برچسب: toward

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

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


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Uncertainty about bond issue

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

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

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

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

    Credit: Public Policy Institute of California, April 2024 survey

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

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

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

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

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

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





    Source link

  • West Contra Costa makes progress toward financial health, but big challenges remain

    West Contra Costa makes progress toward financial health, but big challenges remain


    West Contra Costa Unified’s Stege Elementary School in Richmond. (File photo 2019)

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Top Takeaways
    • West Contra Costa Unified gets out from under a cloud of possible insolvency by coming up with a budget approved by the County Office of Education, which rated it “positive.” 
    • Positive certification is conditioned on the district implementing cuts and sending layoff notices by May 15 as agreed to by the elected school board in February. 
    • The district still faces budget challenges, including negotiating a new contract with its teachers and eliminating a structural deficit in three years after it has spent all the funds in a special reserve. 

    The West Contra Costa Unified District has made substantial financial progress by balancing its budget and averting possible insolvency. 

    Last week, the Contra Costa County Office of Education notified the district that it approved a “positive certification” in the latest version of its budget for the 2024-26 school years, the second time it has done that this year.  

    Positive certification means the county office concurs with the district that it can meet its financial obligations during the current school year and the next two years, but only if it follows through on plans to cut another $13 million over the next two years. 

    “If they do everything they say they’re going to do and keep going down the path that they submitted to us, they should be OK,” said Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools Lynn Mackey. 

    The county office’s concurrence came as a relief to district officials. Interim Superintendent Kim Moses, the district’s business manager until last year, described the positive certification as “great news.”  

    “We are able to say that we can meet our obligations over the next three years with the changes that we’ve made,” she said. “And that is something to celebrate.” 

    The latest development for the 25,000-student district in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the city of Richmond, offers lessons for other California districts experiencing financial difficulties.   

    No. 1 among them: School boards have to make hard decisions to cut budgets and reduce the number of employees proportionate to their revenues, said Michael Fine, CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), a state-funded agency that helps school districts get out of financial difficulties.

    For several years, the county office of education had concluded that the district was no longer “a going concern” based on its shaky finances. And as recently as last year, FCMAT rated the district as at a high risk of insolvency.

    To get to the positive rating, the district cut $19.7 million from its budget this year, and its board voted in February to cut another $13 million over the next two years.  

    Going Deeper

    Under state oversight regulations, a school district’s financial situation can fall into three categories:  

    • A positive certification means the school district has the resources to meet its financial obligations to get through the current school year,and two subsequent ones.
    • A qualified certification means that the district may not to meet its financial obligations in the current school year, or the next two years.
    • A negative certification is the most dire category: a district will be unable to meet its financial obligation in the current year or subsequent school year.

    West Contra Costa’s positive rating is especially good news because, in 1991, the district became the first in California to get an emergency loan from the state, which took two decades to pay off.  

    But the district still faces substantial challenges. In its letter to Moses last Thursday, Daniela Parasidis, the county’s deputy superintendent for business services, said its approval of the district’s positive certification “comes with significant caution.” 

     “The district must remain vigilant and continue the implementation of its solvency plan to ensure long-term financial stability,” she wrote. 

    She also pointed to potential hazards that could affect the district’s finances, which underscore the multiple pressure points school districts face. In West Contra Costa, these include the impact of declining enrollment, increased absenteeism due to fears around immigration enforcement, expiring parcel tax revenue, and possible loss of federal funding cuts by the Trump administration.

    County officials say maintaining the district’s positive certification hinges on it doing two things: sending out layoff notices as the board voted to do in February by May 15, the deadline specified by state law, as well as adopting a budget for the coming school year by June 30.   

    One unknown is that the district is in the final stages of prolonged contract negotiations with unions representing all its staff, including its teachers union, which is demanding a pay increase and other compensation-related changes, and improved health benefits. The teachers’ contract expires June 30.

