When I see something I really enjoy, I like to share with you.
Number one is Mariska Hargitay’s brilliant documentary “My Mom Jayne.” Her mother was the Hollywood icon Jayne Mansfield. She died in a horrible automobile crash when she was only 34. Mariska and two of her siblings were asleep in the back seat of the car and escaped with minor injuries. Mariska was only 3 at the time of the accident. She has no memories of her mother.
Mariska, the star of the great series “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,” wanted to learn about her mother. She was unhappy about her portrayal as a “dumb bimbo” with platinum blonde hairs and big boobs.
In her archival research through family storage units, she unearthed a very different Jayne, one who played classical music on the violin and on the piano. The men who ran the studio system wanted another Marilyn Monroe, and she was stuck in her stereotype.
Mariska interviews her siblings and her mother’s press agent. She discovers that the man she thought was her father–Mickey Hargitay, Mr. Universe–was not her biological father.
It’s a beautifully made movie about honesty and integrity and confronting the past. And I love Mariska Hargitay for modeling empathy, kindness, love, and the courage to open up her past.
Another movie that I enjoyed is “Queen of the Ring.” It’s the story of the life of a pioneering woman wrestler, Mildred Burke. At the time she started wrestling, most states didn’t allow women to wrestle. Her promoter had her wrestle men at carnivals; she won almost every match. It’s a fascinating story, and what I liked best was that the actress who played Mildred Burke–Emily Bett Rickards– did all her own wrestling. That was impressive! It’s not as powerful as Mariska’s documentary, but worth seeing.
I also recommend the streaming TV series “The Righteous Gemstones.” The first season is hilarious. It’s a portrayal of an evangelical family that has created a huge, profitable church that presents spectacles every Sunday. Their private lives are something else. Their language and behavior are vile. I saw all four seasons but liked the first one best.
I’m a wee bit embarrassed to admit that I never saw a “Mission Impossible” movie until afew weeks ago. Now I have seen the first three. I’m enjoying them, especially Tom Cruise’s daredevil stunts. I hope to see them all.
John Martin is a plaintiff in one lawsuit and is the chairman of the California Part-Time Faculty Association.
Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
A pair of recent court decisions may bode well for the state’s part-time community college professors, known as adjuncts, who have argued for years that they work unpaid hours to meet students’ needs.
In Southern California, roughly 1,200 adjuncts who brought a class-action lawsuit against the Long Beach Community College District in 2022 are preparing for mediation to resolve claims of lost pay.
A judge would have to approve any settlement.
That the case proceeded to mediation after a judge denied a district motion to throw it out “is having a pretty substantial impact” in California as some districts are “looking at renegotiating their terms by which they’re paying adjunct faculty,” said Eileen Goldsmith, a San Francisco labor lawyer who represents the Long Beach plaintiffs. “Our case really started that process.”
A spokesperson for the Long Beach district said she could not comment on ongoing litigation.
Many issues cited in both suits were detailedin EdSource’s 2022 series Gig by Gig at California Community Colleges. Adjuncts routinely claim they are exploited by only being paid for time spent teaching, not for designing syllabi, grading, and answering student emails. Yet they are considered the backbone of the community college system, numbering more than 30,000.
In Sacramento County, a Superior Court judge ruled in March in a separate 2022 lawsuit that adjuncts working at colleges across the state are employees of the community college system’s board of governors — a decision that could lead to uniformity in pay across the 116-college system, said Dan Galpern, a lawyer for John Martin, the plaintiff in the case. Martin, an adjunct in the Shasta and Butte community college districts, is also chair of the California Part-Time Faculty Association.
He claims in the lawsuit that the board and districts violated state wage-and-hour laws by not paying for time spent preparing for classes, writing curriculum, grading, and interacting with students outside of class.
Lawyers for the community college system sought to have the suit thrown out, arguing that adjuncts work for local districts, not the state.
In a decision rejecting the request for dismissal, Judge Jill H. Talley wrote that because “the statutory scheme of the community colleges” requires the board of governors “to provide oversight, establish minimum employment standards, and to advise local community college districts on the implementation of state laws,” the board has “an obligation that extends to faculty wages.”
Martin called the judge’s decision to go forward “a big victory.”
The decision may be appealed.
California Community Colleges “does not control the wages, hours, and working conditions of part-time professors at local community college districts, which are established through collective bargaining at each individual district,” Melissa Villarin, spokesperson for the chancellor’s office, wrote in an email.
