اینترنت

برچسب: target

  • California agrees to target the most struggling students to settle learning-loss lawsuit

    California agrees to target the most struggling students to settle learning-loss lawsuit


    Students work together during an after-school tutoring club.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    In an agreement ending a 3-year-old lawsuit brought by families of 15 Oakland and Los Angeles students, the state will target billions of dollars of remaining learning-loss money to low-income students and others with the widest learning disparities.

    State officials have also agreed to pursue statutory changes that would commit districts and schools to measure and report on student progress using proven strategies, like frequent in-school tutoring, in ways that the state hadn’t required in other post-Covid funding. If the state reneges or the Legislature fails to follow through, the plaintiffs can revoke the deal and return to court for trial.

    The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Rosenbaum, director of the Opportunity Under Law project for the nonprofit law firm Public Counsel, said he was optimistic that won’t be necessary.

    “The state stepped up in focusing on those kids who have been hardest hit,” Rosenbaum said. “The urgent vision of this historic settlement is to use strategies that not only recoup academic losses but also erase the opportunity gaps exacerbated by the pandemic.”

    Districts are receiving the state block grant based on the proportion of low-income students, foster children, and English learners enrolled, although they can currently use the funding for all students. The program lists various possible uses to “support academic learning recovery and staff and pupil social and emotional well-being,” including more instructional time, learning recovery materials, and counseling. The money can be spent through 2027-28. 

    The settlement covers what’s remaining of the $7.5 billion Learning Recovery Block Grant, which Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature reduced to $6.3 billion in the current state budget. The largest Covid pot of relief money for districts — $12 billion from the federal government under the last phase of the American Rescue Act — expires on Sept. 30.

    The settlement would limit funding to the lowest performing student groups and chronically absent students, including Black and Hispanic students, and would narrow the list of permitted uses while requiring strategies backed by evidence that they are effective. Districts would create a plan for the money, which is not currently required, and track the outcome of at least one strategy over the following three years.

    Newsom kept the remainder of the block grant intact in his proposed 2024-25 budget, although he based the budget on optimistic revenue forecasts. To guard the block grant from future cuts, the settlement would guarantee a minimum of $2 billion will be protected.

    “One of the reasons that animated our settlement was, we didn’t want to go to trial and then, at the end of the trial, get a decision and then find that the cupboard was bare,” Rosenbaum said.

    In a statement on behalf of the Newsom administration, State Board of Education spokesperson Alex Traverso called the agreement’s use of one-time dollars “appropriate at this stage coming out of the pandemic.”

    “We look forward to engaging with the Legislature and stakeholders to advance this proposal and focus learning recovery dollars on serving the students with the greatest needs,” he wrote.

    Did the state fail its constitutional duty?

    Public Counsel and the San Francisco law firm Morrison Foerster filed Cayla J. v. the State of California, State Board of Education, California Department of Education, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in November 2020, eight months after Covid-19 forced a statewide shutdown of schools and a quick transition to distance learning. The state was slow to provide computers and connections, and the Legislature, anticipating a recession, initially included no extra funding for them. Billions of federal and state dollars specifically for learning loss came later.

    The rollout of distance learning and equipment was uneven among districts. The quality and extent of remote learning also varied widely among districts initially and when schools restarted in the fall.

    The lawsuit charged that “the delivery of education left many already-underserved students functionally unable to attend school.”

    “In addition,” it said, “students are being harmed by schools that fail to meet minimum instructional times, which the state has done nothing to enforce.”

    The lawsuit pointed to then 8-year-old twins Cayla J. and her sister Kai J., from a low-income family and attending third grade in Oakland Unified. They had remote classes only twice between March and the end of school in 2020. Because some of the students in the class lacked the equipment for remote learning, the teacher told their mother that classes were canceled for the other students, according to the lawsuit. 

    Oakland and Los Angeles Unified had among the fewest minutes of live daily instruction during distance learning and were among the last districts to return to in-person learning in spring 2021. Los Angeles Unified students missed 205 in-person days, and Oakland students missed 204 days.

