in a very poor neighborhood. Then my father died when I was 12, and we had to move to the housing projects of Brooklyn. 

    I had to work my way to college. We were seven children, and my mother had to support us on a factory salary. … Everybody has a different story, but it’s a story of having the hunger to do better, because we want out of poverty, we want to live a satisfying life (with) economic independence. 

    I marvel and congratulate each student that is struggling to get that degree and go on and be whatever they want to be — whatever that goal is — and go off and help others and reach their highest potential and be engaged citizens in our communities and cities in California. … It’s not just the college degree, but it’s a path, it’s a chapter in your journey of your book of life. 

    As a whole, the CSU has faced Title IX scandals, which have led to some students expressing concerns about the overall Title IX process. How will you work to repair the trust lost by the students, and overall, change the image of the process by the CSU?

    Well, first of all, we had a huge report by Cozen O’Connor, and also the state auditor, and we are following those steps. Every president has a committee now on how to implement steps, and (they) are supposed to be communicating with their campuses how to really have a voice and have nobody be afraid, with no retaliation on issues of Title IX. 

    Every campus now is going to have a committee, someone in charge, and we at the Chancellor’s Office are going to monitor that. … Every president of every university in the CSU has a goal (of) reporting to me that Title IX is a priority, and that they are implementing the recommendations of the Cozen O’Connor report, and they will be held accountable for that. 

    What my hope is, is that each of the campuses is working with their vice president for student affairs, the provost and … human resources, (and explaining) our process. Yes, you can come forward; we will make sure that there is a process, and it’s documented, and that we follow the procedure to do the investigations.

    In the CSU, there have been some campuses facing some declining enrollment, and some campuses have been forced to cut classes or faculty members. Are you currently working to ensure that students are still getting the education that they need, regardless of the classes (and faculty) being cut? And if so how? 

    The answer is yes. Each president is working with their teams to ensure that the students that we have admitted will be able to get the classes and graduate. That is their No. 1 goal. 

    My No. 1 goal is for the students to have a wonderful experience on their campus and graduate, get the classes and go off and do great things and then come back and tell us about it and become great alumni. 

    Our No. 1 priority with our team — which is all the presidents and the vice chancellors — is student success. It’s going to be different on each campus, right? So each president has to work with their teams to set up structures and practices, and then hold themselves accountable to watch how students are progressing to graduation.

    Before you officially started as chancellor, CSU trustees voted to increase tuition for the next five years. A lot of students have disagreed with the decision and have had protests, saying that the Cal States will now become too expensive for them, or they won’t get enough financial aid support. What kind of reassurance can you provide students who are currently working to pay their tuition and who are concerned about the tuition increase?

    First of all, let me go to the data — I don’t have any exact numbers in front of us, but 60% of students have their tuition completely covered. So for the students, it’s not the tuition that’s giving them the problem, it’s the cost of living. What we have to figure out is how do we help and bring together Pell [Grants], State University grants and scholarships to be able to help each of the students really reach the cost of living as much as possible. 

    While I understand the students — I had to pay my way through college, and I worked three to four, multiple jobs, during the year — our tuition is one of the cheapest in the country. If most of our students are getting their tuition paid, what’s really hurting them is the cost of attendance.

    And so we’re trying to figure out ways that we can help the students — that’s No. 1. No. 2, I have been lobbying — even before I came here, at my former job in Washington, D.C. — to double Pell. No. 3, we need to work with our state legislators, who have been good to us, about telling them the need for more resources, for state universities like the California State University system.

    The CSU as a whole is anticipating more universitywide budget cuts due to less state aid, and some campuses, because of those cuts, have made cuts to their programs and positions. How will you continue to make sure that students feel supported during this time when we’re getting less state aid?

    Each campus has to look at what are core necessities for students so that they can grant what it is that they need the most. Each campus has to look at, ‘What is it that our students need in order to graduate, and how do we do that in a limited budget?’ 

    It’s very much like your budget at home — you have a budget, you’ve got to pay rent, you’ve got to pay your electricity, you’ve got to pay whatever it is that you pay — and you use your paycheck and the fringes have to go. You may not be able to go to dinner three times a week. 