“The chancellor’s office is disappointed that it was unable to persuade (Talley) to adopt its motion for summary judgment, and will evaluate its legal options as this litigation moves forward,” she said.
The favorable ruling in Martin’s case and the mediation in the Long Beach case are building momentum for adjuncts to continue to push for pay for all hours worked, said Karen Roberts, an art history professor for more than 20 years in Long Beach who is one of the lead plaintiffs in the case.
“I got into academia as an idealist,” Roberts said Tuesday. “Join the professor ranks and we’re all gonna join hands and sing Kumbaya.” But, she said, adjuncts can’t let themselves “be exploited. We live in a capitalist economy. We have a moral obligation to take care of ourselves financially.”
The lawsuit, should the mediation result in awards for lost pay, should motivate adjuncts to stay active in unions and trade groups, she said.
The suits are clearly being watched around the state and have the potential to have important impacts, Stephanie Goldman, the executive director of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, said in an interview Tuesday.
It’s too soon to know how they might impact college district funding through Proposition 98, the 1988 ballot measure that sets funding levels for K-12 schools and community colleges based on the state general fund.
“That’s a really big and heavy question,” Goldman said. “I think ultimately it depends on how the lawsuits turn out and the reasoning behind it.”
Still, she said, schools across California are carefully watching to see what happens.
“I don’t think anybody would be surprised if it had a ripple effect across the state,” she said.
In California, where affordable housing is increasingly difficult to find, youth exiting the foster care system disproportionately face higher rates of homelessness, according to CalYOUTH, a study on foster youth conducted from 2012 to 2022.
Two federal programs, the Family Unification Program (FUP) and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative (FYI), work to reduce these rates of homelessness by providing targeted housing vouchers commonly referred to as Section 8.
But FUP and FYI vouchers go largely underutilized in California, according to a recent report from John Burton Advocates for Youth, or JBAY, a nonprofit focused on supporting California foster and homeless youth.
According to the authors of the report, child welfare agency representatives from 37 of the state’s 58 counties responded to the survey, and the counties that responded are in charge of 93% of the state’s FUP and FYI vouchers for eligible young people.
The results from the survey provide critical insight into these two housing vouchers for former foster youth, such as how often they are being distributed and various challenges with more widespread issuance. Some of those challenges include a lack of awareness regarding recent policy changes that simplify the voucher distribution process and insufficient funding for the supportive services offered in coordination with the voucher.
This quick guide provides insight into what the FUP and FYI programs are, how the housing vouchers can be accessed, the challenge of California’s current housing climate, and where additional information can be found.
What do the FUP and FYI housing vouchers provide? Both the Family Unification Program and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative vouchers provide eligible youth with up to three years of housing assistance, plus additional support such as locating available housing and covering some move-in costs. The housing vouchers, known commonly as Section 8, pay for all or part of the youth’s rent.
A three-year voucher can be extended for an additional two years if the youth meets certain criteria. Those criteria include opting into a Family Self-Sufficiency program if one is offered by the local public housing authority issuing their voucher. In an FSS program, these youth can receive additional support services, including child care, job training and transportation. If a family self-sufficiency program is not offered, or if it’s impacted, youth can also meet the criteria by fulfilling education or employment conditions.
More detailed information regarding those education or employment conditions can be found on Page 9 of this report.
Who is eligible for the FUP and FYI? The Family Unification Program, or FUP, was established in 1992 and provides housing vouchers for families involved in the child welfare system and for transition-age former foster youth.
The Foster Youth to Independence Initiative, or FYI, launched nearly three decades later in 2019, is specific to transition-age youth leaving the foster care system.
In order to qualify for both programs, transition-age foster youth must be between the ages of 18 and 24 and cannot have reached their 25th birthday. Additional eligibility requirements include having exited the foster care system or being about to do so within 90 days and being homeless or at risk of homelessness at age 16 or above.
It should be noted that transition-age foster youth age ranges might be different for other services, depending on the specific resource and the person’s location. In Santa Clara County, for example, some foster care transition services are available for 15-year-olds, while the city of San Francisco offers support for some former foster youth up to age 27.
How many youth have been administered housing voucher? There has been a 54% increase in vouchers administered in the past two years: from 870 in 2021 to 1,341 as of Oct. 1, according to the JBAY report.
Why don’t more eligible California youth have a housing voucher? There are multiple reasons for these housing vouchers being largely underutilized in California.
One key challenge is that not every county chooses to participate in the FUP and FYI voucher programs. While those youth may likely still be eligible for other state or county-funded housing support, such programs are hard to get because they are utilized at higher rates.
