اینترنت

برچسب: system

  • Educational rights for youth in the child welfare system | Quick Guide

    Educational rights for youth in the child welfare system | Quick Guide


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    The story has been updated to clarify that the total number of children and youth in the child welfare system.

    Over 70,000 children and youth in California have an open case in the child welfare system, according to the most recent point-in-time count, with over 51,000 of them also in foster care.

    Many come under supervision of their county Department of Children and Family Services after a reported allegation of child neglect or maltreatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation or emotional abuse; for others, it happens when a parent voluntarily requests support, often due to a child’s behavioral challenges.

    Children in an out-of-home placement in the child welfare system have access to particular educational rights. This is meant to ensure stability for them during a time of uncertainty.

    A child under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services often comes into contact with multiple individuals. Depending on the details of their case, this could include social workers, child advocates, police officers, detectives, attorneys, judges and others. If they are removed from their home, they might be placed in foster care. While not all youth in the child welfare system are in foster care, all foster youth are in the child welfare system.

    “When these rights were established, the purpose was to keep children in some kind of consistency, some kind of security, or something that felt just familiar to them,” said Jessica Gonzalez, youth justice program manager at CASA/LA, a national organization of court-appointed special advocates for youth in the child welfare system. CASA volunteers are sometimes appointed as educational rights holders for children. Even when they are not, they often advocate for education rights to be enforced, Gonzalez said.

    A child’s case might also enter the juvenile dependency court. While the primary goal for youth in dependency court is to “preserve the family” by keeping a child either in the home of their parent or a relative, they might be placed in foster care or adopted.

    Child welfare cases are complex, and outcomes depend on a multitude of factors, including the caretaking ability of a parent, whether a relative is able to take in the child, if an appeal is filed, and more.

    This story includes information on whom the educational rights apply to as well as general insight into some of these rights. Many were implemented with the enactment of AB 490 in 2003 yet remain difficult to understand for many families due to the complexity of the child welfare system.

    How many children are in the child welfare system?

    There were 51,339 children and youth with an open case and in foster care as of April 1. The count was published by the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, a data and technical assistance collaboration between the University of California at Berkeley and the California Department of Social Services.

    This point-in-time count includes those who are under the age of 1 up to age 21 and who have “an open child welfare or probation supervised placement episode” in California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System. The count peaked in 2016, with nearly 63,000 open cases. The lowest number of open cases occurred this year.

    Allegations of child maltreatment are much higher, however; between April 2022 and April 2023, there were more than 442,000 reported allegations.

    Which children in the system have access to particular educational rights?

    Youth in the child welfare system and in an out-of-home placement have access to specific educational rights. An out-of-home placement can include foster homes, group homes, shelters and hotels through the Department of Children and Family Services, and other similar placements.

    The purpose of these rights is to accommodate the child’s education as much as possible during a time of instability.

    What are some of the educational rights for those in the child welfare system?

    A child in the welfare system and in an out-of-home placement has access to the following rights, among others:

    • School stability. This includes the right to remain enrolled at their school of origin, which is the school they were enrolled in at the time their child welfare case began, and the right to be transported to that school.
    • Enrichment access. Youth have the right to access the same type of enrichment activities as their peers. This can include academic resources and extracurricular activities.
    • Placement in the least restrictive setting. Students have the right to be placed in the academic setting that’s least restrictive, or least strictly controlled, for them to be able to achieve academic progress and success.
    • Immediate enrollment. Regardless of whether a student has all the enrollment documents ready, or has had contact with the juvenile justice system, or has any outstanding fees — they have the right to be immediately enrolled in school.

    Each of the rights above are nuanced and dependent on each child’s case and the decisions of their educational rights holder.

    Additional information for families and children can be found by contacting the county Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program (each county’s contact can be found here) or at the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.

    What does it mean to place a child in the ‘least restrictive’ academic setting?

    While a least restrictive academic setting depends on age and whether a student has disabilities, it’s often considered the academic environment that’s least strictly controlled.

    For a high school student, the least restrictive setting might be a traditional public school where students walk from one classroom to another on their own, with sports and special events such as prom and field trips. A more restrictive academic setting is often a nonpublic school that provides a more strictly controlled environment in an effort to assist students who have specific behavioral, emotional or academic needs.

    As Gonzalez described, students are often pushed out to a more restrictive setting if they exhibit ongoing behavioral challenges — which, she says, are often a result of trauma in that child’s life.

    But students “have the right to be in a setting they feel safe in, they feel comfortable in, and they’re able to learn in,” Gonzalez said. “And so, if the child has demonstrated that they’re able to do this in a very restrictive setting, we have to give that student the opportunity to then be able to practice those skills in a less restrictive setting.”

    Who holds the educational rights for youth in the child welfare system?

    Every child has an educational rights holder with decision-making authority regarding their education. A parent often continues having the right to make educational and developmental decisions for their child even if they lose physical custody. Biological parents lose educational decision-making power only if they are explicitly limited or restricted by the juvenile court, if parental rights have been terminated (i.e., the child is up for adoption), or if the child is in a legal guardianship.

    Parents “are not always encouraged to continue to be a part of their child’s educational journey, so a lot of times what we do as CASA when we’re appointed to a case is facilitate that engagement with a parent to preserve their involvement in the child’s education,” Gonzalez said.

    Most often, organizations like CASA encourage relatives to hold educational rights. This is because once a child welfare case is closed, CASA is no longer the rights holder. Advocating for the biological parents or other relatives to remain as educational rights holders helps provide continuity in the child’s life, according to Gonzalez.

    In the absence of parents or relatives, the educational rights holder role is often filled by a court-appointed special advocate, which is where CASA’s name comes from.

    The person assigned as the educational rights holder is entitled to have “all of the educational decision-making rights normally held by a parent or guardian,” according to a recent fact sheet compiled by the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.

    How are educational decisions made?

    All educational decisions should be made with the child’s best interest in mind.

    For example, a child can remain in their school of origin if they prefer to. But if they’ve been placed far from that school and they would need to spend hours on the road to reach it, then it may be in their best interest to be enrolled in a new school.

    The educational rights holder can request a best-interest determination meeting that would include school district personnel, such as the school psychologist, before finalizing any educational decisions.

    How can an educational rights holder avoid roadblocks in advocating for a child?

    While educational rights are outlined, the rights holder may experience roadblocks in enforcing them.

    For example, information about a child, like academic assessments and individualized education programs, might not have yet been finalized at their school of origin and a new educational rights holder might face pushback from the new school.

    In such cases, children, their families and educational rights holders can contact an education attorney through the Educational Advocacy Unit at the Children’s Law Center. If the child is also in the juvenile justice system, they can contact a juvenile resource attorney through the public defender’s office.

    A significant barrier is that while foster youth liaisons at schools are designated staff members who support students in the child welfare system, they are often overwhelmed by the number of students they serve.

    Gonzalez said, “It’s a lot of just constantly showing up to the school, advocating, contacting, emailing, you know, all of those follow-ups to make sure that we’re getting the right support for each child that we serve.”





    Source link

  • It’s time to repair our fractured math system

    It’s time to repair our fractured math system


    A teacher helps a student with a math problem.

    Credit: Sarah Tully /EdSource

    Deep, active learning of mathematics for all students.

    We applaud this goal of California’s new math framework, an increasingly urgent priority in our data-rich, technology-enhanced age. However, the framework is only a guideline. Ensuring that schools and classrooms have the resources — including appropriate policies and high-quality teachers — to achieve the goal entails repairing fractures in our education landscape.

    Consider high school graduation requirements, which are literally all over the map:

    • Students in San Francisco and Palo Alto complete a minimum of three math courses, including Algebra II. Elsewhere in the Bay Area, East Palo Alto students attending Sequoia Union high schools can finish with just two years of math, and just one year of algebra. So can students in Sacramento.
    • Los Angeles has a three-year math requirement and permits Algebra II alternatives for the third year. In nearby Long Beach, all graduates complete four years of math, including Algebra II.

    This disarray is possible because California requires just two years of math to graduate from high school. It is one of only three states with such a low requirement. Admission to the state’s public universities, however, requires at least three years of math, preferably four. A majority of districts have set a higher bar that matches or approaches college admission criteria.

    But for many California students, the framework’s vision of all students completing three or four years of math remains just that — a vision, not a reality. Too many of them are being left out of the math opportunities that are increasingly important for participating in 21st-century professions and civic life. Research links taking four years of high school math to college access and success. But a quarter of California seniors take no math at all.

    The gap in requirements, however, is just one barrier to deep math learning — one that won’t be solved without bridging a second gap, a teacher gap. Doing that demands a commitment from our public universities.

    Two decades ago, California State University and University of California teacher preparation programs collectively enrolled more than 38,000 would-be teachers per year. The two systems now produce fewer than 10,000 teachers a year. Teacher preparation enrollments declined by 76% from 2001 to 2014 and have not recovered since.

    The Covid-19 pandemic didn’t help keep teachers in math classrooms. In a 2021 national survey of 1,200 school and district leaders, 46% of districts reported shortages of qualified secondary mathematics teachers. In California, nearly half of new math teachers enter the classroom without a credential, according to teacher supply reports.

    These shortages fall hardest on poor schools — those serving students with the greatest needs — which have 40% more teachers lacking qualifications than the richest schools do. One of us has witnessed this firsthand as a teacher, coach and professional development leader. In Los Angeles, some schools have few to no permanent mathematics teachers. In one middle school, for example, every math teacher was a long-term substitute. Students had multiple teachers each school year, sometimes for three years in a row. This continual churn of uncertified teachers virtually guarantees that little math will be learned and exerts a devastating impact on students’ preparedness for college,

    Confronting the crisis directly means building a teacher pipeline and investing in high-quality, ongoing professional development. A range of strategies would support this goal. They include expanding Golden State teacher fellowships and teacher residences dedicated to science and math teachers. Districts can also consider signing bonuses and retention bonuses for qualified math teachers as well as protection from potential layoffs. Teaching institutes, such as those the state funded in 2001, would also help ensure more and better math instruction.

    Instead, the latest contentious debates have focused on narrower issues, often centering on university admission requirements. In 2019, it was CSU’s proposal to add a year of math or quantitative reasoning coursework to admission requirements. It was ultimately shelved.

    Then it was the question—raised by an earlier draft of the framework — of middle school math acceleration. Without starting Algebra I in middle school, it is difficult for students to have calculus on their transcripts, which many perceive as a disadvantage in applying to selective universities. However, acceleration policies have traditionally contributed to tracking, in which Black and brown students have been assigned to lower-value math sequences. Vocal San Francisco parents — who objected to San Francisco Unified’s experiment and insisted that students be able to take Algebra I in middle school — are one reason the framework now leaves that decision up to local districts.

    A current dispute centers on including options such as statistics and data science — in addition to Algebra II — on the UC system’s list of math courses that fulfill the three-year requirement. After initially supporting expanding options, UC’s admissions board recently reversed itself.

    Those are important issues, but the skirmishes detract from more fundamental issues. When students take Algebra I and which math courses they are allowed to take in high school is immaterial if they take only two years of math or if they lack qualified teachers, period. Ultimately, ensuring math opportunity for students means investing in quality teachers. They hold the keys to deeper math learning.

    •••

    Kyndall Brown is the executive director of the California Math Project, which is mandated to implement California’s math standards with a focus on supporting low-performing schools. 

    Pamela Burdman is the executive director of Just Equations, a policy institute that works to rethink the role of math in education equity.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. 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

  • Michael Cohen: Texas Sat on a $30 Billion Surplus and Refused to Build a Flood Warning System

    Michael Cohen: Texas Sat on a $30 Billion Surplus and Refused to Build a Flood Warning System


    The leaders of Texas have shown again and again that they are indifferent to the lives of the people of their state. Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly refused to participate in the federal summer lunch program for low-income children, which would have fed nearly four million children. Abbott and his fellow Republicans imposed one of the strictest laws in the nation blocking abortion and the death rate of pregnant women has shot up. He has repeatedly refused to expand Medicaid to reach more than one million Texans who have no health insurance. Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick want to do as little as possible to provide public services or to improve the lives of the poor. They want low taxes. They believe in individual responsibility. That’s their highest priority.

    The following article was written by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer. It appeared on the Meiselas blog. He called it: “When the System Drowns Its People.”

    Cohen writes:

    There are disasters, and then there are premeditated failures dressed up as acts of God. What’s unfolding across Central Texas isn’t just a freak storm or an unfortunate tragedy; it’s the culmination of arrogance, willful neglect, and a depraved obsession with austerity over human life. More than 100 are confirmed dead, and over 160 remain missing. This is not just weather. This is the rotting fruit of a political doctrine that puts dollars before dignity, and ideology before infrastructure.

    This is Flash Flood Alley. They’ve called it that for decades. Scientists warned. Local officials knew. But Texas chose not to prepare. The topography is unforgiving: limestone hills, shallow rivers, rapid runoff. When the sky opens up, this region doesn’t flood. It drowns. It suffocates. And still, nothing. No modernized alert systems. No meaningful statewide plan. Just the usual chest-beating about “personal responsibility” while entire families were swept into the dark.

    Here’s the insult to injury: Texas is sitting on $30 billion in a rainy-day fund. That’s not a metaphor; that’s a literal pile of untouched cash that could’ve bought sirens, early-warning systems, elevated infrastructure, floodplain mapping, and the staffing to support it all. Instead, it sat in a bank account while children drowned in their camp bunks.

    Now comes the scapegoating. Right on cue, Texas officials have turned their aim at the National Weather Service, claiming it failed to provide sufficient warning. But the San Antonio Express-News called it what it is: a coward’s deflection. The NWS issued alerts—repeatedly. The problem wasn’t the forecast. The problem was that the system built to respond to that forecast had been deliberately dismantled.

    Let’s talk about DOGE: the Department of Government Efficiency. This isn’t satire. This is a real federal agency, created in 2025 under Trump’s second administration. Its stated mission? To “streamline” government. Its real job? Gut it from the inside out. Think of DOGE as the ideological Molotov cocktail thrown into the machinery of public service. Under the guise of saving taxpayer money, it laid off meteorologists, froze critical positions at FEMA, slashed NOAA’s coordination grants, and eviscerated the very agencies that make emergency response possible. Efficiency? No. This is strategic sabotage dressed up in a four-letter acronym.

    DOGE didn’t just cut fat; it amputated limbs. In the name of small government, they made us small-minded. In the name of freedom, they left us unprotected. And in the name of fiscal responsibility, they created the exact scenario that led to over a hundred preventable deaths in Texas. It’s bureaucratic manslaughter. And it’s spreading.

    Texas didn’t just follow DOGE’s lead; it internalized it. Governor Abbott didn’t need to be told to ignore warnings. He’s been doing it for years. Flash Flood Alley has seen repeated disasters, and each time, the response has been more anemic than the last. Why fund a new emergency alert system when you can cut taxes and call it liberty? Why invest in preparedness when you can just blame someone else after the storm?

    But here’s the fundamental question: What the hell is government for if not to protect its people?

    If your ideology leads you to hoard billions while people drown, then your ideology is broken. If your system prioritizes “lean governance” over living children, then your system is immoral. And if your political leaders shrug at death tolls while quoting spreadsheets, then they shouldn’t be in office; they should be in court.

    We live in a nation of deep denial. We still treat climate change as an abstraction. We pretend billion-dollar disasters are flukes. But we are in the age of permanent emergency. The floods are coming every year now. The fires, the heat domes, the inland hurricanes—they’re all part of the new American experience. And yet, our government—federal, state, and local—is being stripped down to the studs in the name of a 1980s fiscal fever dream about trickle-down competence.

    Let’s not forget: FEMA, too, is on the chopping block. The same anti-government crusade that birthed DOGE has its sights set on dismantling the last institutions capable of responding to disaster. Because in the minds of these so-called “efficiency experts,” saving lives is a luxury. The bare minimum is too expensive.

    Texas is the cautionary tale. It’s what happens when the government decides its job is not to serve the people, but to shrink until it disappears. The dead in Flash Flood Alley didn’t need to die. They died because warnings went unheeded, because funds went unused, and because the infrastructure built to protect them was methodically, proudly destroyed.

    So no, this wasn’t just rain. It wasn’t just a storm. It was a policy choice. And that choice killed people.

    Let this be the moment we stop pretending that slashing budgets is a moral good. Let this be the moment we say, with clarity and fury: government is not the problem; government is the responsibility. And if it can’t do the basics—warn, protect, rescue—then it isn’t just broken. It’s complicit.

    Flash Flood Alley didn’t have to be a graveyard. But thanks to DOGE and the cowardice it inspires, it is.

    And if we don’t change course, it won’t be the last.



    Source link

  • Chronic absenteeism: A symptom of an outdated school system?

    Chronic absenteeism: A symptom of an outdated school system?


    Photo: Alison Yin/EdSource

    Since the pandemic, reports and articles in publications across the state and country have bemoaned the rise in chronic absenteeism (missing at least 10% of school days a year).

    While theories and solutions abound from educational experts and practitioners, I think they mostly miss the point.

    I would argue that chronic absenteeism is merely a symptom of a larger problem that has been building for years, perhaps decades — that too many students don’t find school to be interesting, engaging or relevant for their futures.

    This is particularly true for kids of color and other marginalized student populations. Despite the dramatic changes in our society, our education system continues to rely on legacy ideas and historically taught content, rather than preparing our students to navigate an increasingly complex world.

    When schools and districts take the time to ask students, families, employers, and community and civic leaders what young people need for future success, it results in a set of skills, competencies and mindsets — often captured in a “graduate profile” or “learner portrait” — vastly different from that for which the state currently holds schools accountable.

    An analysis of dozens of these graduate profiles paints a clear picture: Young people need to communicate and collaborate effectively, think critically and creatively to solve problems, be self-directed lifelong learners and culturally competent and contributing citizens, be kind and compassionate, be technically and financially literate, maintain a healthy mind and body, and have a sense of purpose and sense of self. While often implicit, rarely are these skills, competencies and mindsets the explicit goals of our education system.

    If and when we organize schools around these competencies, students would see greater value in attending school.

    Let me illustrate further by talking about my 13- and 16-year-old sons, who are pretty typical kids.

    My older son (a 10th grader) is intellectually curious and prefers learning independently. As such, he thrived during the pandemic by grabbing his teachers’ instructions and materials from his school’s online learning management system, Canvas, getting help when needed, accessing online tools, and completing his school work at a time and in a manner convenient to him and his needs. This last quarter, he was home recovering after a car accident.

    While he stayed up late on the phone with friends and slept in, with focused effort of about two hours per day he was able to complete his school work from the comfort of his own bedroom or dining room table. In doing so, he earned all A’s except for one B. He’s now healing, getting around on crutches, but he doesn’t see much reason to return to school except to see friends. He has been chronically absent, but he’s finding success.

    My younger son (a seventh grader) cares little about learning but thrives on social interactions with friends. He’s a pleaser, so he does his schoolwork to appease his parents and teachers. Most days, when I inquire about his day, he simply says “it was boring.” His classes rarely spark his interest or inspire him to be curious, explore and deepen his learning. He simply doesn’t see it as relevant; nothing impels him to go to school.

    So, how can we shift teaching and learning to engage students in a way that brings them back to school and/or makes them want to be there? First, put students at the center of their own learning. Give them a voice in what they learn. Give them a choice in how they learn and demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Most importantly, give them the agency to take ownership of their learning journey. Enable students to center their own identities, cultures and languages so that they find value, purpose and relevance in their schooling.

    Doing this requires teachers and administrators to cede control and become co-creators and co-facilitators of powerful student-centered learning experiences. This can only happen when teachers form trusting relationships with students, know their names and stories, listen to them and create safe learning environments where they feel a sense of belonging.

    Of course, none of this is easy, but we have the answers at our disposal. We need administrators to create the conditions that enable teachers to experiment. The state can help by shifting away from an outdated system of accountability that binds compliance-focused educational leaders to a status quo that we can all agree isn’t working.

    My wife and I have long been fans of functional medicine — a field of health care that resists the Western medicine tendency to treat every symptom with a pill, and instead seeks to find and treat the root cause of illness. Our education system could benefit from this approach. Instead of treating chronic absenteeism as the problem, let’s see it as one of many symptoms of an outdated education system.

    ●●●

    Roman Stearns is the executive director of Scaling Student Success, a California partnership dedicated to educating the whole child, leveraging the power and potential of a community-developed “graduate profile” or “learner portrait” as a driver for transformational change.

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





    Source link

  • California looks to the health system to sustain mental health funds in schools

    California looks to the health system to sustain mental health funds in schools


    Credit: Photo: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    To create an education system that has stable funds for mental health, California educators and leaders are turning to the health system and launching a statewide behavioral health initiative to fill funding gaps in fluctuating, sometimes unpredictable school budgets.

    “The health systems and the education systems are not bound together successfully enough to make sure we engage in both prevention and treatment,” said David Gordon, a commissioner at the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. “That’s particularly true for the most underserved communities.”

    Funding for mental health in California public schools typically has come from general education budgets, a reason funds have never been stable. As the need for more mental health services and specialists skyrockets, administrators and experts are turning to the health system to better serve needs that existing education budgets just can’t cover. 

    Schools bridge some gaps by placing nurses, social workers, school counselors and psychologists on campuses, but there’s never enough money to fully meet student mental health needs. Without a built-in, statewide system to fund mental health in schools, districts are left to figure it out themselves. 

    “We’re so used to trying to provide external funding to fund us to some sort of equitable level for every student,” said Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors. “It’s never been the general fund will cover us — it’s just sort of baked into the cake.”

    It’s been that way since at least the late 1980s, when Whitson began her education career, she said.

    The Local Control Funding Formula, legislation that changed the way education was funded in California, created more funds for mental health and “a more holistic view and review of schools,” Whitson said. “But if there’s not enough money to go around, then school district administrators need to make very hard decisions.”

    If districts have to rely on general fund money for mental health providers, it creates competition with funding for teachers and education programs, Whitson said. If budgets had more funds specifically for mental health, it would mean more money for education. 

    If we piecemeal it like it’s been, then we’re always trying to find money through categorical programs or grant funding.

    Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors

    California doesn’t mandate districts to provide school counselors, social workers, nurses or psychologists, but it is encouraged. Some experts say mandates could ensure there would be mental health specialists at every school. But that goes against the idea of local control, Whitson said, which allows districts to make decisions based on their community’s needs and resources. 

    Grants for mental health have helped, but it’s not sustainable, Gordon said. School districts will receive grants for a few years or even less, and when those dollars run out, the services or mental health specialists do too if districts don’t have money to keep them going. 

    Similarly, districts turned to pandemic relief dollars to boost staffing for school counselors, social workers, psychologists and nurses, but those funds expired in September. 

    Nonprofits and community organizations have stepped in to help fill needs at lower costs, put therapists on school campuses, and taken over doing burdensome paperwork. But if the services aren’t free to school districts, then most money for mental health has to come out of the education budget. 

    Blending two systems

    Gordon credits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Children Youth and Behavioral Health Initiative for beginning to merge the health and education system. The goal for two major systems to come together is reachable, Gordon said, “but it will take a lot of coordination and collaboration.”

    A key component of the behavioral health initiative is to support partnerships between Medi-Cal managed care plans and schools to increase access for children receiving Medi-Cal — nearly 5.7 million kids in 2022. Another goal is to increase access to early interventions and preventative mental and behavioral health care.

    The behavioral health initiative was part of the Budget Act of 2021 and the governor’s Master Plan for Kids’ Mental Health. The California Department of Health Care Services will invest $4.7 billion over multiple years in youth behavioral services.

    According to the master plan, more than 240,000 children cope with depression, and 66% don’t receive treatment. Suicide rates among 10-18-year-olds increased by 20% in 2019-2020.

    Efforts to implement the behavioral health initiative started in January 2022. So far, hundreds of millions of dollars in funding have been disbursed to dozens of organizations for training and retention of providers, loan repayments and scholarships to increase providers in underserved areas.

    But some of the funding is distributed as grants and won’t last long, Whitson said. 

    “I think it’s important to consider: How do we sustain this? A lot of programs come in as temporary programs, so seed money,” Whitson said. “We look at sustainable money as Medi-Cal a lot of times.”

    The amount of money school districts can bill to Medi-Cal recently increased, thanks to new legislation. The California Education Code was updated in January after AB-2058 passed, allowing districts to bill Medi-Cal for mental health services provided by school counselors.

    A 2018 statewide count of school counselors tallied about 11,000, Whitson said. She estimates there are about 14,000 now. 

    “School counselors are one of the biggest billing forces in the state. It should be bringing in quite a bit of money,” Whitson said. “It could be used to lower the caseloads on all levels — social workers, psychologists, school counselors.” 

    However, the process for school districts to bill Medi-Cal can be long and cumbersome. 

    Sometimes districts won’t get a full refund, and it could take a few years before the money is returned, said Marlon Morgan, founder and CEO of Wellness Together, a nonprofit that brings mental health providers to school campuses in California and New York. 

    “Schools are pretty reticent to use that billing option because they could end up spending $1 million but only get $500,000 back,” Morgan said. “If you’re on a school board and looking at ways to stabilize your budget and to know what to expect, that’s a huge wild card, and frankly one that doesn’t get used very often.”

    In Sacramento County, schools are partnering with the Sacramento County Health Department to have one mental health provider at every school, said Gordon, who is also the superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education. The partnership works well because the county health departments already manage Medi-Cal and Medicaid plans — which insure more than 60% of people in the county, he added.

    The purpose isn’t only to provide direct services at schools, but to have someone from the health system stationed at schools interacting with staff, students, and families every day, Gordon said. The goal is to have “centers of wellness and prevention, rather than a center of let’s go out and seek treatment for a problem that should’ve been caught many years ago,” he said.

    Some organizations are combining billing insurance and grant funding to bring providers to schools. Campus Clinic, which aims to remove barriers to health care access by putting providers at schools, has brought mental health providers and other physicians to 14 districts and more than 600 schools in California, said Thomas Shaffer, the organization’s founder and president. 

    Most districts haven’t had to foot the bill. Campus Clinic started paying for all the costs, Shaffer said, and was able to sustain its offerings through billing insurance, including Medi-Cal, and applying for grants. One burden Campus Clinic and other similar organizations lift from districts is handling the paperwork and billing.  

    “We aim to complete, not compete, with existing resources,” Shaffer said. 

    Still, the need for mental health services and providers is too great to catch up with demand. Campus Clinic is contracted with 28 more districts that are still in the planning stages, Shaffer said. 

    Campus Clinic also offers universal health screenings that allow schools to quickly identify which students are showing signs of anxiety, depression and risk of self-harm, Shaffer said. Schools can see responses through a dashboard that includes real-time notifications for students who are at risk of self-harm. Campus Clinic has teams that start reaching out to families to offer services. 

    But it doesn’t come without challenges. Building trusting relationships with families so they feel comfortable accepting services can be an uphill battle.

    ‘The cultural and trust piece’

    Officials at Feaster Charter School in Chula Vista saw immediate results after Campus Clinic gave universal mental health screenings to students in grades six through eight in May.

    Out of the 350 students, roughly 40% were identified as having some level of anxiety and depression, said Karen Haro-Esparza, community school coordinator.

    Teams at Campus Clinic started contacting families right away, Haro-Esparza said. Although it’s a huge help, it also created challenges  — “the cultural and trust piece.” 

    “Because they are not a regular part of our staff, when Campus Clinic communicates with families, they have a lot of questions,” Haro-Esparza said.  “Our challenge has been, ‘How do we educate families further to destigmatize and normalize the partnerships?’”

    The stigma around mental health — especially among people of color and different cultures — is one reason families or guardians don’t seek or access resources for students. Something most mental health experts working in education can agree on is the importance of maintaining trust among schools, providers and families. 

    “It’s not just putting money out to buy services. It’s working to try to put the systems together so that they’re relating and families will come to know and trust the medical system even though they aren’t located in their community.”

    David Gordon

    Campus Clinic providers aim to become part of the school community, Shaffer said. One strategy Campus Clinic providers use is to rotate through different classrooms to speak with students about health and wellness for 15 minutes to become more familiar and create connections. 

    Wellness Together is investing in interns to diversify the workforce and build trusting relationships between communities and mental health providers, Morgan said. Before mental health professionals receive their licenses, they need to complete hundreds of hours that typically are unpaid — some programs won’t even allow future providers to have paid internships. 

    Morgan, who started his career as a school counselor, said he’s seen dozens of people never get their licenses because they can’t afford to work for free. It contributes to the lack of diversity in the behavioral health workforce, he said. Now, the nonprofit has more than 30 partnerships with universities in California to ensure interns are paid liveable wages and receive benefits. 

    Wellness Together pays interns working toward their licenses to be social workers, clinical and mental health counselors, licensed marriage and family therapists, and a pupil personnel services credential. 

    “The biggest challenge is finding staff and making sure the staff reflects the communities they’re serving,” Morgan said. “By paying interns and paying associates, we now have an option and an opportunity to really hire the best person for the job and often hire a person who is local and from the community.”





    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

  • California’s new cradle-to-career system can illuminate student pathways

    California’s new cradle-to-career system can illuminate student pathways


    Cal State Northridge

    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    From our smartwatches giving us metrics on our last workout, to utility dashboards helping us meet our environmental conservation goals, we are living in an increasingly data-driven world. But when it comes to figuring out an education or career path, it can be hard to find useful information to make sound decisions.

    Where do young people from my city go after high school? What education or training programs can help me earn livable wages? How do I figure out college applications and get financial aid? These are all questions that have been difficult for Californians to answer as they decide what jobs to pursue and whether to attend college.

    But California recently took a big step toward making data available in tangible, easy-to-access ways. The new California Cradle-to-Career Data System (C2C) connects the dots from early and K-12 education, to higher education and the workforce. It’s a new, longitudinal data system that can enable people to make more informed decisions about their lives. As early as 2024, Californians will have access to C2C’s first planned dashboard.

    The longitudinal data system will illuminate the journey from cradle to career. A guidance counselor wonders whether her former students stayed in college. Universities working to help students succeed can’t see what K-12 supports students did — or didn’t — receive.

    The C2C system can stitch together data that can tell those stories across time. Those connections and transitions become visible only when the data from multiple education systems is linked together.

    How will people be able to use that data that stretches over time? Before the data system launched, the system’s data providers worked together with members of the public to map out priority topics for specific data dashboards. Each one will create a “data story” focused on topics like:

    • student pathways from high school to college and career.
    • the experiences of community college students aiming to transfer to a four-year university.
    • employment outcomes illuminating paths to jobs with livable wages.

    We’re prioritizing the needs that communities have voiced before developing useful tools. The California Legislature took bold action in passing the Cradle-to-Career Data System Act. It wrote into state law that the data system must prioritize the needs of students and families. This means listening to communities first, and then working to build data tools people will actually use.

    What have Californians shared? Right now, the most requested feature is the ability to break down the data by geography and demographics. People want to know, “What story does the data tell in my community?”

    What challenges are Californians in rural areas facing in their education and workforce sectors? What needs are not being met to ensure educational success and individual prosperity? People with lived experiences in these communities can best answer these questions. 

    To get input from across the state, C2C hosts community conversations where people can voice their priorities, both online and in-person. Recent events were held in Sacramento and Oakland, and the Central Valley and Southern California are up next. Building the country’s most inclusive data system requires collaboration, and that is top of mind for the Cradle-to-Career data system.

    Launching an intentionally inclusive data system has taken a historic, governmentwide effort. Those of us in the Legislature are working with the Newsom administration to break down the silos that can make it hard to share data with the public. Champions of the data system understand that data works for individuals when it empowers them to make decisions about their futures. Informed decisionmaking is key to ensuring every Californian has the freedom to succeed, and that starts with a reliable and actionable statewide longitudinal data system.

    •••

    Mary Ann Bates is the executive director of the Office of Cradle-to-Career Data.
    Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin represents California’s 42nd District.
    Sen. John Laird represents California’s 17th District.

    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

  • Layered levels of support boost student achievement, reduce suspensions — let’s fortify the system

    Layered levels of support boost student achievement, reduce suspensions — let’s fortify the system


    Students work on homework during an after-school program in Chico, the largest city in Butte County. (File photo)

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    For nearly a decade, the Orange County Department of Education and the Butte County Office of Education have had the privilege of co-leading the implementation of the California Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) — a statewide framework that’s transforming how schools serve students academically, socially, emotionally and behaviorally.

    This work began with a simple but urgent goal: to ensure that every student in California — no matter their ZIP code, background or circumstance — has access to a responsive and coordinated system of supports that meets their individual needs. 

    Today, that vision is being realized in thousands of schools across the state, where educators are reporting measurable gains in academic performance, reductions in suspensions and absenteeism, and stronger alignment with initiatives like Universal Pre-kindergarten, the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and Community Schools.

    In short, California MTSS is working. And now is the time to sustain and expand its impact.

    For those unfamiliar with the framework, the California Multi-Tiered System of Support is based on three levels of support: 

    1. Universal instruction and strategies for all students.
    2. Targeted help for those who need more.
    3. Intensive interventions for students with the greatest needs.

    What makes it so powerful isn’t just its flexibility or scalability — though those are important — but its ability to help schools work together more effectively and break down silos across California’s education system. 

    Our state has made historic investments in mental health, early learning, expanded instructional time and more. The multitiered system doesn’t replace those efforts — it ensures they work together. In other words, it’s the delivery system for every promise we’ve made to our students.

    Consider these scenarios, drawn from real-life practices, to see how the framework can support students across different educational settings:

    At an elementary school, a student who is reading below grade level benefits from universal supports built into the classroom for all learners. The teacher uses strategies like visual scaffolds — including maps, illustrations and diagrams to aid comprehension — along with flexible grouping based on reading levels and multiple ways for students to demonstrate understanding. These tools, part of a schoolwide commitment to Universal Design for Learning, help the student stay engaged and make steady progress without needing to be pulled out or referred for separate services.

    In a middle school, a student who begins to withdraw socially and fall behind in assignments is connected with supplemental support. A school counselor checks in weekly, and the student joins a small group focused on building organization and self-regulation skills. With these added layers of support, the student regains confidence and starts participating more actively in class.

    At an alternative high school, a student returning from an extended absence receives more intensive support. A personalized plan is created that includes one-on-one counseling, a flexible academic schedule, and regular collaboration between school staff and the student’s family. Over time, the student re-engages with learning and builds toward graduation.

    As county leaders, we’ve seen firsthand how California MTSS helps schools weave together fragmented programs and services into a single, integrated system that responds to the whole child. 

    In some schools, that has meant fewer students being referred to special education thanks to earlier, research-based interventions. In others, it has led to improved school climates, stronger teacher-student relationships and higher graduation rates.

    Crucially, this work has taken hold in settings as diverse as the state itself. California MTSS is driving progress in large urban districts, small rural schools and alternative education programs that serve some of our most vulnerable youth. 

    In Butte County, where educators often juggle multiple roles and resources are limited, the framework has provided structure and tools to meet local needs while maintaining alignment with statewide goals. These strategies have become a blueprint for many rural communities across California. 

    Meanwhile, in Orange County, the multitiered framework is helping schools tackle chronic absenteeism, expand mental health supports and ensure students are not just seen, but supported and successful.

    California has emerged as a national leader in this work. Our state was the first to embed social-emotional learning and mental health into the multitiered system of support framework, and we’ve launched online certification modules to build capacity for administrators, teachers, counselors and even higher education faculty. The annual California MTSS Professional Learning Institute, which draws thousands of educators each summer, has become a hub for sharing evidence-based practices and building cross-county collaboration.

    Yet like any systemic improvement effort, the long-term impact depends on sustained commitment. The current phase of statewide funding is set to conclude in 2026. Without additional investment, we risk stalling momentum — or worse, losing the progress we’ve made.

    That’s why we’re jointly requesting a new round of funding — approximately $18 million annually over four years — to ensure that the framework continues to evolve and expand. Two-thirds of every dollar would go directly to schools, districts, county offices and fire-impacted regions to support coaching, trauma-informed practices and professional development. It would also fund large-scale research efforts and deepen implementation in classrooms, where it matters most.

    The data speaks for itself. Recent studies show statistically significant improvements in reading and math scores in schools implementing the framework. Educators in rural communities report stronger collaboration and better outcomes. And thousands of students — including those with disabilities, those in foster care and those experiencing homelessness — are getting the supports they need, when they need them.

    We believe the foundation is strong. Now is the time to build on it.

    •••

    Stefan Bean, Ed.D., is Orange County’s superintendent of schools. Mary Sakuma, Ed.D., is Butte County’s superintendent of schools.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. 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

  • 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

  • California prepares to launch first phase of new education data system

    California prepares to launch first phase of new education data system


    After years of preparation inside and outside the state Capitol (shown), California has launched a website that gathers all sorts of education and career data in a single, searchable place.

    Credit: Kirby Lee / AP

    California has long lagged behind most other states when it comes to education data systems, choosing to focus on compliance rather than program improvement, but that could change later this year when the first phase of the Cradle-to-Career Data System is expected to go live.

    The goal of the new statewide longitudinal data system, known as C2C, is ambitious. It will link data from multiple state departments and education institutions, from early learning through higher education, along with financial aid and social services. The data system is expected to provide resources for students planning for college and careers, as well as data to inform state leaders about effective educational strategies.

    States have a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to timely data to help them to understand how people are navigating education and career pathways, said Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger, president and chief executive officer of the Data Quality Campaign, a national education advocacy organization. 

    The first phase of the rollout later this year will be a student dashboard that will allow anyone to look at student information, including demographics; number of homeless youth, foster children and students with disabilities; English learner status; drop-out rates, parent education levels; and age of entry into school. The dashboard will not include information about individual students, but can be disaggregated by region, district and state, according to the Cradle-to-Career website.

    Another dashboard will follow, reporting on teacher preparation, credentialing, hiring, retention and educator demographics. The data will be provided by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

    “This is an exciting moment because we are right on the cusp of seeing the value of connecting these data in one place,” said Christopher Nellum, executive director of The Education Trust-West, a social justice and advocacy organization. “We are going to see very soon the value in individual data providers sharing their data. And that will result in these two dashboards that are coming online very soon.”

    Nellum was appointed to the C2C governing board by Gov. Gavin Newsom, but chose to be interviewed for this story as the director of EdTrust-West. 

    C2C could make state a data leader

    When the Cradle-to-Career Data System is built out, there will be query builders, interactive tutorials and videos, and a library of tables, reports and research. Eventually, researchers will be able to request more comprehensive data from C2C staff. 

    The data system is housed and managed by the California Government Operations Agency, which was established in 2013 to improve management and accountability of government programs.

    “I don’t have any doubt they can get this done,” said Paige Kowalski, executive vice president of the Data Quality Campaign. “They’re well staffed. They have been doing a great job.”

    The Data Quality Campaign has been critical of California in the past for its siloed approach to data collection and reporting, but its leaders are optimistic about the new data system.

    “I think the work that the state has done on Cradle-to-Career since 2019 has been absolutely flawless and phenomenal, and I just cannot say that about any other data effort I’ve ever seen in any state over the last 20 years,” Kowalski said.

    C2C will not only allow the state to play catch-up with the rest of the nation, but could make it the leader in linking data from early education to employment, she said.

    Cost of project unclear

    It’s not entirely clear how much the Cradle-to-Career Data System will cost. The program has spent $21.4 million so far, with another $10.4 million committed to future work, but not yet spent, according to C2C staff.

    During the planning process that began in 2019, the state allocated $2.5 million to plan the data system and another $100,000 each to 15 state departments, universities and other organizations participating in the effort. It’s not clear if all that money was spent, or if some was returned to the state. 

    The state also increased annual funding to some state departments that provide data and other services to the Cradle-to-Career Data System, including $1.7 million to increase staff at the California Department of Education. It’s unclear how many other departments have received budget increases tied to C2C.

    Sixteen partners to share data

    The state has gotten key players to sign data-sharing agreements with C2C:  The California Department of Education, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, University of California, California State University, California Community Colleges, Department of Social Services, Employment Development Department, Department of Industrial Relations, Department of Developmental Services and private universities.

    The agreements are voluntary, with no penalty for departments or agencies that fail to provide data in a timely manner. So far, all the data has been submitted on time, according to board members.

    “From 2022 to now, C2C has been working diligently with its data providers and its stakeholders to build a strong foundation to support a secure data linkage process given the scope of data C2C is bringing together,” said Angelique Palomar, deputy director of communications. “This includes establishing legal agreements across 16 entities, building the data infrastructure to securely receive and integrate the data across those partners, and the first submission of that data in October 2023.”

    Data was submitted again in March, which will be the month partners will share annual data with C2C going forward, Palomar said.

    The California Department of Education (CDE), which has fallen behind in providing up-to-date data on its website over the last seven years, will contribute about 70% of the data for C2C, according to CDE staff. It will use the additional state funding to hire more staff to help deliver the data for the project.

    Bell-Ellwanger is hopeful all the partners will contribute data in a timely manner.

    “These are data that belongs to taxpayers, not to one agency, or any person within the agencies,” she said. “And, so Californians, including researchers, journalists and the public, all deserve access to it.” 

    California is playing catch-up

    C2C was a long time coming. California was one of only 11 states that did not have a data system with formal connections across two or more of the four core areas — early learning, K-12, post secondary and workforce — in 2021, according to the Education Commission of the States.

    The Kentucky Center for Statistics is the nation’s gold standard when it comes to education-to-employment data systems, according to Kowalski. California looked to Kentucky when designing the California Cradle-to-Career data system, she said.

    California has rolled out several education data systems over the last 30 years, but they have offered siloed information that couldn’t track whether students were successfully moving from school to the workforce. 

    In the late 1980s, California began to collect school-level data through the California Basic Educational Data System, known as CBEDS, a program still in use today.

    In 1997, the state launched the California School Information Services (CSIS) system to streamline the collection and reporting of education data. But the system was obsolete less than five years later when No Child Left Behind became a federal law. CSIS lacked a unique identifier for each student, which the new law required to track student achievement.

    In 2009, the state launched the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, also known as CALPADS. It includes K-12 student-level demographics, enrollment, grade level, course enrollment and completion, program participation and discipline data, according to the California Department of Education. A 10-digit number is linked to each K-12 student in California, but individual information on students is not made public.

    Its companion data system, the California Longitudinal Teacher Integrated Data Education System, or CALTIDES, never went live. The data system would have tracked educator data to facilitate assignment monitoring and to evaluate programs, according to the CDE website.  In June 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the $2.1 million the Legislature had put in the budget for CALTIDES, which forced the state to give back the $6 million federal grant it had received for the new database.

    “He had a belief that Sacramento could not add much value to what districts were doing, and that data was definitely one of those things that was better left to locals,” Kowalski said of Brown. 

    Instead, CALPADS was built out to a basic level and put in maintenance mode, Kowalski said. But researchers kept beating the drum for data that was useful to people, she said. These are things other states have had for a decade.

    Public included in planning

    Gov. Newsom, having different views than his predecessor, made the Cradle-to-Career Data System part of his campaign for governor. In 2019, the Legislature passed the Cradle-to-Career Data System Act, which called for the creation of a data system to create support tools for teachers, parents and students; enable agencies to optimize educational, workplace and health and human services programs; streamline financial aid administration; and advance research on improving policies.

    The state legislation included public engagement in the planning process and required that the 21-member advisory board include members of the public. The California law that mandated the data system also requires an annual survey of students and their families to ensure their voices and experiences guide the work, according to C2C.

    This year, C2C officials are holding community meetings across the state to discuss what pieces of information should accompany the dashboards and how they should be displayed.

    In Sacramento, community members asked for data disaggregated geographically, possibly by school district. Sacramento’s residents also want informational videos to help train people to use the dashboards. Oakland’s residents were interested in breaking the data down by demographic and educational factors.

    “A few years ago, Gov. Newsom and the California Legislature really made it clear through their legislation around California Cradle-to-Career that they wanted this access that we’re talking about for students, families, educators, researchers and the public,” Bell-Ellwanger said. “So I do believe that they are aspiring for this type of transparency that we’re talking about that will also help to build trust in that data.”





    Source link