برچسب: watch

  • California education issues to watch in 2024 — and predictions

    California education issues to watch in 2024 — and predictions


    And if you thought 2023 was a downer, just wait for …

    “Hold on,” ever-wise Ms. Fensters interrupted. “Why would anyone read a New Year predictions column if you make them feel like jumping back in bed and pulling the covers over their head for the next 362 days?”

    She’s right.

    Let’s celebrate the dawn of the new year before wading into the swamp that will be 2024.

    How’D you Do betting on 2023?

    My predictions for 2023 were like my singing: off-key but not terrible.

    I said third-grade English language test scores would plunge. They were stagnant.

    I predicted strikes in a half-dozen districts: Teachers struck in LA, Oakland and Rohnert Park Cotati Unified, and settled within hours of hitting picket lines in San Francisco and Fresno.

    I said that members of the new California College Corps, which pays college students to do community work, would become a legion of elementary school reading tutors. It was wise advice couched as a prediction, which Gov. Newsom ignored. (It’s still a good idea.)

    If you kept your own scorecard, go here to compare your results. If not, grab a pencil and paper and bet your fensters for 2024. They’re redeemable with S&H Green Stamps at your local Mervyn’s.

    Arts on the rise

    School attendance will soar, and students will master the math of music in triads and quarter tones in districts like Manteca Unified in San Joaquin County, which will get about $3.8 million in new funding from Proposition 28. That’s the $1 billion ballot initiative, Arts and Music in Schools — Funding Guarantee and Accountability Act, that voters passed in 2022. Manteca, known for its quality bands and providing instruments to all who need them, will be better positioned than many districts. Most others will struggle to fill arts, dance and music jobs, at least initially.

    Chances that arts will flourish in districts like 24,000-student Manteca Unified:

    A note of caution: Under the terms of the new law, districts must use Proposition 28 to expand, not replace, existing arts funding. Eagle-eyed arts protectors will be watching how administrators move the Proposition 28 pea in the budget shells.

    Chances that Create CA or other advocates will file a complaint with the California Department of Education against a district suspected of using Proposition 28 money to supplant, not supplement, its arts budget:

    Now, brace yourselves for the dark side of the moon.

    The state budget

    Within days, Gov. Gavin Newsom will release his first pass at the 2024-25 budget, but Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek offered his gloomy forecast last month: a three-year projected state general fund deficit of $68 billion; between $16 billion and $18 billion would be in Proposition 98, the formula determining how much funding goes to TK-12 and community colleges.

    Draining the state’s rainy-day fund for education and picking away at budgeted but unspent funding, perhaps for buying electric school buses and creating hundreds more community schools, could halve the problem. School lobbies will demand that legislators hold districts and community schools harmless and cut elsewhere in the state budget — to which UC President Michael Drake will reply, “You lookin’ at me?”

    A likely compromise: Pay what the Legislature appropriated for 2023-24 but dust off a Great Recession strategy. Do what your boss does when he can’t make payroll but doesn’t want to lay you off: issue you IOUs. In edu-speak, they’re “deferrals” — and would involve pushing back state payments to districts scheduled for May and June 2024 into July, August or later in the next fiscal year. It’s not a painless tactic: Districts without cash on hand will have to borrow. And the money will have to be paid back, potentially eating into future levels of Proposition 98 funding.

    Chances that the Legislature will impose billions in deferrals in the 2024-25 budget:

    It gets worse

    School districts have known the reckoning was coming. Called “the fiscal cliff,” it combines the expiration of billions in federal Covid relief, declining enrollment in nearly three-quarters of districts, and a leveling off from record state funding.  What they hadn’t anticipated is a projected 1% cost of living increase, based on a federal formula that this year will disadvantage California; this compares with 8% in 2022-23 and 13% the year before that.

    For districts like San Francisco Unified that negotiated sizable raises and over-hired with one-time funding, budget pressures will be intense to close underenrolled schools — never a popular decision — and lay off staff. Dozens of districts will suddenly find themselves on the state’s financial watch list.

    Chances that by the March 15 notification deadline, 15,000 teachers and 10,000 classified employees, many hired with expiring federal funding, will get pink slips (the final number of layoffs will be less):

    Chances that the number of districts with a financial rating of negative or qualified by FCMAT, the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, will at least quintuple from a low of 13 districts in April 2023 to more than 65 in April 2024:

    Chances that San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles will close underenrolled schools, notwithstanding common sense:

    PODCAST

    What’s in store for California education in 2024?