    In subsequent court filings, as the case dragged on, the California Department of Education pointed to the massive state and federal Covid aid for districts, the minimum daily minutes of instruction that the Legislature set, and the many webcasts and guidance that the department gave on strategies for remote instruction and learning recovery. It cited districts’ authority to make decisions under local control and the transparency requirements for reporting spending through their Local Control and Accountability Plans.

    Rosenbaum told EdSource when the lawsuit was filed that the state was shirking its constitutional obligation to prevent education inequality. “The state cannot just write big checks and then say, ‘We’re not paying attention to what happens here,’” he said. “The buck stops with the state. The state’s duty is to ensure that kids get basic educational equality and that the gaps among the haves and the have-nots do not widen.” 

    Providing expert testimony for the plaintiffs, Lucrecia Santibañez, professor at UCLA’s School of Education & Information Studies, wrote, “Our decentralized school system in California, and the minimal guidance that was received from the state appears to have left many (districts) to their own devices.”

    “Data collection was minimal to non-existent, and monitoring of the learning and continuity plans was superficial at best,” she wrote.

    Dispute over test scores

    Meanwhile, chronic absences soared to set new records in 2022-23, and test scores fell sharply. In 2022-23, 34.6% of students met or exceeded standards on the Smarter Balanced math test, which is 5.2 percentage points below pre-pandemic 2018-19. Only 16.9% of Black students, 22.7% of Latino students, and 9.9% of English learners were at grade level.

    There was a similar drop in English language arts results by 2022-23: 46.7% of students overall met or exceeded standards. Only 29.9% of Black students and 36.1% of Latino students were at grade level, compared with 60.7% of white students and 74% of Asian students.

    The key issue in the case was whether the pandemic effects were disproportionate and whether the digital divide contributed to it. State officials acknowledged the impact of the pandemic but asserted that the declines were similar, within one or two percentage points, for all groups. In rebuttal, Harvard University education professor Andrew Ho, a nationally known psychometrician, charged that the state intentionally used “a biased calculation of achievement gaps” that led to the finding it sought.

    The state used the method displayed on the California School Dashboard that compares the percentages of student groups that met a single pre- and post-pandemic target — scoring at or above meeting standards from one year to the next. Ho wrote that it should have compared individual students’ losses and gains in scale points, a more refined measure that other states use.

    Using that methodology, Ho wrote, “California test scores show that racial inequality increased in almost all subjects and grades. Economic inequality also increased.” An independent analysis of state test data by EdSource corroborated that finding.  

    Advocates for a more precise system of measuring students’ growth on test scores have also called for the use of scale scores. In a move that could accelerate that adoption in California, the settlement calls for using scale scores to determine which student groups will be eligible for the block grant funding.

    Last August, in a decision that prompted negotiations to settle the case, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case and ordered the parties to go to trial. He concluded that the state had not established that it made adequate and reasonable efforts to respond to the pandemic’s impact and that Ho’s finding on increased learning disparities was credible. Under the settlement, the state would pay $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees.

    Credit to local nonprofits

    During the summer of 2020, Cayla J. and her sister turned to a nonprofit for help the district didn’t provide. Calling The Oakland REACH “a lifeline” for the two girls, the lawsuit said it “provided a safe space for learning and community advocacy” while offering enrichment online summer courses. Its family liaisons helped keep Cayla J. and Kai J. from falling further behind, it said.

    Oakland REACH’s counterpart in Los Angeles, the Community Coalition, provided similar services. Both signed on as plaintiffs.

    Efforts by The Oakland REACH evolved into a novel early literacy and early math tutoring partnership with Oakland Unified, employing trained community members and parents. In a nod to both nonprofits’ good work, the settlement calls for amending the education code to encourage districts to contract or partner with community-based organizations “with a track record of success” for services covered by the block grant.

    Michael Jacobs, a partner with Morrison Foerster working pro bono on the case, called the provision an important and landmark element of the agreement. 

    “We saw during the pandemic that community-based organizations filled critical needs,” he said. Pointing to The Oakland REACH, he said, “Now the evidence is in that the services made a significant difference in educational achievement.”