Additionally, the FUP and FYI vouchers are linked with offering supportive services and, despite new designated allocations to cover those supportive services, the costs remain prohibitive.
Some county representatives are also unaware of key details that would facilitate the issuing of more vouchers. For example, about 65% of county child welfare agencies remained unaware that vouchers can be extended from three to five years for all youth with a voucher. Plus, recent federal policy changes have simplified the process that county agencies must follow when requesting certain vouchers, but many of the county representatives interviewed in the JBAY survey were unaware of those changes.
How long does it take for youth to find adequate housing if they are administered a FUP or FYI voucher?
The length of time for identifying housing ranges from less than one month to over six months, with 45% of California counties that responded to the survey indicating that the average search was one to two months. The range includes the beginning of the housing search to the moment the housing is secured.
Finding adequate and affordable housing in California is increasingly one of the most significant barriers to using or even issuing the vouchers. Transition-age foster youth are particularly susceptible to this challenge, as they often have little to no income to rely on, no rental history and are less likely to have a co-signer to rely on.
How can transition-age foster youth apply for FUP and FYI housing vouchers? If a transition-aged former foster youth thinks they might be eligible for a FUP or FYI voucher, they should connect with their child welfare or independent living worker. A direct point-of-contact for their county, if they offer vouchers, can be found at this link.
Their local public child welfare agency makes the referral to the public housing authority and certifies whether the youth is eligible, based on their history in the foster care system.
If the youth is eligible and the housing authority has FUP vouchers, that’s the type of voucher offered to the young person. Otherwise, an FYI voucher is requested from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Once housing is secured, the FYI voucher is administered to the landlord.
Where can additional resources and information be found regarding housing vouchers for transition-age foster youth?
Packed crowd anticipates discussion on Orange Unified Parental Notification Policy on Sept. 8, 2023.
Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource
A grassroots movement propelled by small contributions from teachers and local residents ousted two board members from an Orange County school district who supported controversial causes.
The victory came despite opposing big money contributions from conservative organizations, Republican political figures and business leaders.
More than 85% of the $227,000 raised by recall supporters came from over 400 individuals giving an average of about $450 each, with the rest coming mostly from teachers’ unions. More than 1 in 10 of the donations came from people who listed their employer as Orange Unified, including more than 25 teachers and board member Andrea Yamasaki.
The money raised, said the recall movement’s co-chair, Darshan Smaaladen, “reflects the passion for our schools and our students in the district, and the care that our entire community has that we have great public schools.”
By contrast, just under a third of the nearly $260,000 raised by opponents of the recall came from 115 individual donors, with the majority coming from conservative groups — led by the Lincoln Club of Orange County, which describes itself as “the oldest and largest conservative major donor organization in the state of California.”
The donations are listed in disclosure forms filed Feb. 17, with some additional large donations reported before the election in early March. Board members Madison Miner and Rick Ledesma — who were repeatedly accused of promoting their own political ideologies at the expense of student learning and well-being — were removed when the recall passed by 3,500 votes.
Following the money
The No OUSD Recall group received a number of hefty donations — and was led by the Lincoln Club of Orange County, which gave a series of donations totaling $80,500, just under the $83,261given by all individuals to that same campaign.
The Lincoln Club’s donations, which came from their State PAC and Issues PAC, accounted for 46% of the total campaign’s organizational contributions and 31% of donations across the board.
The Lincoln Club of Orange County is funded by various business groups, and more than half of its income comes from the group Angelenos for Outstanding State Leadership, which gets all its money from one organization singly funded by the McDonald’s Corp.
The McDonald’s Corp. did not respond to EdSource’s multiple requests for comment.
On top of the contributions from the Lincoln Club, three organizations connected to Mark Bucher — the CEO of the California Policy Center, a think tank that stands for the belief that “until we rein in government union power, there’s little hope for reform in our state” — collectively gave $66,000.
Bucher said in an interview with EdSource that he “was always an advocate” for the donations to the campaign.
He also said he previously served on the board of the Lincoln Club and that he left about a year ago.He claimed that unions have “financed the campaigns of just about every elected official,” and that the donations were an attempt to “offset, very frankly, corrupt practices.”
Bucher, who supported the election of Ledesma and Miner, also said that “the trustees that got recalled were doing a spectacular job of representing parents and citizens and kids, and they were attacked constantly for it, and school board meetings have been a circus. It’s just ridiculous.”
He added that his future in political advocacy and spending, including in the upcoming November election, depends on the candidates and issues at stake.