    JANUARY 11, 2023

    State facilities bond

    The state has run out of money to subsidize the costs of new school construction and renovations; billions of dollars’ worth of districts’ projects are in the pipeline. Covid, last year’s floods and sweltering temperatures — signals of climate change — exposed the need for retrofits to meet 21st-century conditions. But the first-ever defeat of the last state bond proposal, in March 2020, proved school advocates shouldn’t take voters for granted. Was the $15 billion price tag too big? Should funding for CSU and UC be included? There will be lots of polling to answer those questions.

    Chances that a school construction bond will be on the ballot in November:

    Chances that it will pass:

    Toil and trouble

    The odds are five fensters that the fight over library books and the backlash against transgender protections in reddish districts will embroil voters statewide in 2024. Suppose school choice and religious conservatives succeed in passing the initiatives they’re aiming to place on the ballot. In that case, progressive California voters will awake with a fright on Nov. 6, wondering if they’re living in Kansas.

    Proposed for November vote

    Private school choice: Pushed by the coalition Californians for School Choice, the initiative would create voucher-like education savings accounts equal to the average Proposition 98 per student funding, initially $14,000, that families could use to send their kids to private schools, including religious schools currently prohibited by the state constitution from receiving public money. Home-schools with 10 or more students could form a private school for funding, too. State oversight would be minimal. Subsidies for families already paying for private schools would cost the state $6.3 billion to $10 billion per year by diverting money from Proposition 98, the Legislative Analyst estimates.

    In 2002, voters rejected a voucher initiative 70% to 30%. Capitalizing on unhappiness with schooling during Covid-19, this initiative will do better, but defenders of public schools, starting with the CTA, will hugely outspend the proponents.

    Because the initiative would amend the state constitution, organizers would need to collect 874,641 signatures.

    Chances that the initiative will make the ballot:

    Chances, if it does make the ballot, that it will lose while getting 40% of the vote:

    School Transparency and Partnership Act aka Outing Trans Kids Act. Unable to get traction in the Legislature, the parent activist group Protect Kids California, co-founded by Roseville City Elementary School District board member Jonathan Zachreson, is canvassing for the 546,651 signatures required for the initiative. It would require schools to notify parents within three days if a student asks to be treated as a gender other than listed in official school records. This would include requesting a name change, a different gender pronoun, participation in an activity using a different gender, or changing clothes identifying as a different gender.

    Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:

    Chances the initiative will be approved:

    Protect Girls’ Sports and Spaces Act, also collecting 546,651 signatures, is the second of three related initiatives proposed by Protect Kids California. It would repeal the 2013 state law allowing students to participate in school activities and use school facilities consistent with their gender identity. Biologically born male students in grades seven and higher in public schools and colleges identifying as females would be banned from participating in female sports or using bathrooms and locker rooms assigned to females based on their birth gender.

    Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:

    Chances the initiative will be approved:

    Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act, aka Parental Control Unless We Say So Act. California, which has been a sanctuary for families seeking medical care for transgender youths, will join the nearly two dozen states that ban transgender care if this initiative, the third transgender-restriction initiative pushed by Protect Kids California, passes. It would ban health care providers from giving medical care to patients under 18 seeking to change their gender identity. It would prohibit that treatment even if parents consent or doctors recommend it for the minor’s mental or physical well-being.

    Chances the initiative will collect enough signatures to qualify:

    Chances the initiative will be approved:

    Eyes of the storm

    Recall elections of school board members in two districts will serve as a gauge of whether activist conservative majorities represent a fringe minority or the will of the majority.

    Longtime Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma and newly elected board member Madison Miner angered opponents by voting with two other conservatives to fire a respected superintendent on Jan. 5 during winter break without citing a cause. In October, the board became the sixth in the state to adopt a transgender notification policy.

    Chances that Orange Unified voters will oust Ledesma in the March 5 vote:

    A three-member majority in Temecula Valley Unified adopted a similar playbook this year, including firing its superintendent. A political action committee of voters appears to have turned in more than enough signatures to recall board President Joseph Komrosky, their primary target, but not enough to oust Jennifer Wiersma.  In July, the board stirred the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom by rejecting a sixth-grade textbook that included a passage about gay activist Harvey Milk, whom Komrosky characterized as a pedophile. The third conservative, Danny Gonzalez, resigned in December to move out of state. In his last board meeting, he lashed out at opponents, including board member Stephen Schwartz, whom he accused of showing “vile contempt for Christians.” Schwartz is Jewish.