    However, there is deep disagreement between the district and its unions over the severity of the district’s financial difficulties. Francisco Ortiz, the president of United Teachers of Richmond, said the district routinely “underprojects revenue and overprojects expenditures.”  As for the cuts planned for the next two years, Ortiz said, “We feel that none of these cuts are necessary.” He said the district needs to, instead, “reprioritize how they’re actually spending their funds.” 

    “We deeply value our educators and agree they work hard and deserve to be fairly compensated,” Moses wrote in an online message last week. “Our challenge is not about disagreement, but about how we responsibly meet this need while ensuring our district remains fiscally sound.” 

    Another pitfall is that, despite making significant budget cuts, the district is still operating with a structural deficit, which it is closing by drawing on one-time reserve funds. 

    Those are so-called “special reserves” called Fund 17, valued at over $37 million at the beginning of the school year.  

    West Contra Costa was able to accumulate these special reserves at least in part because when it got its state bailout loan decades ago, the state required the district to maintain reserves of 6%, double the normally required amount, Moses said. 

    To balance its books, the district is drawing down $11.5 million of its Fund 17 reserves this year, another $20.25 million next year, and $6.2 million the following year, fully depleting that reserve.  It will still have the 3% minimum reserve required by the state, which amounts to about $15 million. 

    John Gray, CEO of School Services of California, the largest school consulting firm in the state, says it is quite acceptable for a district to use its Fund 17 reserves to get through a fiscal crisis. 

    But, he says, it means that “there will be a reckoning in three years” when all those funds are spent. “If you spend it (the Fund 17 reserve) all the way down,” he said, “you’re not going to have a place to grab money, and you’re going to have to make additional cuts.”

    Interim Superintendent Moses hopes that over the next two years, the district will be able to “align expenditures with our revenue so that we will no longer have a structural deficit, and we’ll begin to build back up that reserve for economic uncertainties.” 

    She said, “Any responsible, budget-minded person is going to make sure they save something for hard times.”





    Source link

  • New law moves toward better translation of special ed documents, but families want more

    New law moves toward better translation of special ed documents, but families want more


    A special education class at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland.

    Alison Yin / EdSource

    California schools will soon have a template for special education programs translated into 10 languages in addition to English.

    Advocates and parents of children with disabilities who speak languages other than English say it is a tiny step forward, but there is still work to be done to fix long waits and faulty translations experienced by many families statewide.

    “Ultimately, if parents can’t receive translated documents, they can’t meaningfully engage in their child’s education,” said Joanna French, senior director of research and policy strategies at Innovate Public Schools, an organization that works with parents to advocate for high-quality education. “They can’t provide informed consent. They can’t ask questions or push back on the services that are being proposed.”

    A bill introduced last year by state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-Burbank, would have required school districts, charter schools and county offices of education to translate individualized education program (IEP) documents within 30 days. But the bill stalled in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where lawmakers decide whether the state has enough money to pay for legislation. This spring, the bill was revived, and Portantino revised it to require the California Department of Education (CDE) to create guidelines suggesting, rather than mandating, timelines for translation and how to identify quality translators and interpreters. But that version, too, was eventually scrapped. 

    The version of the bill that finally did pass the Legislature and was signed by the governor requires a template for IEPs to be translated into the 10 languages most commonly spoken in California other than English. The translated template must be made available online by Jan. 1, 2027. The template, which can be found in this document, includes categories of services, but also has blank space for language adapted to each student.

    “Obviously, whenever you get a partial victory, you take it and you celebrate,” said Portantino. “This is an incremental improvement. Having the template is a good thing. But obviously, these are individualized plans, so my hope is that someone takes up the mantle to get individual plans translated in a more timely manner.”

    Aurora Flores said she has had to wait sometimes six or seven months for special education documents to be translated into Spanish. Her 10-year-old son has Down syndrome and autism and attends school in the Long Beach Unified School District.

    “It’s really sad for us Spanish-speaking parents because the points that you want to clarify, you can’t understand. They just summarize really fast, with an interpreter, but sometimes it’s not a certified person,” said Flores in Spanish.

    Individualized education programs are required for students with disabilities who qualify for special education, and are updated each year or when needs change. Before schools can implement these programs, parents must agree.