    It’s the same thing with a university, you take your budget, and you say, ‘What’s our No. 1 priority?’ The No. 1 priority is our students graduating, our students getting their classes, and our students getting the support services they need in order to be doing well in classes and graduate. 

    Is there anything else that you would like to tell us?

    I think that the CSU has to understand they’re a very special place. I worked with 400 institutions across this country when I was in Washington, D.C., and we have to be working together to tell our powerful story saying what the value of the CSU is. Eighty percent of our students stay within a 50-mile radius of where they live after they graduate. That means (they) are the entrepreneurs, the journalists, the people who are going to run businesses, the people who go on to graduate school, the people who become medical doctors. This is what we’re doing for California, this is what we’re doing for the cities. 

    It’s a private good, I’ll give you that. It helps you and your family for generations to come. But it also helps the city and communities in the state because you pay taxes, you are engaged in your community, you are leaders, you vote, you’re healthier, all of that. 

    Look, I’m the first one to say nobody’s perfect; we have a lot to do to be better. But we are engaged in such a way that so many of our students are doing great things. … That’s what we need to be talking about. (We need to) continue to do better, improve performance, learn from our mistakes and get better.

    Ashley Bolter is a fourth-year journalism major and French and ethnic studies minor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Alexcia Negrete is a fourth-year communications major at California State University, Fullerton. Both are members of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • Are you cut out to be the next student member of the California State Board of Education?

    Are you cut out to be the next student member of the California State Board of Education?


    Anya Ayyappan, left, being sworn in as the student member of the California State Board of Education by Board President Linda Darling Hammond.

    Credit: Courtesy California State Board of Education

    As education policy and issues at school boards across California continue to grab headlines, it’s more important than ever that K-12 students — especially those in a state as diverse as ours — have a representative at the table who can voice concerns and have their opinions and input heard.

    That’s why, as the current student member of the State Board of Education, I strongly encourage all eligible high school students to apply to be the student member for the 2025-26 school year. The application window is now open.

    As student member, you can represent the voice and perspectives of millions of students across California. Your input ensures that student concerns and interests are considered in educational policymaking and decisions made by the State Board of Education. Your insights and experiences as a student can shape policies related to curriculum, standards, assessments and other aspects of education in California.

    During my term, I have advocated for increased student involvement in decision-making processes like adopting instructional materials, designing local control and accountability plans and determining actionable goals based on school climate surveys. I have also forged connections with student leaders across California’s various regions, including the Central Valley and Northern California, that have been traditionally underrepresented.

    These channels of communication allow for coordinated student-led initiatives and diverse input on items discussed by the state board. Based on my conversations with students, I have supported the integration of artificial intelligence in classrooms and increased project-based learning opportunities.

    Recently, I joined the Statewide Model Curriculum Coordinating Council to review lesson plans on Native American history and culture, ensuring they capture authentic, diverse voices. I will be continuing this work beyond my term.

    In addition to providing me with the opportunity to serve my state, this role has given me a deeper understanding of California’s education system. Seeing the incredible work that is being done, along with all the work that remains to be done, has had a profound impact on me, sparking my desire to continue exploring education policy in college.

    Serving on the board provides you with a unique learning experience regarding governance, policymaking, and the educational system. You’ll gain valuable insights into how decisions are made at the state level and how they impact students and schools.

    The application is the first step. The selection process starts with the board’s Screening Committee reviewing all applications and selecting 12 semifinalists. Of those 12, California law requires that student members of a school district governing board select six for further consideration by the State Board of Education. The state board uses the annual Student Advisory Board on Education conference — which takes place Nov. 10-13 in Sacramento — to perform this function. 

    At this conference, the semifinalists make individual presentations to all other advisory board participants about why they should be the next student member — an incredible opportunity to gain valuable experience and make personal connections. Following a secret ballot by the advisory board participants, six candidates will be submitted for further consideration by the state board’s Screening Committee.

    Each of the final six candidates will be interviewed by the committee, after which committee will recommend three finalists to the State Board of Education. Following the board’s action to select the three finalists, the names of the three finalists will be sent to the governor for the final decision.

    Hopefully, after reading this, many students will be inspired to apply. If you or someone you know qualifies for the student member position and wish to apply, you have from now through Sept. 20 to do so. And with summer coming soon, we encourage you to apply soon.