    The outcome of the recall would be a measure of the power of the Evangelical 412 Church Temecula Valley and its pastor, Tim Thompson, who has been outspoken in defense of the board majority.

    Chances that Temecula Valley voters will oust Komrosky later this year:

    Etc.

    California Personal Finance Education Act, aka “Why You Should Tear Up That 20th Credit Card Offer Act.” Pushed by Palo Alto entrepreneur Tim Ranzetta, who’s been proselytizing for teaching students personal finance through a nonprofit he co-founded, the initiative would require a semester of personal finance as a graduation requirement, starting with the graduating class of 2030. California would join about two dozen states with or phasing in the requirement.

    Chances that it will make the ballot in November:

    Chances that voters will approve it, despite some misgivings about mandating yet another graduation requirement:

    Early literacy

    In late December, a new alliance of advocates calling for the state to take a clearer and more resolute policy on early literacy published an early literacy policy brief with the expectation that it would lead to legislation in 2024. The California Early Literacy Coalition includes Decoding Dyslexia CA, 21st Century Alliance, Families in Schools, California Reading Coalition and the rejuvenated nonprofit EdVoice. 

    Among its positions, the coalition calls for:

    • Directing the California Department of Education to create a list of approved professional development courses grounded in the science of reading that districts and educators can select. 
    • Requiring all teachers and reading coaches in elementary schools to complete training from the approved course list.
    • Providing help to schools and districts as they adopt the science of reading-aligned instructional materials.

    The state, under Newsom, supports the science of reading approach to reading and, in piecemeal fashion, is partially funding some of what the coalition advocates. The difference is that a comprehensive policy would mandate what the administration has only encouraged.

    Chances that a prominent legislator will sponsor the bill and that it will be one of the most discussed non-budget bills of the session:

    Passage likely will take more than a year of effort and perhaps await the election of a new governor and state superintendent of public instruction willing to challenge the reflexive defense of local control on this issue.

    Chances that comprehensive legislation will be signed into law in 2024:

    Extra challenges for charter schools

    Along with challenges facing all school districts, the state’s 1,300 charter schools will face added pressures. Many are in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where enrollment declines for districts and charter schools are largest. Tensions between them could escalate if funding-desperate districts deny charters fair access to school facilities, as the school board majority of Los Angeles Unified voted to do last year. 

    A pre-pandemic reform law allowing school districts to factor in financial impact when deciding to grant a new charter school will thwart growth and expansion, and the 2024-25 resumption of the charter renewal process, using problematic post-pandemic performance measures, could compound charters’ troubles. The result: Some financially fragile charters will close; the weakest performers will be shut down. 

    Chances that the number of charter schools in California operating in fall 2024 will drop by at least 30 schools.

    One area in which legislators, charters and districts should agree is new accountability requirements for non-classroom-based charter schools that offer virtual schools or hybrid models combining home-schooling and classrooms. They’ve become more popular with families and been more prone to scams. In the two most egregious cases, A3 and Inspire charter networks, self-serving operators double-billed, falsified attendance records, and funneled funding to shell operations, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. 

    San Diego County prosecutors, who convicted A3’s executives in 2019, have expressed frustration that it has taken so long to enact remedies. Three separate task forces will present findings by June. 

    Chances that the Legislature will pass non-classroom-based accountability reforms this year:

    Worth every penny?

    EdSource reporter Diana Lambert calculated that pay for superintendents in some of the state’s districts had increased by 60% in the past decade; it’s a tough job, and these days, not too many appear to want it.

    Including benefits, Christopher Hoffman of Elk Grove and Alberto Carvalho of Los Angeles Unified, respectively the state’s fifth-largest and the largest districts, earn over $500,000 per year. That’s hardly chump change, but then again, Dodger pitcher and hitter extraordinaire Shohei Ohtani signed a 10-year contract for $700 million, an average of $70 million per year.

    Carvalho could argue he’s certainly worth at least 1% as much: $700,000. After all, he oversees a $20 billion budget. But with declining enrollment and layoffs likely, this is not the year to swing for the fences.