    Lakisha Young, CEO and founder of The Oakland REACH said she has been speaking with community partners in other districts about their work “building solutions for our kids to be reading proficiently.” She called the agreement a “historic win” and praised the families involved in the lawsuit for “the courage to step forward, not knowing their voices would make a difference.”





    Source link

  • Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights

    Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights


    Conservative groups and LGBTQ+ rights supporters protest outside the Glendale Unified School District offices in Glendale on June 6, 2023. Several hundred people gathered at district headquarters, split between those who support or oppose teaching that exposes youngsters to LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

    Credit: Keith Birmingham/The Orange County Register via AP

    California activists seeking to rein in transgender children’s rights to care and self-expression failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot.

    The organization Students First: Protect Kids California started too late to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering came up short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.

    But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.  

    “We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member and co-founder of Protect Kids California. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”

    The three-pronged initiative would:

    • Prohibit transgender female students in grades seven and up from participating in female sports while restricting gender-segregated bathrooms and locker room facilities to students assigned that gender at birth. The initiative would overturn a decade-old state law that requires schools to accommodate a student’s gender identity in their choice of sports and activities.
    • Ban gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18.
    • Require schools to notify parents if a student identifies as transgender through actions like switching a name or to a pronoun associated with a different gender, joining a sports team or using a bathroom that doesn’t match the student’s sex assigned at birth or school record.

    The last issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.

    Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1955, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.

    Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”

    Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.

    The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.

    But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions.  “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it —  and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.

    In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.

    “What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.

    Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”

    A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.

    Last July, a judge for the U.S. District of Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorneys general from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.

    While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.

    No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.

    The national picture

    Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version, according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.

    Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.  

    California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.

    Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.

    Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.

    • 59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
    • 72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
    • 21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”

    The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically: The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.

    Two versions of protecting children

    Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.

    Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.

    Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.

    ”The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.

    Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls. 

    “There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters, and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.





    Source link

  • Ransomware’s Prime Target: Securing Educational Institutions


    Jun 6
    2023

    Ransomware’s Prime Target: Securing Educational Institutions

    Profile photo of Anthony Cusimano
    Anthony Cusimano

    By Anthony Cusimano, director of technical marketing, Object First

    In recent years, ransomware has become the most destructive cyber threat impacting industries of all sizes –in the first half of 2022, there were over 236 million ransomware attacks worldwide. Threat actors have launched ransomware attacks on various targets, including businesses, hospitals, supply chain infrastructures, and education systems, to extort money in exchange for stolen data.

    According to a 2022 year-end report, schools sustained the same number of ransomware attacks in 2022 as in 2021, with the most significant attack being Los Angeles Unified School District, which included over 1,300 schools and 500,000 students. While the goal of educators is to establish secure learning environments for students – be it through online or in-person education – far too many are faced with the challenge of ever-increasing ransomware attacks that makes safeguarding IT environments to ensure data protection difficult.

    Education systems shouldn’t have to suffer the continuous data theft and extortion that the past few years have burdened them with. By incorporating affordable ransomware-proof tools, these organizations can ensure the safety of backups and effectively defend against ransomware attacks without paying the ransom.

    Why the education system continues to be a prime ransomware target

    Schools have a wealth of sensitive information about their students and faculty on hand for cybercriminals to target. This includes information such as financial aid records, birth certificates, behavioral records, and addresses that, if left unprotected, can be stolen and sold on the dark web.

    Ransomware attacks pose the most significant cybersecurity risk regarding operational disruptions and overall expenses for K-12 schools and districts. This is often because these school systems need more money and education to adopt proper security tools. Within school systems, allocating resources to defend against cyberattacks is restricted by a limited budget, resulting in inadequate IT infrastructure and smaller teams – further weakening visibility to detect potential threats before it’s too late. Because of this, when compared to other industries, the education system falls short of proper protection.

    But that’s not all. While there are many reasons why ransomware attacks against education systems have been and continue to remain rampant, a primary reason for this surge is that the COVID-19 pandemic increased reliance on virtual platforms for students to participate in remote learning. This shift created an even larger threat landscape for an underprepared and under-resourced industry, expanding vulnerabilities while perpetuating increased data being stored electronically. This, paired with a strained IT budget and lack of dedicated resources to fight ransomware, has left schools open for attackers to capitalize on.