    The person most affected by long waits for translations is her son, Flores said, because it takes longer for her to sign off on new services that he needs.

    “When you least expect it, you realize the next IEP meeting is coming up, and you have just received the documents from the last one,” Flores said.

    A spokesperson for Long Beach Unified, Elvia Cano, wrote in an email that the district “is dedicated to ensuring that all families, regardless of their primary language, have timely access to critical educational information, including Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).”

    However, she said getting high-quality translations of special education documents can be challenging.

    “Translating IEPs requires specialized linguistic and technical expertise. Translators must be fluent in the target language and possess a strong understanding of educational terminology. Finding professionals with these qualifications can be challenging, especially for less commonly spoken languages. Additionally, the complexity of IEPs and the volume of translation requests may extend the timeframe for completion,” Cano wrote.

    Portantino said that some felt the previous version of the bill requiring the California Department of Education to create guidelines for translation “was too onerous, too much pressure.” 

    “I think the education community didn’t want to be forced to do things. I think there were districts who felt they don’t have the personnel, and I think CDE felt the overall structure was not in place,” Portantino said. 

    Holly Minear, executive director of student services at the Ventura County Office of Education, said she thinks most school districts and county offices understand the importance of giving families a written translation of IEP documents in a timely manner, but it is sometimes a challenge, especially when the translation is for a language that is not common.

    “I think a lot of districts use internal translators, and if you have someone out sick or on leave, or if districts work with contract agencies, sometimes the timeline is more than 30 days,” Minear said. 

    Minear said the Ventura County Office of Education has two Spanish-English translators on staff, but they use outside agencies for other languages like Farsi and Mixteco, an indigenous language from southern Mexico. She said she thinks the template will help districts and translators do a better job.

    “Although our IEPs differ … I think we use a lot of the same terms, a lot of the same language,” she said. “I’m really looking forward to having it on the template, because if there’s ever a word or phrase you need, it’s there for you, and it’s free.”

    Sara Gomez, who has a 4-year-old with autism who attends preschool in Santa Clara County, said she thinks the law is a good step forward.

    “I think the law is positive, in that it gives a sense of alarm that translations need to be done urgently,” Gomez said. “But we still don’t have a required timeline.”

    Gomez said she has had to wait three or four months for her son’s individualized education program to be translated into Spanish. Gomez, who is from Venezuela, speaks English, but her husband speaks only Spanish.

    She said she has heard of other parents waiting up to a year for translations, leaving them unable to make informed decisions about their children’s education.

    “Even four months for a young child make a big difference,” Gomez said in Spanish. “When they are the youngest is when they need the most help.” 

    Advocates and families said they will keep pushing the state for guidelines about how to access qualified translators and a time limit for translations. 

    “We understand that districts experience challenges in finding qualified translators, especially for less common languages, and turning around documents quickly,” said French, from Innovate Public Schools.

    However, she said, different districts have very different timelines for translations.

    “We don’t believe it should be that inconsistent, if a parent lives in one district versus another,” French said. “There should be equity across the state about what a parent should expect in terms of translated documents.”

    Allegra Cira Fischer, senior policy attorney for the nonprofit organization Disability Rights California, agreed. She said she was dismayed to see that the 30-day timeframe was removed from the bill.

    “Parents tell us that sometimes their student will have a better teacher or a better case manager and they’ll get things in a more timely manner. But parents shouldn’t have to rely on an especially committed teacher or case manager,” Fischer said. “This is a situation that is really untenable and ultimately is harmful to children with disabilities.”





    Source link

  • State takes another step toward mandatory testing for reading difficulties in 2025

    State takes another step toward mandatory testing for reading difficulties in 2025


    Students at Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School in the Burbank Unified School District practice their reading skills.

    Credit: Jordan Strauss/AP Images

    A panel of reading experts has designated the tests that school districts can use to identify reading difficulties that kindergartners through second graders may have, starting next fall.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s announcement Tuesday of the selection of the reading risk screeners marks a milestone in the nearly decadelong campaign to mandate that all young students be measured for potential reading challenges, including dyslexia. California will become one of the last states to require universal literacy screening when it takes effect in 2025-26.