    Chances Carvalho or any superintendent among the 10 largest districts will receive a 7% raise this year:

    The anti-anti-tax initiatives

    The Business Roundtable and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, carrying the torch of Proposition 13, have placed an initiative on the November ballot to make it harder to pass state tax increases. It would redefine a number of state-imposed fees as taxes, therefore requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to pass and require all future taxes or increases approved by the Legislature to go before the general electorate for approval. It also would nullify a recent state court ruling that school parcel taxes initiated by citizens, not by school boards, need only a majority of voters to pass — instead of the standard two-thirds.

    In a shrewd counter-move to head it off, legislators, mostly Democrats, voted to place a competing constitutional amendment on the November ballot. It says that any initiative that raises the voter threshold for passing taxes would need the support of two-thirds of voters, not just a simple majority, to be enacted. It’s explicitly aimed at making it less likely the Business Roundtable initiative will pass.

    Chances that voters will be as confused as I am by this chess match and wonder what will happen if they both pass:

    Thanks for reading the column. One more toast to 2024!

    Correction: An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that Orange Unified board President Rick Ledesma denigrated gay activist Harvey Milk. The comment was made by Joseph Komrosky, president of the Temecula Valley Unified board.





    Source link

  • California education issues to watch in 2025, plus predictions on how they may play out

    California education issues to watch in 2025, plus predictions on how they may play out


    Children line up to drink water from a fountain inside Cuyama Elementary School in Santa Barbara County.

    Credit: Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP Photo

    It’s that time again when I line up my predictions for the year only to see events conspire to knock them down like bowling pins. 

    As you recall, I lay down my wager in fensters. You can, too, on a scale of 1 fenster — no way it’ll happen — to 5  – it’s bird-brain obvious (at least to you). Fensters are a cryptocurrency redeemable only in Russian rubles; currently trading at about 110 per U.S. dollar. Predict right, and you’ll be rich in no time!

    2025 will be rife with conflict; you know that. It will start Jan. 20, when President Donald Trump will announce that POTUS 47 v. California will be the main attraction on his UFC fight card. Trump’s tag team of both a Republican Congress, though barely a majority, and a conservative Supreme Court will be formidable.

    Since it’s often difficult to know from day to day whether Trump’s acts are grounded in personal vendettas or conservative principles, that will complicate predictions. Insiders also say his decisions change based on the last person he speaks with. Safe to say it won’t be me.  

    With that caution, grab your spreadsheet.

    Trump’s agenda

    Mass deportations could turn hundreds of thousands of kids’ lives upside down, and massive shifts in education policies could jeopardize billions of dollars in federal funding for low-income kids.

    Public reaction will determine whether Trump deports tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants with criminal records or indiscriminately sends back millions of people, as he implied. Most Americans found Trump’s policy early in his first term of separating children from parent border crossers abhorrent. Scenes on social media of ICE agents’ midnight raids, leaving kids without a working parent and potentially homeless, could have the same effect. And Central Valley farmers dependent on immigrants to harvest crops will warn Trump of financial disaster; other factories dependent on immigrants to do jobs other Americans don’t want will, too.

    Trump will rely on shock and awe instead: swift raids of meat-packing plants and of visible sites targeting immigrant neighborhoods in California’s sanctuary cities — to send a message: You’re not welcome here.

    And it will work, as measured by fear among children, violations of habeas corpus (laws pertaining to detention and imprisonment), and, in the end, declines in illegal crossings at the border, a trend that already started, under widespread pressure, in the final year of the Biden presidency. 

    The likelihood that Trump’s deportations will number closer to 100,000 than a million

    The likelihood that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will open immigrant detention centers, one each in Northern California and Southern California

    The likelihood that chronic absence rates in California school districts with large undocumented immigrant populations will soar to higher than 40%

    The likelihood that the number of California high school seniors in those same districts who will not fill out the federal application for college financial aid known as FAFSA because of worry about outing an undocumented parent will increase significantly

    The likelihood that the Trump administration will challenge the 1981 Supreme Court decision that children present in the United States have a right to attend public school, regardless of their immigration status and that of their parents

    Eliminating the U.S. Department of Education

    One of the late President Jimmy Carter’s accomplishments was the creation of the Department of Education. Forty-five years later, Trump wants to dissolve it and divide responsibilities among other federal bureaucracies: Title I funding for children in poverty to the Department of Health and Human Services; federal student loans and Pell grants to the Department of Treasury. That would take congressional approval, and past efforts over the years to eliminate it — a popular Republican idea — never came close to passing.