    The path forward: how to better protect schools against ransomware

    The first step in protecting schools from ransomware is building defense strategies that invest in mature security measures. This means outlining a comprehensive plan of action for a potential attack on education systems, including roles and responsibilities for everyone from principals to IT administrators and teachers. By making a contact list for appropriate constituents that need to be alerted in the event of an attack and connecting with these people to navigate the plan of action, everyone is prepared for when disaster strikes.

    In addition, it’s essential to ensure that school data is stored in a separate system that guarantees its availability and accessibility in the case of a data disruption. As ransomware attacks continue to rise — targeting primary data and, more often than ever, targeting backups – having multiple co-located backup copies, detection, and remediation is critical to ensure resilience. This is why on-premises object-based backup storage is a must-have for school systems. It provides inherent advantages such as scalability, availability, reliability, security, and immutability— and when implemented correctly, delivers unbelievable performance. It ensures that files cannot be modified, protecting them from threat actors.

    When choosing on-premises object storage solutions, schools should look towards solutions designed specifically for the backup use case with hardened security and the right level of redundancy tailored for constrained IT. By implementing cost-effective and user-friendly systems, schools can overcome the constraints posed by limited personnel and restricted budgets while ensuring the best defense against ransomware with effortless immutability out of the box.

    Lastly, it will always be important to educate about common cyber threats that could hit, including what signs to look out for and how to prevent them. Ensure that staff and students are participating in schoolwide cybersecurity trainings and fire drills, enable multifactor authentication into all school software and servers to ensure the correct individuals are gaining access to online systems, and stay up to date on the most recent ransomware prevention reference materials with best practices from reputable government resources.

    While there is no “perfect way” to protect your organization from ransomware attacks, you can significantly reduce your chances of becoming the next victim by diligently equipping your employees with the necessary knowledge and defenses. Security planning goes beyond installing anti-virus software and integrating cloud object storage that offers better data security, so data remains untouched when an attack strikes. School districts can build a ransomware-proof environment and make ransomware a controlled risk.



    Source link

  • Districts should target funds to foster youth to improve progress, report says

    Districts should target funds to foster youth to improve progress, report says


    As California expands services needed to grow the number of foster youth enrolling in college, more work is needed to help those students graduate.

    Julie Leopo/ EdSource

    California’s foster care students have improved their high school graduation rates since 2013, but have barely improved, or even lost ground, in rates of suspension, attendance and prompt college enrollment, according to a new report.

    And, in the 10 districts with the most foster students, only a fraction of 1% of the targeted money was directly spent on that group. The report, by WestEd, a nonpartisan education research agency, attributed the discrepancy to a disconnect between the administrators who drew up the spending plans and the staff who work directly with students, the report found.

    Published this week and titled “Revisiting Californiaʼs Invisible Achievement Gap: Trends in Education Outcomes of Students in Foster Care in the Context of the Local Control Funding Formula,” the report details how state policies have affected outcomes for foster youth over the past decade, at times positively, but often in ways that limit their ability to succeed.

    The authors conclude that while those changes facilitate school stabilization and other educational supports, challenges remain, including ensuring that planned school expenditures dedicate some funds to foster students’ unique needs.

    “The report suggests that the implementation of foster care supports remains difficult and that funding for tailored interventions to the unique situations and challenges of students in foster care is not yet a common rule even for districts with large numbers of students in foster care,” said Vanessa Ximenes Barrat, WestEd senior research associate and co-author of the report.

    Tailoring support to specific student populations

    The report’s authors noted that tailoring support to each student group is critical given their varying needs.

    For instance, in the school year immediately preceding the pandemic, which erupted in March 2020, foster students’ chronic absenteeism rate was 28% versus 12% for the overall student population across California. The rates sharply rose during the pandemic and have since steadily decreased. But data from 2022-23, the most recent school year included in the report, shows that discrepancies remain: 25% of all students were chronically absent versus 39% of foster students.