    To learn more

    For Frequently Asked Questions about the screening instruments for risk of reading difficulties, go here.

    For more about the screeners selected for district use, go here.

    For the letter on screening sent to district, county office and charter school superintendents, go here.

    For more on the Reading Difficulties Risk Screener Selection Panel, go here.

    Between now and then, districts will select which of four approved reading screeners they will use, and all staff members designated as the testers will undergo state-led training. The Legislature funded $25 million for that effort.

    “I know from my own challenges with dyslexia that when we help children read, we help them succeed,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

    Students will be tested annually in kindergarten through second grade. In authorizing the screeners, the Legislature and Newsom emphasized that screening will not serve as a diagnosis for reading disabilities, including dyslexia, which is estimated to affect 5% to 15% of readers. Instead, the results could lead to further evaluation and will be used for classroom supports and interventions for individual students. Parents will also receive the findings of the screenings.

    “This is a significant step toward early identification and intervention for students showing early signs of difficulty learning to read. We believe that with strong implementation, educators will be better equipped to support all learners, fostering a more inclusive environment where every child has the opportunity to thrive,” said Megan Potente, co-director of Decoding Dyslexia CA, which led the effort for universal screening. 

    A reading-difficulty screener could consist of a series of questions and simple word-reading exercises to measure students’ strengths and needs in phonemic awareness skills, decoding abilities, vocabulary and reading comprehension.  A student may be asked, for example, “What does the ‘sh’ sound like in ‘ship’”?

    Among the four designated screeners chosen is Multitudes, a $28 million, state-funded effort that Newsom championed and the University of California San Francisco Dyslexia Center developed. The 10 to 13-minute initial assessment will serve K–2 grades and be offered in English and Spanish.

    The other three are:

    Young-Suk Kim, an associate dean at UC Irvine’s School of Education, and Yesenia Guerrero, a special education teacher at Lennox School District, led the nine-member Reading Difficulties Risk Screener Selection Panel that held hearings and approved the screeners. The State Board of Education appointed the members.

    The move to establish universal screening dragged out for a decade. The California Teachers Association and advocates for English learners were initially opposed, expressing fear that students who don’t speak English would be over-identified as having a disability and qualifying for special education.

    In 2015, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring schools to assess students for dyslexia, but students weren’t required to take the evaluation.   

    In 2021, advocates for universal screening were optimistic legislation would pass, but the chair of the Assembly Education Committee, Patrick O’Donnell, refused to give it a hearing.

    “Learning to read is a little like learning to ride a bike. With practice, typical readers gradually learn to read words automatically,” CTA wrote in a letter to O’Donnell.

    Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-Glendale, reintroduced his bill the following year, but instead Newsom included funding and requirements for universal screening in his 2023-24 state budget.

    The Newsom administration and advocates for universal screening reached out to advocates for English learners to incorporate their concerns in the requirements for approving screeners and to include English learner authorities on the selection panel.

    Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, an organization that advocates for English learners statewide, said Wednesday it was clear that the panel considered the needs of English learners and she is pleased that the majority of the screeners are available in Spanish and English. 

    “Their commitment to addressing the unique needs of English learners was evident throughout the process,” Hernandez said.

    However, she said it is important for the state to provide clear guidance to districts about what level of English proficiency is required in order for students to get accurate results from a screener in English.

    “The vast majority of English learners will be screened only in English, and without evidence that these screeners are valid and reliable across different English proficiency levels, there is a risk of misidentification,” Hernandez said.

    Hernandez said Californians Together emphasized to the panel that it is important for students who are not yet fluent in English to be assessed for reading in both their native language and English, “to capture the full scope of their skills.” In addition, Hernandez said it is crucial for the state Department of Education to offer guidance to districts on selecting or developing a screener in languages other than English or Spanish.

    The article was corrected on Dec. 18 to note that the initial Multitudes assessment takes 10 to 13 minutes, not 20 minutes, depending on the grade; a followup assessment can take an additional 10 minutes.





    Source link