The law firm of Shawn Steel — the co-founder of the recall campaign, who has also served as the Republican Party of California’s national committeeman and wrote for the California Policy Center — also supported the No on Recall movement. Assemblyman Essayli, R-Riverside, who authored a failed statewide Assembly bill that would have required schools across California to notify parents if their child may be transgender, also contributed.
His bill AB 1314 laid the foundation for a similar policy that has been adopted by more than a half-dozen school districts throughout the state.
The Lincoln Club of Orange County’s executive director, Seth Morrison, along with Bucher criticized the teachers’ unions for backing the recall effort, and Morrison also claimed they were “tied in with a larger Democratic Party.”
He said that “they were looking for an excuse to do something like this. This is a bigger thing for them. …That’s something we saw, and we’re happy to engage to defend the people who just got elected.”
On the other hand, the recall campaign collected more money for their campaign from a number of individual contributions.
Most donors to the recall effort gave small amounts, and Smaaladen said that the recall movement’s strategy of asking community members to “donate in honor of” a teacher, along with their matching events, made a large impact on the campaign.
Among a wealth of smaller contributions is also a series of sizable donations from the Orange Unified Education Association, which gave $52,086.50 — or 74% of the campaign’s organizational money and 19.5% of total contributions.
Educators and the unions representing them played an important role in both organizational and individual contributions. Teachers — including both the union and individual educators — gave the recall campaign $61,048.82, or 22.9%, of its money.
Teachers unions from neighboring districts, alongside organizations and political action committees representing educators’ interests, also pitched in, giving just over $7,000 collectively.
Local organizations with political affiliations — including the Democratic Women of South Orange County and Democrats of North Orange County — carried far less weight, while the Josh Newman for Senate campaign donated $5,000.
Women for American Values and Ethics, which identifies itself as a “grassroots group dedicated to advancing progressive values and ethics,” gave $1,041 to the campaign, and the Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood donated $2,500.
What drove each side of the recall
After OUSD’s board fired then-Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen without explanation in January 2023, a group of OUSD parents and teachers banded together to start the grassroots recall movement.
The OUSD recall website explains that the group was motivated by decisions made by the school board, including a series of alleged violations to the Brown Act, banning the pride flag, passing a policy that requires school administrators to notify parents if their children show signs of being transgender and a temporary suspension of the district’s digital library because it included the book “The Music of What Happens,” a coming-of-age story about two boys who are in love.
“We knew that this board was not going to listen to parents and the district, and they weren’t going to do what was best for our students,” Smaaladen said. “We became this kind of ragtag group that has evolved into a grassroots movement of hundreds of involved parents.”
Smaaladen said the group opted to pursue the recall during the March primary in an effort to save the district money. The recall effort started gathering signatures in June2023, and by October had collected enough to place the recall question on the ballot.
Recall leaders also decided to focus their effort on Ledesma and Miner — and dropped the attempt against board member Angie Rumsey and board President John Ortega because they are up for re-election this coming November.
However, the No OUSD Recall group has repeatedly stated in social media posts dating back to April 2023 that the recall effort is an attempt to attack parents’ rights.
“When we won our elections to the OUSD Board less than two years ago, we did so on the promise of defending parents’ rights, fighting for curriculum transparency, working to improve test scores, prioritizing student safety and ensuring education is not replaced with indoctrination,” Miner said in a statement to EdSource.
“We proudly followed through on those promises, and the radical recall attempt is the resulting backlash.”
Now, the five remaining school board members will have to decide whether to appoint two new members or to hold a special election; plus, three of the remaining board members’ terms expire this year.
“It has been a tumultuous year with the numerous changes within Orange Unified. The voters have spoken, and I look forward to our board being able to move past the politics and collaboratively focus on how to best support our districts’ students,” said Orange Unified School board member Ana Page in a statement to EdSource.
“I deeply appreciate the diverse perspectives and expertise that my fellow trustees will bring to future civil discussions that directly impact OUSD students and look forward to continuing the valuable work of supporting public education.”
Beyond Orange Unified
Before the voting started, both sides believed that the recall election against Ledesma and Miner would be consequential — not just for their district but for the state, and possibly, the nation as a whole.
“We’re going to see more of this, which is all the more reason why … we’re getting involved to stop it, to tell them that turning around and recalling someone not even a year after they’ve been in office is just a waste of taxpayer dollars. It’s just wrong,” the Lincoln Club’s Morrison said.