    If appointed by the governor, you’ll have the opportunity to network with other board members, educators, policymakers and stakeholders in the education field. This networking can open doors to future opportunities and collaborations.

    Serving on the board can enhance your leadership, communication and advocacy skills. It’s a chance to develop as a leader and make a meaningful impact on education in your state while also enhancing your resume and future academic or career opportunities.

    Merely going through the process allows you the chance to gain valuable experience and provides many opportunities to help your community. It also helps you think more critically about the education system and how your help can impact students across our state.

    As a student, your voice is powerful. I highly encourage you to apply!

    •••

    Anya Ayyappan is currently serving as the student member of the California State Board of Education. She is a senior at Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon.

    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

  • Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget

    Gov. Newsom’s twists and tricks to spare cuts to schools and community colleges in state budget


    Gov. Gavin Newsom answers a reporter’s question about his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.

    Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

    True to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise, the 2024-25 budget compromise that the Legislature announced Saturday and will pass this week will spare TK-12 and community colleges from cuts that other state operations will bear.

    TK-12 funding will be flat and will continue Newsom’s major commitments to multiyear, multibillion-dollar programs, including community schools and before- and after-school expansion.

    Update: State Budget Signed

    On June 26, Gov. Newsom signed Assembly Bill 107, the main budget bill, and Senate Bill 154, the Proposition 98 suspension bill. On June 28, Newsom signed SB 153, the education trailer bill.

    The budget will even throw in a couple of billion in new revenue that Newsom didn’t call for in January or in his May budget revisions. Newsom and legislators, meanwhile, struggled to squeeze an additional $28 billion out of a $211 billion general fund spending.

    But protection for schools and community colleges will carry risk. To balance the budget, Newsom and legislative leaders rely on budget maneuvers that would give a button-down accountant acid reflux.

    They include creating a $6 billion debt that won’t be fully repaid to the state treasury for a dozen years, and draining the $8.4 billion education rainy day fund.

    The deal also requires delaying payments to schools and community colleges and suspending — for only the third time in its 36-year history — Proposition 98 obligations for the current school year, on the assumption the money will be repaid quickly. Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988, established a formula for determining the minimum level of general fund spending on transitional kindergarten through grade 12 and community colleges — generally about 40%.

    Rather than punish schools for money already spent, the budget bill creates a $6.2 billion debt that the general fund, not schools and community colleges, will repay the state treasury over a decade, starting in 2026-27. The remaining $2.6 billion will be a Proposition 98 obligation pushed ahead to 2023-24; that unfunded amount is called a deferral.

    The California State University and the University of California won’t fare as well in the budget deal, although better than Newsom had proposed in January, even with a drop in state revenues since then. Both will get a 5% budget increase in 2024-25 that Newsom had proposed delaying, equal to $227.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU, to support enrollment growth of California residents this fall. 

    Another promised 5% budget increase for both systems in 2025-26, however, will be put off a year. UC and CSU also face one-time cuts in 2024-25 of $125 million and $75 million, respectively, which will be restored in 2025-26.

    Both CSU and UC will also face a 7.95% cut in their administrative expenses in 2025-26.

    There will be no reforming the Cal Grant program in 2024-25, but, at the Legislature’s insistence, the $637 million ongoing funding for middle-class scholarships will continue, with a $289 million one-time increase.

    Late spending changes

    The final budget will also restore some TK-12 and child-care cuts that Newsom had proposed in his May budget revision while maintaining others. They include:

    • Restoring $60 million for the Golden State Teachers Program, which provides $20,000 in scholarships to teacher candidates, although a new means test may pare back $10 million in eligibility.  
    • Restoring $100 million in funding to help preschools prepare classrooms and train teachers in order to enroll more children with disabilities, while withdrawing larger plans to expand the program.
    • Continuing the existing agreement to serve 200,000 more children in the state-subsidized child care system but pushing back the timetable for full compliance to 2028.
    • Rescinding $895 million in one-time spending on electric-powered school buses that Newsom had made a priority. Instead, the money will be used to reduce some of the late payments in state funding for schools.

