اینترنت

برچسب: State

  • 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

  • Cal State faculty staging historic systemwide, weeklong strike

    Cal State faculty staging historic systemwide, weeklong strike


    California State University faculty members protest for better salary and working conditions in Sacramento.

    Ashley A. Smith/EdSource

    For the first time ever, faculty across the entire California State University system on Monday is staging a weeklong labor strike. 

    The more than 29,000 faculty members in the nation’s largest public university system continue to demand higher wages and for the administration to return to the bargaining table. 

    For many of Cal State’s nearly 450,000 students, it means missing their first, second or third week of classes this semester or quarter as professors and instructors walk the picket lines across the system’s 23 campuses. 

    Kate Ozment, an English professor at Cal Poly Pomona, said she hasn’t met her students yet, with the first week of spring classes coinciding with the weeklong strike. Ozment said she posted a notice to her students through the Canvas online learning management system about the strike. 

    “My goal is to not create confusion with students and my goal is to not harm students,” she said. “I don’t want them on campus because with an empty campus, we win. I sent them information about why we’re striking and that I was participating and I also gave them an overview of the course schedule so they could see how I accommodate the work stoppage.” 

    Ozment said she won’t be grading, collecting assignments or leading instruction. But she has encouraged her students to work independently this week. 

    Arabel Meyer, a journalism senior at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, said all three of her instructors this quarter notified her that they will be striking this week and that classes have been canceled. On the quarter system, students at Cal Poly SLO are in their third week of classes. 

    “I support the faculty in their striking,” Meyer said, adding that as a college student who can barely afford rent in San Luis Obispo, she understands how difficult it is for a professor making the minimum salary to afford rent in the city. “I can’t even imagine being a college professor and living in the town that I live in and not being paid a wage that is enough to be able to survive and be able to provide for their families.” 

    Meyer said she’s not worried about a week away from classes hurting her academically, and she’s heard other students celebrate the idea of a “week off.” The real difficulty will be for the professors to “reorganize their schedules and make sure that they’re covering the material that they need to get through in a quarter,” she said. 

    Nicolette Parra, a political science junior at CSU Northridge, who transferred to university from community college, said she supports the faculty after noticing the problems in CSU.

    “There’s a sense of greediness, like the administration just wants more money,” she said. “I am concerned about canceled classes because when the strikes are happening is supposed to be our first week back from winter break. It feels like we are behind. It’s not the professors’ fault, it’s the administration and that worries me.”

    Salary and wages remain the top issue dividing the faculty and the administration. The faculty have argued for a 12% general salary increase for this year. 

    CSU FAculty demands
    • 12% pay raises to stay ahead of inflation.
    • Pay equity and raising the floor for lowest-paid faculty.
    • Manageable workloads that allow for more support and engagement with students.
    • More counselors to improve students’ much-needed access to mental health services.
    • Expanding paid parental leave to a full semester.
    • Accessible lactation and milk storage spaces for lactating faculty.
    • Safe gender-inclusive restrooms and changing rooms.
    • Safety provisions for faculty interacting with university police on campuses.

    Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said that, without question, the faculty deserve a pay increase.

    “We are committed to compensating employees fairly, but we are and must be equally committed to the long-term stability and success of the CSU,” Garcia said on Friday during a meeting with reporters. “As a new chancellor four months on the job, I have no interest in a strike. We are ready and willing to come back to the bargaining table with the California Faculty Association, but we must work within our financial realities.”

    Garcia said despite the strike, Cal State campuses will remain open this week and provide guidance to students and families and updates about the status of classes.

    “The CSU is not canceling classes,” said Christina Checel, CSU’s vice chancellor for labor and employee relations. “Individual faculty members who decide to strike will cancel their own classes. So students should check their class portals or contact their professors to find out whether they intend to hold class.”

    Checel said the universities have made contingency plans to continue providing advising, financial aid and other services to students, but the strike “will not interfere with students’ ability to complete their courses or graduate on time.”

    Earlier this month, the CSU administration walked away from the bargaining table with the faculty union and offered a 5% pay raise starting Jan. 31. The administration said the salary increase is consistent with agreements CSU reached with five other unions. Over the weekend, CSU also reached an agreement with its skilled trades union, which represents about 1,100 employees.