Efforts to recall members of a school board aren’t uncommon in California and across the nation — though relatively few actually make it to the ballot, said Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at the UC Berkeley School of Law’s California Constitution Center and author of “Recall Elections: From Alexander Hamilton to Gavin Newsom.”
Spivak said the number of school board recall efforts across the country grew especially during the Covid-19 pandemic — which he described as “arguably the biggest impact that a government ever had on our lives in our lifetime unless you were in WWII. But hardly any of them resulted in the removal of an elected official, he said.
Since then, the number of recalls has dwindled, Spivak said.
In 2023, he said there were 102 recall attempts across the country — 29 of which were in California. Michigan, which is known to be the state where recalls are most popular, had 35 attempts that same year.
“Orange Unified will be setting a precedent,” Smaaladen said before the election. “But I hope the precedent we set is to send a clear message to those that are elected to school boards: to listen to their community and to make moderate decisions that are in line with what is best for the students and not necessarily their own personal agendas.”
She added that the recall election has forced the community to pay more attention to local politics, which she said has already and will continue to “change the trajectory of the district.”
“I’ve had numerous voters say, ‘Oh, I didn’t vote in November 2022,’ or even ‘I voted for Madison and Rick, but, you know, I wasn’t really paying attention because everything was fine,’” Smaaladen said.
“And when things are fine, it’s good, you can let it be. But now (voters are) paying attention.”
El Camino Fundamental High School principal Evelyn Welborn explains how rainwater leaks through hallway windows, causing teachers to use trash cans to collect the water.
Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
Renovating a high school that swelters in summer and gushes leaks in winter is a priority of a large Sacramento-areadistrict. Replacing an undersized gym with no air conditioning is a priority of a small high school district in Kern County.
The to-do list varies among the hundreds of school districts that have placed construction bonds before voters on Nov. 5, but urgency is what they share in common. In California, the list of school buildings needing attention is long and growing, compounded by climate change that is exposing more of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air.
In 2020, anxiety about an unknown virus, Covid-19, led voters to defeat half of the local bonds on the ballot that year and discouraged many districts from placing bonds before voters in 2022. The suppressed demand has resulted in a record 252 school districtsseeking $40 billion worth of renovation and new construction projects, including classrooms for the youngest students, transitional kindergartners, and space for “maker labs” and innovative career explorations for high schoolers.
Many of the districts are hoping to seek financial help from Proposition 2, a $10 billion state construction bond for TK-12 and community colleges, that the Legislature also has put on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot. Passage would begin to replenish state assistance, which has run dry from the $9 billion bond passed in 2016, and create a new list of projects eligible for state help in the future.
This report is the first day of a two-day look at a sampling of districts from different parts of the state that are asking their voters to pass local bonds. First, we visitSan Juan Unified and Wasco Union High School District. Tuesday, read about Modesto City Schools, Fresno Unified and neighboring Central Unified.
San Juan Unified School District
San Juan Unified
Sacramento County
49,840 students
61% low-income, foster and English learner students
$22,243 bonding capacity per student*
* Bonding capacity is the maximum amount of general obligation bonds a school district can issue at a given time. A district can never go over the ceiling. For unified districts, it is 2.5% of total assessed valuation; the median in California is $25,569 per student.
El Camino Fundamental High School in Sacramento was quiet Thursday as temperatures rose to 103 degrees. Few of the school’s 1,300 students lingered in the halls, where there is no air conditioning and open windows provide the only air circulation.
Even air conditioning in classrooms is not always reliable. Teachers and their students have had to double up with other classes at times when some systems fail.
The upcoming rainy season won’t offer much relief at the 70-year-old school. Water from leaks travels down walls and into lockers in the halls and drenches expensive machinery in the metal shop.
In one particularly bad spot, teachers have taken to tying a garbage can to one window with a rope, to collect the water before it floods the hallway floor.
School staff must regularly snake out a sewer access that has spewed sewage across walkways students must traverse to enter a classroom.
El Camino Fundamental High School band classroom storage room.Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
El Camino Fundamental High School’s band classroom has limited storage for instruments.Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
A drinking fountain at El Camino Fundamental High School was shut off due to water leakage.Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
The quad at El Camino Fundamental High School. Many buildings have windows that do not open and areas where the concrete is decaying.Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
Windows throughout El Camino Fundamental High School are either cracked or do not open correctly.Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
An out-of-order bathroom at El Camino Fundamental High School.Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
Renovating the school is one of the priorities of San Juan Unified School District if voters pass Measure P, a $950 million general obligation bond. The measure will update classrooms, repair leaky roofs, improve school security, provide safe drinking water, and remove asbestos and lead paint from the district’s aging schools.