    School districts receive the bulk of their funding through the Local Control Funding Formula, which is based on daily student attendance and a yearly cost-of-living adjustment. So, even though overall state funding won’t be cut, many districts with declining enrollments and high absenteeism rates will face financial challenges.

    The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is based on a federal formula tied to the cost of goods and services but does not factor in regional costs, including housing, will be only 1.07% for 2024-25, forcing further belt-tightening. One option for school districts, giving layoff notices to staff, will be off the table. State law allows an additional round of layoffs in August in years when the COLA is less than 2%, but, at the urging of public employee unions, Newsom and legislative leaders included a clause prohibiting late summer layoffs. They have done the same statutory override before.

    The initial reaction from two veteran TK-12 budget watchers was mixed. “This budget remarkably insulates K-14 funding from cuts, abides by constitutional requirements to restore funding in the future, and even provides a modest cost-of-living increase, all amid a record budget shortfall. Pretty amazing,” wrote Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, a school consultancy firm.

    Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser with the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, was cautious. “While the final budget is perhaps the best schools could anticipate given the budget challenges, we worry about the size of the suspension for schools, $8.3 billion,” he wrote. “Schools will eventually get paid back those funds in future years on top of the minimum guarantee, but these payments will result in increased school funding volatility and uncertainty until they are paid back.”

    And if revenues falter next year, schools and community colleges will no longer have a rainy day fund to turn to; it will be depleted by the end of 2023-24, with the possibility of replenishing it by $1.1 billion in 2024-25.

    Proposition 98 juggling act

    The proposed 2024-25 budget for schools and community colleges will be balanced, if revenue projections hold true, by juggling three years of Proposition 98 shortfalls, with one year’s solution creating the next year’s dilemma.

    The big drop was in 2022-23 when the Legislature “over-appropriated” the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee by $8.8 billion, while state revenue from the post-Covid stock market and the tech sector plummeted. Legislators didn’t see the warning signals because winter storms had pushed back the tax filing deadline from April to November.

    Under the mechanics of Proposition 98, the funding level for 2022-23 becomes the base level for 2023-24, even though the state still lacks the revenue to pick up the tab. So all but $1 billion of the $8.4 billion in the education rainy day fund will be drained to cover some of the 2023-24 deficit and the $2.6 billion deferral from the year before.

    On top of that, the budget deal calls for suspending $8.3 billion of the Proposition 98 funding for 2023-24. That has the effect of lowering the minimum guaranteed funding by that amount, while freeing up money to avoid deeper cuts in other state operations. That’s how the Legislature can restore cuts in 2024-25 for child care and preschool that Newsom had planned.

    The architects of Proposition 98 wanted to discourage the Legislature from suspending the law. So it requires the Legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and to make the suspended funding a priority for repayment as soon as there is new revenue. The 2024-25 budget assumes the state will have enough new revenue to pay back at least $4 billion of the suspended $8 billion, maybe more. But if revenues falter, districts won’t get what they’re entitled to, with no set date for repayment.

    That’s why the deal is also a gamble for schools and community colleges.

    There’s one more wrinkle. To raise revenue quickly, the Legislature has accelerated the temporary, three-year suspension of two tax benefits for large and medium-sized businesses: net operating loss deductions and tax credits. The period will start in 2024-25, one year ahead of schedule. It will yield a projected $5 billion, with $2 billion going to Proposition 98 — funding that will be used to pay down deferrals.

    Between this new money and the $4 billion payback for suspended funding, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee is expected to rise to a record $115.3 billion in 2024-25.

    As with all deadline negotiations, legislators will have at most three days to review hundreds of pages of budget details spread over 16 separate bills. Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, are expecting that legislators will demand some changes when they return from vacation in August.  





    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom vigorously defends, praises California, his own contributions in State of State 

    Gov. Newsom vigorously defends, praises California, his own contributions in State of State 


    In his State of the State address, Newsom juxtaposed clips of his meetings with National Guard members charged with intercepting illegal drugs to contrast with Republican efforts to quash immigration reform.

    Credit: YouTube / Office of the Governor

    Gov. Gavin Newsom sharply contrasted California with red-state America during a pre-recorded State of the State address Tuesday, warning ominously that the state’s values and status as “a beacon of hope” are “under assault.”  

    “Forces are threatening the very foundation of California’s success — our pluralism, our innovative spirit, and our diversity,” he said. To underscore his claim, he liberally juxtaposed images during his 28-minute speech: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing a ban on abortion with Newsom embracing an LGBTQ marcher at a Pride rally; headlines of congressional Republicans rejecting bipartisan immigration reform with National Guard members whom Newsom deployed to the border to intercept fentanyl. 

    The partisan, politically charged talk came two days before the first debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump and five months before a national election that Newsom called “another extraordinary moment in history.”  Newsom, who has assumed the informal role as an articulate surrogate for Biden, underscored the importance of the president’s re-election for Californians.

    “For generations, we’ve stood for progress: championing women’s rights and LGBTQ rights, protecting the environment, and expanding civil rights,” he said. “Conservatives and delusional California bashers want to roll back social progress, social justice, racial justice, economic justice, clean air, clean water and basic fundamental fairness.”

    Primarily, though, Newsom’s talk both defended and lauded the “California way” and his administration’s accomplishments — in enhancing innovation and job creation, stopping drugs at the border, lowering crime, expanding environmental protections and providing shelter for the homeless.

    He pointed to the elimination of 9,300 unsafe homeless encampments while turning former hotels and apartments into 15,300 units of housing and the progress with the Delta conveyance to protect water supplies, the “largest climate resilience project in the nation.”  California is driving the electric vehicle industry and new industries to combat climate change, he said.

    While critics portray California’s cities as lawless dystopias, the governor said the state’s violent crime rate has dropped to half of its peak in 1992; California has a lower homicide rate than 29 other states, including Florida and Texas, he said. He attributed California’s gun safety laws as a cause and asserted that 140,000 more Americans would be alive if the nation had California’s homicide rate.

    Newsom devoted little of the address to education but pointed to the expansion of after-school and summer programs for low-income schools and the creation of community schools — a $4 billion initiative he protected from possible cuts — as accomplishments. At community schools, he said, students will receive family support, free meals and tutoring.

    He also cited the state-funded hiring and training of literacy coaches in high-poverty schools, the creation of universal transitional kindergarten — a new grade for 4-year-olds — and, starting next year, the screening of all young students for possible learning challenges, including dyslexia, while introducing a new, state-funded multi-language screener.

    Together, he boasted, these K-12 initiatives comprise “some of the most transformative policies in our state’s history, and most significant in our nation.”

    In a vague reference to the state’s efforts to thwart censorship of social studies textbooks and novels from school libraries by conservative school boards, Newsom said California has acted “to protect a student’s right to learn, and a teacher’s right to teach.”

    Diversity in demographics and in thought is California’s strength, he said. “Weird, wild, free-spirited California. A place that can elect Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown — back to back,” he said.

    Through revolutions in farmworker rights, free speech, love, computing and biotechnology, “we are building a state that transforms the world over and over again,” Newsom said.

    In a news conference outside the Capitol an hour after the speech was released, Republican leaders laid out a vastly different counter-narrative.

    “We have crime out of control, inflation out of control,” said state Sen. Brian Dahle, R-Bieber. “$24 billion for homeless, and we’ve actually increased homelessness. For the first time in the state’s history, we’ve deployed CHP (California Highway Patrol) to Oakland, San Francisco and Bakersfield to combat crime.”

    “Republicans in California have not controlled a statewide office or the Legislature for decades, so (Gavin Newsom) needs to look in the mirror and understand that he’s running the state into the ground,” Dahle said.

    Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, called Newsom “unhinged” for diverting attention from his own performance by attacking Republicans in Congress.

    “Let me tell you what the state of the state is right now. It’s a husband and wife sitting around that kitchen table, head in hands, trying to figure out how to pay the bills,” Gallagher said. “It’s parents who are afraid to send their kids to the local park because they’re afraid they might be attacked because it’s human devastation on our streets in every city. People lost in homelessness.

    “And the problem has only gotten worse since Gavin Newsom has been governor,” he said.

    Newsom had planned to give the State of the State address in March but delayed it while awaiting the outcome of Proposition 1 on the March primary ballot, which he had championed. The initiative, which passed narrowly, channeled $6.4 billion to assist Californians facing chronic homelessness and mental health or drug abuse problems. 





    Source link