    The wide gaps indicate to school staff that foster youth might need stronger interventions than other student groups in addressing why they are missing so much instructional time.

    Similarly, suspension data shows continuing disparities, despite policy changes in recent years. Whereas suspension rates for all students have largely lingered between 3% and 4% since 2014-15 and through the pandemic, the rate for foster youth was between 13% and 15%.

    “All the things that make students in foster care have all the worst outcomes across the board — their instability, their trauma, etc. — means that they need more of the interventions than everyone else, and they need different interventions based on their unique needs,” said a child welfare and education professional who was interviewed for the report.

    Improved graduation rates, but concerns remain

    One area where foster students have slowly made strides is with graduation rates. Rates have steadily increased for high-needs students, including foster youth, since the 2016-17 school year. That year, 51% of foster students graduated from high school in four years. By 2022-23, 61% were graduating.

    A possible reason for the improvement, according to the report’s authors, is the passage in 2013 of Assembly Bill 216 which allowed some foster students to graduate after completing the state’s minimum requirements.

    School staff who were interviewed for the report said that the law prevented some students from dropping out as they were moved from one placement to another, and encouraged them to complete high school even if they had fallen behind in some courses.

    Other staff noted that the extension of foster care services to age 21 occurred during the same period in which graduation rates improved. The extension, they said, probably prevented students from leaving school because they were receiving added support to avert homelessness and other instabilities common among youth leaving foster care.

    But even with that improvement, school staff interviewed for this report saw areas of concern. Of those foster students who graduated, for example, less than one-fifth had completed the A-G coursework required to qualify for admission to one of the state’s public four-year universities.

    Other takeaways from the report include:

    • While dropout rates among foster youth remain higher than their peers’, they have lowered by 5 percentage points since 2016-17.
    • More foster youth are attending only one school each year, rather than moving between schools, which advocates say causes personal and academic instability — 66% in 2022-23, up from 62% in 2017-18.
    • More foster students are attending high-poverty schools — up from 56% in 2014-15 to 59% in 2022-23.

    As California’s general student population has dwindled, so has the state’s foster student population. State data shows that nearly 45,000 foster students were enrolled in the K-12 grades during the 2014-15 school year on census day, the first Wednesday in October. Eight years later, the state enrolled about 31,700 foster students.

    About a quarter of the state’s foster care students attend school across just 10 districts: Los Angeles Unified, Fresno Unified, Lancaster Elementary, Long Beach Unified, Antelope Valley Union High, Palmdale Elementary, San Bernardino City Unified, Moreno Valley Unified, Kern High, and Hesperia Unified.

    Local-control dollars rarely targeted solely to foster students

    The dip in enrollment of foster students in K-12 coincided with the state’s overhaul of the school finance system and the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula, commonly referred to as LCFF. One of the changes under LCFF was that districts receive supplemental grants based on the number of high-needs students, which includes foster youth, English learners and low-income students.

    Each district must also complete a Local Control Accountability Plan, known as an LCAP, and provide details on how it intends to help students succeed, including actions and expenditures related to the three groups of high-needs students.

    Equity across the state’s student population was part of the intent of implementing LCFF.

    But the report showed that of WestEd’s review of the 10 LCAPs, only 10 of 482 anticipated actions to support overall student populations were specific to foster students. Over half of the actions referenced foster students in some way, but mostly lumped all high-needs students together.

    Foster youth, for example, have alarmingly high rates of chronic absences and increased school mobility. If a service offered by a school requires students to be present in class, foster students may not always benefit; they might instead need greater access to transportation to help them travel to school regularly.

    The question of whether to target more funds specifically to each student group, rather than combining them, persists, given changes at the federal Department of Education and how they may impact foster students.

    Ximenes Barrat said, “As a relatively small and highly vulnerable population with distinct needs, there is a real risk that their concerns could be overlooked amid broader policy shifts.”

    WestEd CEO Jannelle Kubinec is president of the EdSource Board of Directors. EdSource’s editorial team maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage.





    Source link