The bond will cost homeowners $60 per $100,000 of their home’s value — $300 a year for a house worth $500,000.
The improvements will improve education and retain teachers, said Superintendent Melissa Bassanelli in a message on the district website.
“Quality classrooms and good teachers are essential to student learning,” Bassanelli wrote. “If passed by voters, Measure P funds will help the district upgrade career technical education classrooms, math and science labs and ensure that students have access to a well-rounded education including music, visual and performing arts.”
During a tour of El Camino Fundamental, principal Evelyn Welborn pointed out a crowded biology classroom where 36 students sat elbow to elbow with little space or updated equipment for lab work.
“We have fantastic programs going on,” Welborn said. “Unfortunately, our building was built in the 1950s, so we’re doing, trying to do 21st century learning in a 20th century building, which doesn’t always work.”
If the bond passes, El Camino Fundamental could have some buildings renovated and others razed and replaced, potentially with a two-story building, said Frank Camarda, chief operations officer for the district. The buildings that are renovated would be gutted and have new windows, ceilings, lighting, flooring, plumbing and electrical, he said.
The San Juan district needs $3.5 billion to complete all the work needed at its 64 schools, Camarda said, adding that district leaders expect to get $90 million in facilities funds from the state’s Proposition 2, a public education facilities bond, if it passes on Nov. 5.
If Measure P does not pass, the district — in a worst-case scenario — would have to focus on repairing and maintaining roofs, heating and air conditioning units, and electrical systems at its schools, Camarda said.
The district passed a $750 million bond measure eight years ago and used the funds to update schools like Dyer-Kelly Elementary School, located just three miles from the high school. The old elementary school was razed and replaced with a two-story school five years ago.
Dyer-Kelly Elementary teacher Hallie Lozano engages with a kindergarten student during outdoor playtime. Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource
Dyer-Kelly Elementary teacher Hallie Lozano remembers the leaky roofs, failing air conditioner, lack of storage and limited number of bathrooms in the 70-year-old school before it was torn down and replaced.
“That was a big deal, Lozano said. “It was really hard (for teachers) to just get into the bathroom before your next period.”
Now teachers and students at the K-5 school have access to numerous bathrooms, assemble in a modern amphitheater and take part in drama productions on a stage in the cafeteria.
Spacious classrooms now have whiteboards, television sets, bulletin boards and ample storage.
The school, with about 97% of its 800 students from low-income families and 60% English learners, has become the centerpiece of the community.
Principal Jamal Hicks says about 150 people show up outside the school each evening to visit and watch their children play on the school lawn and sidewalks. He says the school provides safe, well-lit space that isn’t readily available elsewhere in the community.
“The school is like a beacon for the entire community,” Hicks said.
Updating school facilities at San Juan Unified, a district of 40,000 students, has to be a comprehensive step-by-step long-term process, Camarda said.
“You can’t do it all at once,” he said. “You have to keep everything functioning, but you also have to start making some bold moves and replacing the oldest of your inventory. … So we’ve changed our philosophy, and it seems to be working really well.”
Wasco Union High School District
When it rains or gets hot in Wasco — and it’s often scorching — Wasco Union High School often has to resort to a backup plan for P.E. classes because of the state of its current gym.
WAsco Union High School District
Kern County
1,807 students
89% low-income, foster and English learner students
$31,672 bonding capacity per student*
* Bonding capacity per student is the maximum amount of general obligation bonds a school district can issue at a given time. A district can never go over the ceiling. For high school districts it is 1.25% of total assessed valuation; the median in California is $25,569.
“Anytime we cannot be outside, (the students) have to sit in the bleachers and do online assignments,” said Millie Alvarado, P.E. department head.
A new gym with air conditioning is a key project that Wasco Union High School District is promoting as a part of Measure D, a $35.4 million education bond measure on the ballot in this rural Kern County community this November. The bond will cost homeowners $30 per $100,000 of their home’s value – $94 a year for a house worth $314,000, the median value in Wasco, according to Zillow.
A warm, sunny climate has made Wasco a national leader in rose production, but temperatures that soar above 90 degrees for a third of the year also make it unsafe for students to do anything physically rigorous outside.
That wouldn’t be such a problem if Wasco Union High School had an air-conditioned gymnasium, like most high schools in Kern County.
Wasco’s lone comprehensive high school gym just has swamp coolers, with an evaporative cooling system that is no match for the triple digit heat that hits the region with increasing regularity.