    The likelihood that Trump could get majorities in Congress to eliminate the department

    With or without a department, Trump could make radical changes that could impact billions of federal education dollars for California. He could turn Title I’s $18.8 billion funding for low-income children into a block grant and let states decide how to spend it. California, which had spats with the Obama administration over how to mesh state and federal funding, might welcome that. But poor kids in other states will be at the whim of governors and legislators who won’t be held accountable.

    The likelihood Trump will cut 10% to 20% from Title I funding but leave funding for special education, the Individual Disabilities Education Act, traditionally an area of bipartisan agreement, intact

    The likelihood Trump will call cuts in money for Title I and the Department of Education bureaucracy a down payment for a federal K-12 voucher program

    Mini-fight over state budget

    Later this week, Gov. Newsom will release his 2025-26 budget. If the Legislative Aalyst’s Office was right in its revenue projections, there will be a small cost-of-living adjustment for education programs and at least $3 billion for new spending — petty change compared with Newsom’s big initiatives for community schools and after-school programs when money flowed.

    A piece of it could go toward improving math. It’s been ignored for too long.

    California students perform abysmally in math: Only 31% were proficient on state tests in 2024, compared with 47% in English language arts — nothing to brag about either. In the last National Assessment of Educational Progress results, California fourth graders’ scores were behind 30 other states.

    The State Board of Education approved new, ambitious math standards, amid much controversy, two years ago. The state has not jump-started statewide training for them since. But the board will adopt a new list of approved curriculum materials this summer, signaling it’s time to get rolling.

    The likelihood that Newsom will include hundreds of millions of dollars for buying textbooks, training math coaches and encouraging collaboration time among teachers.

    Ethnic studies tensions

    Conflicts over ethnic studies, which have been simmering since the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 101 in 2021 requiring high schools to teach it will come to a head this year.

    At the center of the controversy is the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium and affiliated groups pushing an alternative version of the ethnic studies framework that the State Board of Education approved in 2021. The state framework, a guide, not a mandated curriculum, places ethnic studies in the context of an evolving American story, with a focus on struggles, progress and cultural influences of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans.

    The liberated version stresses the ongoing repression of those groups through a critique of white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism, plus, for good measure, instruction in anti-Zionism and Palestinian liberation. UC and CSU ethnic studies faculty members have led efforts to promote it, with substantial consulting contracts with several dozen districts.

    AB 101’s mandate for teaching ethnic studies, starting in the fall of 2025 and requiring it for a high school diploma in 2029-30, is contingent on state funding. And that hasn’t happened, according to the Department of Finance. Meanwhile, the Legislative Jewish Caucus will reintroduce legislation to require more public disclosure before districts adopt an ethnic studies curriculum. In his Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism, Newsom promised to work with the caucus to strengthen AB 101 to “ensure all ethnic studies courses are free from bias, bigotry, and discriminatory content.”

    Some scenarios:

    The likelihood Newsom will press for amendments to AB 101 as a requirement for funding the AB 101 mandate

    The likelihood that Newsom and the Legislature fund the AB 101 mandate, at least to keep it on schedule, for now

    The likelihood the Jewish Caucus-led bill to strengthen transparency and AB 101’s anti-bias protections will pass with Newsom’s support

    Amending the funding formula

    Revising the Local Control Funding Formula, which parcels out 80% of state funding for TK-12, may get some juice this year — if not to actually amend the 12-year-old law, then at least to formally study the idea.

    At an Assembly hearing last fall, the state’s leading education researchers and education advocates agreed that the landmark finance reform remains fundamentally sound, and the heart of the formula — steering more money to low-income, foster, and homeless students, as well as English learners — should be kept. However, with performance gaps stubbornly high between low-income and non-low-income students and among racial and ethnic groups, researchers also suggested significant changes to the law. The challenge is that some ideas are in conflict, and some could be expensive.

    In his budgets, Gov. Gavin Newsom has directed more money to the most impoverished, low-performing schools. However, some school groups want to focus more money on raising the formula’s base funding for all students. Others want to focus attention on districts in the middle, with 35% to 55% low-income and English learners, who get less aid per student than in districts like Oakland, with higher concentrations of eligible students.

    The outcome will affect how much money your school district gets, so keep an eye on what’s happening.