    Faculty say they are insulted by the 5% wage increase.

    “Somebody can decide to stop having a conversation with you, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is over,” Ozment said. “They unilaterally decided what was appropriate for us. It was not done in collaboration, it was not done in conversation and it was not done based on any reasonable math from our perspective. What we’re hoping is that this (strike) brings them back to the table. They made a bad choice. They can unmake it.” 

    A 5% pay raise would have no impact on professors’ ability to make a living when campuses are raising other costs on them, faculty said. Kevin Weir, a Sacramento State professor on the faculty union’s bargaining team, said campuses are raising parking costs, which wipes out any benefits of a 5% increase for those instructors that are already struggling with the cost of living. 

    But meeting the faculty union’s demands would cost the system about $380 million in the first year and every year thereafter, an amount the system can’t currently afford, said Leora Freedman, CSU’s vice chancellor for human resources.

    “The CSU currently spends 75% of its operating budget on compensation,” Freedman said. “If we were to agree to the increases that these unions are demanding, we would have to make severe cuts to programs. We would have to lay off employees. This would jeopardize our educational mission and cause hardship to many employees.”

    Freedman said CSU has made several proposals to the faculty union, but the organization has not been willing to reduce its economic demands.

    “As soon as either union demonstrates that they’re ready to make meaningful movement in bargaining, we will be back at the table,” she said.

    Weir said he disagrees with the university system’s financial arguments. In October, the union released its own independent study conducted by an Eastern Michigan University professor that examined Cal State’s cash flows and reserves. That study, which CSU has described as incorrect, concluded that CSU has about $8.2 billion in reserves and cash investments.

    “They have more money coming in than going out every year,” Weir said. “They have enough money to give this chancellor 30% more than her predecessor, and her predecessor got 30% more than her predecessor. They have given campus presidents up to 29% increases. They have no problem rewarding the senior executives of the system, but they do have a problem paying faculty just to keep up with inflation. So, no, I don’t buy their argument.” 

    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. 

    Steve Relyea, CSU’s vice chancellor and chief financial officer, said the faculty union has misrepresented the university system’s financial situation. Much of the $8 billion the faculty have cited as available for salaries can’t be used for salaries because it is already committed to CSU’s debt obligations, capital projects, and other contractual commitments like financial aid, housing and parking, he said.

    “To use those one-time dollars for ongoing commitments would be reckless and put the institution and our students at risk,” Relyea said.

    Even if an agreement is reached between the faculty union and the CSU, negotiations for the next faculty contract are expected to start this spring. Weir said union membership will begin receiving surveys to submit their ideas and thoughts on what changes and demands need to be made in the next contract. Weir said it wouldn’t be the first time that the union and the university system negotiated on two separate contracts simultaneously, with the last time occurring in 2011. 

    “But I would rather not do that,” he said. “I would rather settle this contract and then move on to the successor contract. I would love to get back into the classroom and be done with negotiations for a while. But in order for that to happen, I need a willing negotiation partner and, so far, management is walking away from the table and indicating they’re not willing.” 

    Faculty and students have indicated and are aware that if the salary disagreement between CSU and the union isn’t solved, there may be future strikes. 

    “My students are still facing rising tuition and my peers are still driving for Uber and going to local food banks,” Ozment said. “I think that people should anticipate bigger and longer strike actions if we don’t actually get what we need to run this system because we have it. They have the money. They’re just choosing to hoard it like little dragons from ‘Lord of the Rings.’ ”

    California Student Journalism Corps member Delilah Brumer, who is a student at Pierce College in L.A., contributed to this report. Arabel Meyer, a source in this story, is also a member of the California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • Cal State System reaches tentative agreement with faculty on salary

    Cal State System reaches tentative agreement with faculty on salary


    California Faculty Association.

    California Faculty Association

    Faculty in the nation’s largest public university system agreed to end their historic strike against the California State University system late Monday evening.

    The faculty union, which represents more than 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians and coaches, agreed to a 5% general salary increase retroactive to July 1, 2023, and a 5% general salary increase on July 1, 2024, as long as the state does not reduce Cal State’s base funding this summer.

    Monday marked the first day of a planned one-week strike. The system’s nearly 450,000 students saw many of their classes canceled as faculty protested. However, the new agreement means all faculty will return to campuses and their classes on Tuesday.

    “The collective action of so many lecturers, professors, counselors, librarians and coaches over these last eight months forced CSU management to take our demands seriously,” said Charles Toombs, president of the California Faculty Association, the union. “This tentative agreement makes major gains for all faculty at the CSU.”

    The agreement would raise the salary floor for the lowest paid faculty by increasing minimum pay by about $3,000 retroactive to July 1 and raising it again by $3,000 this summer. It also expands paid parental leave from six to 10 weeks.

    Other highlights from the agreement include improved access to gender-inclusive restrooms and lactation spaces, increased protection for faculty who have negative interactions with campus police officers, and additional support for lecturers.

    The agreement extends the current contract for 2022-24 one year to June 30, 2025.

    “I am extremely pleased and deeply appreciative that we have reached common ground with CFA that will end the strike immediately,” CSU Chancellor Mildred García said. “The agreement enables the CSU to fairly compensate its valued, world-class faculty while protecting the university system’s long-term financial sustainability. With the agreement in place, I look forward to advancing our student-centered work — together — as the nation’s greatest driver of social mobility and the pipeline fueling California’s diverse and educated workforce.” 

    The university system is encouraging students to look for messages from their instructors about adjusting their classes this week. Faculty will vote to ratify the new agreement in the coming weeks.

    “This historic agreement was won because of members’ solidarity, collective action, bravery, and love for each other and our students,” said Antonio Gallo, an instructor on the Northridge campus. “This is what People Power looks like. This deal immensely improves working conditions for faculty and strengthens learning conditions for students.”

    The agreement marks another victory for education laborers, the union said, especially following similar strikes at the University of California and the University of Southern California.





    Source link

  • Anticipating less state aid, CSU campuses start making cuts

    Anticipating less state aid, CSU campuses start making cuts


    Gov. Gavin Newsom announces his 2024-25 state budget proposal, including his plans to deal with a projected deficit in Sacramento on Jan. 10.. Credit: Brontë Wittpenn / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris

    The Cal State System is anticipating more university-wide budget cuts as it faces expected cuts in state aid due to the state’s budget deficit for the 2024-25 budget year. 

    Already many campuses have started consolidating programs, freezing hiring, eliminating positions, deferring maintenance projects and restricting purchases. 

    At San Francisco State, President Lynn Mahoney said the campus has a hiring freeze and is starting a “voluntary separation program” this spring. It is also restructuring courses with actual enrollment. Last fall, the campus said it would need to cut about 125 positions this spring. 

    “The reductions have been and will continue to be painful,” Mahoney said. But the campus’ reductions and changes will “hopefully within about four years achieve enrollment and budget stability.” 

    In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom made an agreement to give CSU annual 5% base funding increases over five years in exchange for increasing enrollment and improving graduation rates. However, with the state’s $38 billion projected budget deficit, this year the governor proposed delaying the $240.2 million increase for the 2024-25 budget year to the following year.

    While CSU would then get two years’ worth of increases, the system would have to borrow the money to get through next year. 

    The plan is still risky for the university system if the state’s budget situation worsens and it is unable to fulfill its commitment next year. 

    “The governor’s administration has supported and continues to signal future support for the CSU and its compact,” said Steve Relyea, executive vice chancellor and chief financial officer for the system. “But the proposed deferral raises significant concerns, and we must proceed with fiscal prudence and caution.” 

    The 23 campuses are already being asked to help cover a $138 million shortfall this year. The system is projected to be short at least $184 million more from 2024-26.

    Relyea said the system will move forward with cost-cutting strategies but still find support for compensating faculty and staff, protecting students’ education, improving the handling of Title IX complaints and other priorities. 

    Trustee Julia Lopez warned the board that CSU’s financial commitments may have put the system in a deeper financial hole than is being projected once it includes promises like improving Title IX and repatriating cultural and human remains to Indigenous people. The only revenue outside of state dollars is the tuition increase, and at least a third of that money will go to improving financial aid, she said. 

    “There’s a huge gap between what we have to pay for in commitments and the revenues we identified,” Lopez said. “The conversation in Sacramento is just beginning. We need to have our voices heard, and we need to be very clear.” 