The shower in the boys locker room at Wasco Union High. Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
The girls locker room at Wasco Union High. The showers are leaky and old, so they have been coverted into changing stalls.Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
The boys locker room bathroom lacks urinals and instead has a trough along the wall.Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
School administrators said the gymnasium is badly in need of new lockers and proper ventilation.Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
The shop for Wasco Union High’s construction course is cramped and has no air conditioning. Using power tools makes the heat worse.Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
Classrooms for career technical education are cramped, and the Wasco Union High School District hopes to expand them with Proposition 2.Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
The west side of campus is completely open. There is no fence, which the superintendent said is a security problem.Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource
“We’re trying to really help the community to understand the safety component of it,” said Superintendent Kevin Tallon. “It’s just not a safe campus when you look at the safety standards that other facilities have in most Kern County schools.”
This year, paramedics were called when a student passed out due to heat during P.E., Tallon added. Athletes who rely on the gym for games, after-school practice or summer conditioning feel the effects acutely.
“You feel like you’re suffocating,” said Rosalia Sanchez, a senior and varsity volleyball player.
Principal Rusvel Prado said the roof has been patched over many times but still leaks when it rains.
Even when the weather cooperates, the gym does a poor job accommodating the nearly 1,700 students who attend Wasco Union High. For school pep rallies, about half of the student body overflows outdoors. Locker rooms are cramped and unventilated, which Alvarado says is not ideal when 200 to 300 students are changing into and out of gym clothes each class period.
Measure D was developed with community feedback, Tallon said. The district was able to pass a bond measure in 2008 that modernized and upgraded heating and air conditioning systems for much of the campus, which was built in 1915. But two follow-up bond measures failed — one by a fraction of a percentage point in 2018, and one by 3.3 points in March 2020.
In the 2008 bond, classrooms took priority over the gymnasium, which dates back to the 1950s. Tallon said that if the new bond proposal passes, it would allow for 80% of the campus to be modernized over the next 20 years.
Campus security has become a bigger priority for schools in recent years. The bond measure will also go toward upgrading door locks, alarms, cameras, lighting and emergency communication systems. The west section of campus, where career technical and dual enrollment courses are held, is unfenced — a major safety concern in an era of mass shootings, Tallon said.
Pathways to college and career have received a renewed focus in California, bringing new facility needs. Wasco Union High’s construction program has a cramped shop without air conditioning. The building that will ultimately house dual enrollment students was set on fire by an arsonist who attacked local schools, according to local news reports. The district owns an off-campus farm that trains agricultural students, but there is no plumbing or safe drinking water — something the bond money aims to address.
The measure is asking for nearly the full amount of the $36 million bonding capacity of the community. Wasco Union High School District plans to apply for Proposition 2 funds, if it passes. The proposition will prioritize districts like Wasco, where its residents’ incomes are low — 88% of students qualify as socioeconomically disadvantaged. However, Tallon doesn’t believe that proposition or other state funding sources will be sufficient to help the district.
“We’re sensitive to the fact that it’s a tough economic time right now when it comes to inflation,” Tallon said. “But we also try to provide as much information as we can about the cost of the bond measure to the homeowner. For what you get in return for the quality of schools, we feel it’s money well spent.”
Jill Underly was recently te-elected as State Superintendent of Schools in Wisconsin. She is an active member of the Netwotk for Public Education and attended its last two meetings. She released the following statement after two courts hacked away at Trump’s threat to withhold funds from schools that taught diversity, equity, and inclusion
MADISON, Wis. (WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PRESS RELEASE) – State Superintendent Dr. Jill Underly today issued a statement following two federal court rulings that limit the Trump administration’s ability to withhold critical school funding over an unclear certification form and process.
“Our top priority in Wisconsin is our kids and making sure every student has the support they need to succeed. The past few weeks, school leaders have been scrambling to understand what the impact of the U.S. Department of Education’s order could be for their federal funds, forcing them to take their eye off what matters most.
“Today, two separate courts reached a similar conclusion: the USDE’s new certification process is likely unlawful and unconstitutionally vague. That is a welcome development for our schools and communities who, working in partnership with parents and families, are best positioned to make decisions for their communities – not Washington, D.C.
“We are closely reviewing today’s rulings and will continue to stand up for Wisconsin schools, and most importantly, our kids.”
Trump is following through on his frequent threats to punish anyone who crossed him in the past. He recently ordered his compliant Attorney General to investigate two men who were critical of him during his first term. Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, wrote about the tyrannical nature of this action and about Pam Bondi’s willingness to do whatever he wants.