    The likelihood that the funding formula will be amended this year

    The likelihood there will be a two-year study with intent to pass legislation next year

    What about tutoring?

    At his preview Monday on the 2025-26 state budget, Newsom barely mentioned education. But a one-word reference to “tutoring” woke me up.

    In my 2023 predictions column, I wagered three fensters that Newsom would expand a promising effort for state-driven and funded early-grades tutoring in a big way. Last year, looking back, I wrote, “It was wise advice couched as a prediction, which Gov. Newsom ignored. (It’s still a good idea.)”

    So it is. Newsom created the structure for tutoring at scale when he created California College Corps.  It recruits 10,000 college students and pays them $10,000 toward their college expenses in exchange for 450 community public service hours. Newsom, in setting it up, made tutoring an option. What he didn’t do is make it a priority and ask school districts, which received $6.3 billion in learning recovery money over multiple years, to make intensive, small-group “high-dosage” tutoring their priority, too. Other states, like Tennessee, have, and Maryland this year became the latest.  

    The likelihood that Newsom will include high-dosage tutoring in math and reading for early grades, in partnership with tutoring nonprofits, school districts, and university teacher credentialing programs

    TK for all (who choose)

    Starting this fall, any child who turns 4 by Sept. 1 can attend publicly funded transitional kindergarten in California. The date will mark the successful end of a four-year transition period and a $2.4 billion state investment.

    “Done,” said Newsom pointing to the word stamped on a slide during a preview of the budget on Monday.

    Well, not quite.

    The hope of TK, the year between preschool and kindergarten, is to prepare young children for school through play and learning, thus preventing an opportunity gap from developing in a year of peak brain growth. For school districts, adding this 14th year of school offers the only hope for a source of revenue when enrollment in all grades in many districts is declining.

    But in its first and initial years of full operation, TK will likely be under-enrolled statewide. There are a number of reasons. By design, the Newsom administration and Legislature are offering multiple options for parents of 4-year-olds. There are transitional kindergarten, state-funded preschools, private preschools, and state-funded vouchers for several care options, plus federal Head Start.

    The state has provided financial incentives for providers to shift to serving 2- and 3-year-olds, but it will take time. The state had assumed that transitional kindergarten would draw parents attracted to classes taught by credentialed teachers in a neighborhood elementary school. Some parents prefer their preschool with an adult-child ratio of 8-to-1, instead of 12-to-1 in transitional kindergarten (a credentialed teacher and an aide in a class of up to 24) and a preschool teacher who speaks Spanish or another native language, said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley, who has been researching transitional kindergarten in California.

    And many elementary schools don’t have the bigger classrooms to accommodate TK and kindergarten, or they can’t find enough credentialed teachers and aides to staff them.

    In coming years, transitional kindergarten enrollment will reach closer to serving all 4-year-olds, an estimated 400,000 next year.

    For now, the likelihood that transitional kindergarten will serve more than 60% of a target population

    Keep on your radar

    Equity in funding: Voters approved a $10 billion state construction bond, providing critical matching funding to districts that passed local bonds. But despite small fixes in Proposition 2, the first-come, first-served system favors school districts with the highest property values — whether commercial downtowns or expensive homes. The higher tax burden for low-wealth districts is why some schools are pristine and fancy, while those in neighboring districts are antiquated and decrepit. The nonprofit law firm Public Advocates threatened to file a lawsuit last fall, and hasn’t said whether it will follow through. But it would be a landmark case.

    In the 1971 landmark decision in Serrano v. Priest, the California Supreme Court ruled that a school funding system tied to local property taxes violated students’ constitutional rights. Challenging the state’s reliance on districts’ disparate local property wealth to fund school facilities could be the equivalent.

    Rethinking high school: Anaheim Union High School District is among the districts thinking about how the high school day could be more relevant to students’ personal and career aspirations. Anaheim Union is exploring how an expanded block schedule, team teaching, interdisciplinary courses, artificial intelligence, online learning, and job apprenticeships could transform learning.

    The six-period day, education code rules in instructional minutes, and seat time may be obstacles to change and perpetuate mindsets. For now, discussions have been more conceptual than specific.  The State Board of Education has a broad power to grant waivers from the state education code; State Board President Linda Darling-Hammond said the board is open to considering them. This may be the year a district or group of districts take up her offer.

    Thanks for reading the column. One more toast to 2025!





    Source link