    Trustee Jack McGrory said the message to the Legislature has to be what happens if CSU doesn’t receive funding. 

    “There are courses that are going to be cut, there will be employees that are going to have to be cut, and that’s the reality of what we’re dealing with,” he said. 





    Source link

  • Expanding Cal Grants? Tight state budget makes it unlikely this year

    Expanding Cal Grants? Tight state budget makes it unlikely this year


    Community college students like those at Fresno City College would benefit the most from Cal Grant expansion.

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

    A long-awaited expansion to financial aid in California, once expected to go into effect this year, is now facing uncertainty.

    As part of California’s 2022 budget deal, lawmakers agreed to reform the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid program, to make it easier to understand, and expand eligibility by about 150,000 additional students, most of them low-income community college students. 

    But the 2022 agreement was contingent on sufficient state revenues to implement the reform, which would cost an estimated $365 million annually. And with California now facing at least a $38 billion deficit, Gov. Gavin Newsom has not committed to funding the reform, casting serious doubt on whether it will be included in this year’s budget. 

    That’s concerning to college access advocates and students who say the current Cal Grant program is too complicated and leaves out some of the state’s lowest-income students while the cost of attending college continues to rise. 

    Key lawmakers and other supporters say they plan to push for expanding the Cal Grant this year, even if they can’t get everything they initially hoped.  

    The Cal Grant, California’s key financial aid program, gives undergraduates grants of as much as $13,752 annually for tuition and fees, depending on the college. Students can also receive grants for living expenses. But the program is layered and confusing, awarding students different amounts depending on where they attend. Eligibility requirements also vary.  

    In his 2024-25 budget proposal, Newsom maintains the state’s funding for college financial aid, including $2.5 billion for Cal Grant and $636.2 million for Middle Class Scholarship, but skips a one-time funding increase for the scholarship that was part of last year’s budget agreement.

    Assemblymember David Alvarez, chair of the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on education finance, said he has directed his staff to look at each element of Cal Grant reform and identify what can be done under this year’s budget constraints. He plans to hold hearings on the issue this spring.

    “It was a significant commitment to increase access to more students,” Alvarez said in an interview. “And to the extent that we can create access to more students, if it has to be done in smaller steps, I’m willing to entertain that.”

    The proposed reform calls for multiple changes. It would simplify the structure of the program by narrowing it to only two awards: one Cal Grant for community college students and another for students at four-year colleges. The current program has eight different Cal Grant awards, creating what critics say is an unnecessarily complicated system for awarding aid.

    Earning a Cal Grant would also be easier. While some Cal Grants are currently lottery-based, all aid would be guaranteed under the new system to eligible students. And more students would be eligible thanks to the elimination of certain requirements.

    For community college students, there would no longer be a grade point average requirement. University of California and Cal State students would need a 2.0 GPA — down from the 3.0 GPA currently required. There would also be no requirements specifying age cutoffs or how long a student has been out of high school that currently exist for UC and Cal State students, rules that prevent many older students from getting aid.

    Income eligibility would be based on federal Pell Grant rules. For both awards, students would be eligible if their family’s household income is low enough to qualify for a Pell Grant. The median household income of a Pell Grant-eligible student is about $59,000. Officials say using the Pell Grant as a bar for eligibility will help increase the number of students eligible.

    Eligible community college students would get an annual award of at least $1,648 to go toward nontuition expenses like housing and food. Most of those students already pay nothing in tuition. The awards for UC and Cal State students would cover the full cost of tuition, which in 2024-25 will be $14,436 for entering in-state UC students and $6,084 for entering in-state Cal State students. The awards won’t cover nontuition expenses, but students would still be free to seek federal, private and UC-administered aid to cover those costs. 

    In total, the changes would expand Cal Grant eligibility from just over 340,000 students to about 492,000 students, the California Student Aid Commission estimates.

    Expanding aid to that many students would be costly, especially in the short term, but it could have long-term financial benefits for the state, argued Jake Brymner, deputy director of policy for the California Student Aid Commission. Not being able to afford college is the main reason many students either choose not to enroll at all or don’t finish college.

    “This is so critical to our talent pipeline, to California’s workforce and to our ability to maintain robust state revenue on a wide tax base with folks who are moving into meaningful careers,” he said.

    Newsom’s staff has yet to rule out the possibility that Cal Grant reform could be implemented this year. “We don’t speculate,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance said. “The law always envisioned us making a determination in May and we have not made any determination yet.”

    The state’s revenues, however, speak for themselves. Newsom said during his January budget proposal that the state faces a $38 billion deficit. That was $30 billion lower than what the state’s Legislative Analyst Office had estimated. Lisa Qing, a policy analyst with that office, said in an email that Cal Grant expansion “would not be triggered under existing law” based on current revenue projections.

    Qing added, though, that lawmakers could change existing law, such as by creating a different set of conditions to trigger Cal Grant expansion at a future date.

    “There should be some sort of negotiation,” said David Ramirez, the UC Student Association’s governmental relations chair and part of the Cal Grant Reform Coalition. The coalition includes higher education advocacy organizations, civil rights groups and students who want to see the reform implemented. 

    “It was really troublesome to not see it funded at all” in Newsom’s January budget proposal, added Ramirez, a senior at UCLA studying geography, environmental studies and labor studies.

    One potential solution, Ramirez said, could be to cut funding for the state’s Middle Class Scholarship and use those dollars to fund Cal Grant reform. 

    Convincing lawmakers to cut funding from the Middle Class Scholarship could be difficult, Ramirez acknowledged. But he said it would keep with his goal of prioritizing the state’s lowest-income students.

    “It’s a very political thing, making sure that there’s funding for the Middle Class Scholarship, because people want to please their constituents,” he added. 

    Another potential compromise would be to implement some but not all elements of the reform, but Ramirez said the coalition is still trying to “assess and identify” which parts of Cal Grant reform should be prioritized over others.

    Knowing what might be possible should become clearer this spring when Alvarez’s committee  holds its hearings on the topic.

    “The commitment is focused on increasing access to higher education for more students,” Alvarez said. “That’s what Cal Grant reform was about. And I don’t think anybody changed their mind about the importance of increasing access and reducing the cost of higher education for students.”





    Source link

  • New California teaching standards are welcome, but state must implement them consistently

    New California teaching standards are welcome, but state must implement them consistently


    On Feb. 8, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing will be considering significant revisions to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the framework that helps define common expectations for what all teachers should know and be able to do. As veteran teachers with over 40 years of teaching between us, we know how important it will be for students and teachers that the state adopts these revisions and that it allocates funding to support their implementation. 

    Wendy was evaluated this year by her principal. When they reviewed the standards Wendy was expected to know during observations, she realized that she’s seen this document many times before in her career; the same standards have been in place since 2009. These antiquated standards don’t reflect the strategies Wendy uses, the needs of her students, or even the technology integration embedded in the instruction. However, this is the tool her principal must use to determine Wendy’s effectiveness, and to highlight any areas in need of support. It is long past time for the state to revise these important guides. 

    For Juan, who is a mentor and instructor for student teachers and new educators, these standards matter because they serve as a guide for the Teaching Performance Expectations, which are used by teacher preparation programs and the commission to train and credential all new teachers. New teacher induction programs center the support they provide for new teachers around the standards as well. Because of this, every developing educator Juan has worked with has had to align their instruction and most importantly, the reflective practice that drives their continuous improvement, around the content of the standards. New educators who come closest to mastering these standards have the highest probability of being hired, being retained and ultimately having long successful careers.

    In 2020, the commission formed a committee of educators to rewrite the standards. Equity-minded education stakeholders across the state were hopeful, excited even, when the draft of new standards was completed in February 2021. These new standards have the power to change what teaching and learning looks like in California. They promise improved guidelines that support social-emotional learning and build school communities that emphasize cultural responsiveness. The standards expect teachers like us to create learning environments that are inclusive, respectful and supportive, while also using evidence-based best practices to guide rigorous instruction. They give us a “north star” we can use to effectively orient our ongoing practice and a lens through which we can reflect on it and grow as educators.  

    We are thrilled that after more than three years since the commission began this review process, the commission is moving forward with standards that better reflect what our students need. But new standards alone will not get the job done. The commission must also have a robust and thoughtful implementation plan. To support this effort and provide clearer guidance on implementing new standards, we and our colleagues in the Teach Plus Policy Fellowship conducted a series of interviews with teacher preparation and induction leaders.

    To ensure that the standards are implemented with the fidelity our students deserve, California is going to need to support their implementation with funding necessary for schools and districts to meet the unique needs of their respective educational communities. In addition, colleges of education and induction programs will need adequate funding to create and implement new coursework and professional development for not only new teachers, but teachers currently in the classrooms who have never used the new standards as a tool for growth and development. Without standards that are implemented consistently, students are the victims of a terrible educational lottery. Students whose teachers have been supported with meaningful professional development will have the opportunity to thrive, while the rest of the students will be deprived and potentially disadvantaged in their life in and beyond school. 

    President Joe Biden has said, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” The new standards underscore that we value culturally responsive teaching, social-emotional learning, and asset-based pedagogy among other instructional approaches. However, if the state does not commit to providing financial support to local educational agencies to do this work well, then the standards are merely empty platitudes. If we are really serious about raising the academic achievement level of all our students, then there is no better investment than that of ensuring that our educators have the tools necessary to help students reach their full learning potential. 

    •••

    Juan Resendez is a civics, world history and religions teacher at Portola High School in Irvine and an alumnus of the Teach Plus Policy Fellowship. 

    Wendy Threatt is a National Board Certified fourth grade teacher at Felicita Elementary in Escondido and a senior policy fellow with Teach Plus.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Students, faculty, staff distrust state college systems’ handling of Title IX cases

    Students, faculty, staff distrust state college systems’ handling of Title IX cases


    Fresno State University

    Credit: fresnostate.edu

    Students and faculty at all three of California’s public higher education institutions do not trust how colleges and universities handle sexual discrimination and harassment. 

    The lack of trust was detailed in a California Assembly Higher Education Committee report released last week that offers recommendations on how the state’s public colleges and universities can better address sexual harassment and discrimination. 

    The report addressed significant deficiencies in the University of California, California State University and California Community College systems’ handling of Title IX, which is the federal education law that prohibits schools from sex-based discrimination. For example, none of the state’s public colleges or universities review how campus leaders plan to address and prevent sex discrimination as part of administrators’ evaluations. Another deficiency: The community college system does not mandate student participation in annual sex discrimination prevention education programs. 

    The report highlighted that students at faculty across all three systems distrust and resent their institutions when it comes to handling Title IX cases. “The prevailing message from students, staff and faculty is that current policies of the CCC, CSU, and UC do not protect survivors and instead are used to protect the institution from lawsuits,” according to the report. 

    Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, said the goal for every district and campus should be moving from being reactive to being proactive and creating a culture of respect. 

    “When you have someone who has already been traumatized or victimized and you’re asking them to go through this incredibly lengthy and cumbersome process without an advocate, that’s not the greatest way to try and come to a resolution,” said Brill-Wynkoop, adding that an oversight body would be helpful. “Every district tries to do things correctly, but without some sort of system check, it’s difficult.” 

    Furthermore, the report found that California lacks an effective method for monitoring and regulating Title IX standards in its higher education institutions. 

    “California’s public higher education institutions are critical to the future of our state, and we must ensure our values of diversity and inclusivity are reflected in providing all students with a safe learning environment and all staff with a working environment free from harassment and discrimination,” Assembly Higher Education Chair Mike Fong said, adding that he will work with lawmakers to introduce legislation based on the report’s recommendations. 

    The report recommended providing more funding to the colleges to address sex discrimination, creating a statewide office to provide guidance and monitoring, annual compliance reports to the Legislature, and creating systemwide independent civil rights offices for each of the three systems. The committee also recommended more training and education, and making campus leaders more responsible for addressing sexual harassment and discrimination. 

    A spokesperson from the community colleges chancellor’s office said: “The Chancellor’s Office agrees with the findings and conclusions of this important report and looks forward to working with the committee, the Legislature and our colleges to implement the recommendations. We are fully aligned with the commitment to improve California’s higher education systems to better address discrimination and provide safe, inclusive environments for all students, faculty and staff.”

    The Assembly Higher Education Committee conducted the report following a series of news nationally and statewide about mishandled Title IX cases. The committee report cites EdSource’s investigation into Chico State, where a professor was investigated for an inappropriate sexual affair with a graduate student. He was put on paid leave last year after EdSource disclosed that he had allegedly threatened to shoot colleagues who cooperated in the investigation.

    The report also noted other EdSource coverage of Title IX cases at CSU campuses and an investigation by USA Today into the mishandling of a Title IX case by then President Joseph I. Castro. The case led to his resignation as CSU chancellor.

    The Cal State system was found to have mishandled a variety of cases over the year and reports from an independent law firm and the California State Auditor’s office last year found the 23 -campus system lacked resources and failed to carry out its Title IX responsibilities. 

    In response to the Assembly committee’s report, a spokesperson from the Cal State chancellor’s office said: “Any form of discrimination, harassment and misconduct is unacceptable. The CSU stands ready to work with legislators and with leaders from across the CSU system — including university administrators, staff, faculty and students — to make the changes needed to improve our Title IX and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures.”

    The report noted that the university system has already changed its policy allowing administrators who have committed misconduct to “retreat” to faculty positions. 

    CSU is currently implementing the changes and reforms called for in the 2023 state audit and in a report conducted by an independent law firm.

    A UC spokesperson said that system has made changes “to address these issues when they arise.”  Officials were interviewed for the Assembly report, and UC pledged to “review the recommendations closely in order to uphold our commitment to fostering an environment free from sex-based discrimination for all members of the UC community.”





    Source link

  • Chico State biology professor parts ways with university

    Chico State biology professor parts ways with university


    Embattled Chico State biology professor David Stachura is no longer employed by the university, a spokesperson said in a two-sentence statement issued Thursday.

    The spokesperson, Andrew Staples, would not say if Stachura, who had been on paid suspension for more than a year, was fired or resigned. He was the subject of two investigations that were nearing conclusions. One was on appeal to the chancellor’s office and the other was scheduled for mediation in April.

    Reached later by phone, Staples cited personnel privacy laws in declining further comment.

    Stachura’s lawyer, Kasra Parsad, did not return messages Thursday.

    The end of Stachura’s tenure at Chico State comes after a contentious court case to ban him from the campus and a failed libel suit he brought against a colleague.

    EdSource reported in December 2022 that an investigation found that Stachura had an inappropriate relationship with a student that included sex in his office in 2020 that could be heard through the walls, causing colleagues to report him. Stachura has repeatedly denied the affair.

    He received only light punishment for the affair and within months was named the university’s  “Outstanding Professor” of the 2020-21 academic year. The award was rescinded after EdSource reported on it.

    Stachura’s estranged wife later filed court papers in their ongoing divorce case alleging that he had threatened to shoot the professors who reported him and cooperated in the university’s investigation.

    Stachura was a tenured biology professor and was considered an expert in the use of zebra fish for medical research.

    A member of the biology department expressed relief  Thursday that Stachura is no longer on the faculty.

    “It’s about time,” Gordon Wolfe, a semi-retired biology professor, said. The biology department, he said, “is no longer dysfunctional. People are happy again.”

    Wolfe had reported to the university the allegations that Stachura’s wife made in court filings. A university investigation of the threats found that Stachura was not a danger, and he was allowed to keep working. The university’s police chief, who was a member of a panel that probed the matter, later testified that he disagreed with that finding.

    In November, a report by a San Diego lawyer hired to investigate how Chico State handled the Stachura matter revealed that former campus President Gayle Hutchinson knew about the affair with the student and the alleged threat to shoot colleagues when she approved his promotion to full professor. She retired last year.

    The report found that the university violated no existing procedures in how it handled the Stachura matters, including not informing faculty and students that Stachura allegedly threatened gun violence on campus.

    The saga did get the attention of state lawmakers. An Assembly committee cited EdSource’s reporting on Stachura multiple times in a report issued earlier this month that concluded that students and faculty members across the state don’t trust how schools deal with matters of sexual misconduct as governed by Title IX of federal education law.

    The report’s recommendations included forming a task force to examine whether “a statewide office to provide guidance and to monitor the compliance of post secondary education institutions with sex discrimination laws” can be formed and also having the leaders of the three systems issue annual compliance reports on sexual misconduct cases to lawmakers.





    Source link