Donald Trump’s presidential payback tour rages on, and now it’s personal. It’s one thing to target multi-billion dollar law firms, universities, and media outlets for organizational retribution; those efforts, aimed at stifling and punishing any criticism or dissent, are reprehensible in their own right. But now Trump is going after individual private citizens, using the might of the Executive Branch to potentially throw his detractors in prison.
In a pair of official proclamations – rendered no less unhinged by the use of official fonts and White House letterhead – Trump identifies two targets who worked in the federal government during his first tenure and dared to speak out publicly against him. First: Chris Krebs, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency from 2018 to 2020 and made headlines when he publicly contradicted Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. For this act of heretical truth-telling, Trump labels Krebs “a significant bad-faith actor” – whatever the hell that means – who poses grave “risks” to the American public.
And then there’s Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who publicly criticized the President in an anonymous book and various media appearances. Taylor, like Krebs, purportedly poses “risks” to the United States, is a “bad-faith actor” (though apparently not a significant one like Krebs) and “stoked dissension” with his public commentary.
Are you scared? Don’t you fear the “risks” posed by these two monsters?
True to the form he has displayed when going after disfavored law firms, Trump hits below the belt. The President orders security clearances stripped not only from Krebs and Taylor but also from everyone who works with them (Krebs at a private cybersecurity firm, Taylor at the University of Pennsylvania). He’s punishing his targets – plus their employers and colleagues, First Amendment freedom of association be darned.
It gets worse. In a separate set of orders, Trump directed the Attorney General to open criminal investigations of Krebs and Taylor. Notably absent from the orders is any plausible notion that either might have committed a federal crime. This hardly needs to be said, but it’s not a federal crime to be a “bad-faith actor,” to “stoke dissension,” or even to be a “wise guy,” as Trump called Krebs from the Oval Office.
The next move is Pam Bondi’s – and we know how this will go.
Any reasonable, ethical attorney general would follow the bedrock principle that a prosecutor must have “predication” – some kernel of fact on which to believe a crime might have been committed – to open a criminal investigation. The bar is low, but it serves the vital purpose of preventing precisely the baseless retributive inquests that Trump has now ordered up. In observance of this foundational precept, even Bill Barr – the subject of sharp criticism in my first book, Hatchet Man – generally ignored Trump’s public pleas for the arrests of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and others. Like the exhausted parent of an unruly toddler, Barr would mostly sit back and let the tantrum pass.
Don’t count on Bondi taking the same course of passive resistance to the President. She has already shown her true colors, and they’re whatever shade Trump pleases. For example, despite the distinct possibility of criminality by top administration officials around the Signal scandal, the AG refused even to investigate. Instead, she decreed – after zero inquiry, with zero evidence – that information about military attack plans was somehow not classified, and that nobody had acted recklessly. Case closed, no inquiry needed.
Bondi no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. She’s in the bag for Trump. The question now is whether she’ll cross the line that even Barr, her crooked predecessor, would not, and use the Justice Department’s staggering investigative power as an offensive weapon.
Even if DOJ investigates but concludes it cannot bring a criminal charge, the threat to Krebs and Taylor is real. Any criminal inquiry takes an enormous toll on its subject; subpoenas fly, friends and colleagues get pulled into the grand jury, phones get seized and searched, legal costs mount, professional reputations suffer, personal ties fray. Ask anyone who has been investigated by the Justice Department but not indicted. They’ll tell you it’s a nightmare.
If Bondi does somehow convince a grand jury to indict somebody for something, Trump has unwittingly handed both Krebs and Taylor a potent defense: selective prosecution, which applies where an individual has been singled out for improper purposes. Exhibit A (for the defense): Trump’s own grand proclamations, which openly confess to his personal and political motives for ordering a Justice Department inquiry. Selective prosecution defenses rarely succeed, often because prosecutors typically don’t commit their improper motives to paper. But this would be the rare case where the evidence is so plain – it’s on White House letterhead, signed by the President – that a judge could hardly overlook it.
Trump has long made a habit of threatening his opponents with criminal prosecution through social media posts and by spontaneous outbursts from the lectern. Until now, it was mostly bluster, a public form of scream therapy for the capricious commander-in-chief. But now it’s in writing, from the president to the attorney general, who typically jumps to attention to serve whatever suits the boss, prosecutorial standards be darned. Trump’s dark fantasies are coming to life.
Elie Honig served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 8.5 years and as the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice at the Office of Attorney General for the State of New Jersey for 5.5 years. He is currently a legal Analyst for CNN and Executive Director at Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities