برچسب: Will

  • Pope Leo Will Send a Video Message to Chicago Mass on Same Day as Trump’s Parade

    Pope Leo Will Send a Video Message to Chicago Mass on Same Day as Trump’s Parade


    I said I wouldn’t post anything on Saturdays or Sundays, but this is too good to pass up.

    Pope Leo will send a video message to Mass in Chicago at a large stadium on the same day that Trump ordered a military parade to celebrate his birthday.

    The Pope will probably address one million people. How many will attend Trump’s multi-million dollar parade?

    AlterNet calls this “Divine trolling.”

    I like Pope Leo more and more every day. He is devoted to the message of the Biblical Jesus: love, mercy, compassion, devotion to the well-being of every person. Heal the sick, comfort the suffering, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger.

    Republican Jesus has a different message: get rich by any means possible; ignore the sick and hungry; build your riches on the suffering of others; slam your door to the stranger; show no mercy to stragglers; love the unborn, inflict misery on the born; love your guns and keep them loaded.

    I ❤️ Pope Leo!



    Source link

  • Getting California kids to read: What will it take?

    Getting California kids to read: What will it take?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xd4Alvvblo

    Leading literacy experts agreed that more young California students need to learn how to read, but they couldn’t reach a concensus on how to make it happen.

    While several participants in EdSource’s May 14 Roundtable discussion, “Getting California Kids to Read: What Will It Take?” suggested they would work together to pass a literacy bill, they also acknowledged that their disagreements remain in the details.

    Moderated by EdSource reporters John Fensterwald and Zaidee Stavely, the lively hourlong roundtable focused on how to achieve literacy for California children. The panel grappled with a myriad of thorny issues including state policy dynamics, the needs of dual-language learners and long-standing disagreements over how best to teach reading amid rising illiteracy rates. 

    Putting the needs of children and their teachers first should be the North Star when trying to solve the deepening literacy crisis, panelists agreed.

    The bottom line is grim. In 2023, just 43% of California students were reading at grade level by third grade, state data shows. Worse still, far fewer Black and Latino students met that standard.  

    “This is also a matter of civil rights,” said Kareem Weaver, an NAACP activist, co-founder of the literacy advocacy group FULCRUM and a key figure in the “The Right to Read” documentary, who has long argued that literacy is a matter of social justice too often obscured by esoteric debates about pedagogy. “Kids need access to prepared teachers, and communities like ours, I feel like we’re bearing the brunt.”

    Against the backdrop of an ongoing battle over state policy and crippling pandemic learning loss, the stakes are perilously high for children who graduate from high school unable to read. They struggle to navigate the world, from job applications to rental agreements, and studies point to the connection between illiteracy and incarceration

    “We’re counting on reasonable people to come together and figure this stuff out,” said Weaver. “These decisions that are made, they do fall on real kids, real communities.”

    What will it take to make sure that all kids, including English learners, read by third grade?

    While the state has taken some steps to get all kids to grade level, such as funding for tutors and testing students for dyslexia, a reading disability, there is no comprehensive plan. Given local control policies, districts decide how reading is taught, and many use methods that have been debunked by some experts. That’s a problem because consensus is key to reform, experts say. 

    “You want to make sure that whether you’re in the district office or you are a teacher in the classroom, you’re singing the same song,” said Penny Schwinn, former Tennessee education commissioner, who led that state’s renowned reading reform initiative, Reading 360. “The curricular materials are aligned, the professional development is aligned. All of that has to row in the same direction. Otherwise, you have people who are all doing different things in different ways and kids get confused.”

    What’s standing in the way of systemic change in California? One key question underpinning this debate is whether a statewide approach can meet the needs of English learners.

    “I do have to say that many times students and biliteracy programs are not included in the literacy conversation,” said Martha Hernández, executive director of Californians Together, an advocacy group. “Our literacy policy must have a focus on student-responsive teaching. I will say that multi-literacy is really the way of the future, particularly for our diverse state in this 21st century. It must be a cornerstone of literacy, biliteracy education policy in California.”

    Another key obstacle is the resistance to any top-down mandate that the state imposes on schools. 

    “When you do not have educators at the center of this, along with parents and students, it is set up to fail,” said David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “Frankly, going and passing legislation that reinforces a top-down approach, it’s antithetical to what all of our goals are about: really having all students succeed.”

    In hopes of giving the state a comprehensive plan focusing on phonics and other skills like vocabulary and reading comprehension, supporters backed Assembly Bill 2222 authored by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park. It also had the support of the California State PTA, state NAACP and more than 50 other organizations. But the bill died last month in committee before it could even get a hearing, succumbing to opposition from the state teachers union and English language advocates.

    Getting a literacy bill passed, as hard as that may be, is just the beginning, experts warn.

    “That is the easiest part of the process,” said Schwinn. “You can pass legislation, but implementation is the hardest thing you’ll ever do, because you have to win hearts and minds and you have to make sure you do it with respect and make sure you are operating with extreme dignity and professionalism and with a high quality bar for the people who are in the profession every day.”

    In a state as big and diverse as California, consensus can be elusive, noted Claude Goldenberg, emeritus professor of education in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. While almost everyone agrees that literacy instruction should be culturally relevant and content-rich as well as foundational, there remain disagreements about what exactly that looks like in the classroom. 

    “One of the big problems is when we speak at this level, there’s a lot of agreement,” said Goldenberg, “but we know the devil is in the details. … Time is limited in schools. Six hours tops, maybe six and a half, maybe five and a quarter. … We’ve got to make some choices and we’ve got to make some priorities at different stages of reading development. And that’s where the conversation kind of breaks down, because it gets very weedy, it gets very difficult. … We end up looking like we agree, but the subtext here is we’re still disagreeing.”

    One of the big hurdles is over whether the state should embrace what is known as the science of reading, which refers to research on how the brain learns how to read. In response to a question from moderator Fensterwald on what is irrefutable about that research, Goldenberg said there was no doubt about how children need to be taught how to read.

    “We have research on what to do when kids are having difficulty getting traction in beginning reading, whether they’re in Spanish reading programs or in English reading programs as English language learners,” said Goldenberg. “We know that there’s a reason they’re called foundational literacy skills. Because if you don’t have these skills, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to become literate.”

    While she agreed on many broad themes, Hernandez pointed out that children have differing needs. 

    “Of course, you know, science is never settled,” said Hernandez. “What works for one student may not work for another.”

    As the president of the state’s largest teachers union, Goldberg, for his part, noted that any approach that does not center the expertise of teachers is likely to be a non-starter. Teachers must have a seat at the table, he argued.

    “We have had decades of disinvestment in public education,” said Goldberg. “So when we hear educators, when our voice is constantly not listened to … when educators do not feel like their agency is respected, like the fact that we are educating many kids with diverse language needs, all kinds of issues, not the flavor of the month … it has to have deep engagement at the very base level to get educators to buy in.” 

    He is also concerned that the voices of students of color will be overlooked in the debate.

    “As a bilingual educator, how it comes across is that bilingual students, students of color in particular, their needs are always being pushed into silence,” said Goldberg.  “And so I hear what you’re saying, but if these programs have any legitimacy, they must put the needs of the most vulnerable people at the center.”  

    Megan Potente, co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia CA, an advocacy group, suggested that a statewide literacy initiative could be more akin to guardrails than a mandate. Certainly, many other states, including those with substantial bilingual populations, from Florida and Mississippi to Tennessee, have already launched comprehensive state policy reforms to change the way reading is taught, with impressive results. 

    “It’s not about one-size-fits-all because, just like in other states, there would be many choices of reading professional development and instructional programs,” said Potente. “And the choices would be vetted by state experts to ensure that they provide what California kids need to learn.”

    She argues that it’s actually the most vulnerable kids who may have the most to gain from a comprehensive literacy plan. Her organization fought long and hard for dyslexia screening legislation, for example, that only recently passed.

    “It took eight years and four bills to make it happen. We are in this for the long haul because we know that matters,” said Potente, a veteran teacher and the mother of a dyslexic child.  “We talk about structured literacy a lot. … It really needs to be the standard of care. Non-negotiable. Why is it not? That’s really what sticks with me. Why is it so hard to find access to evidence-based instruction that works for all kids? Why?” 





    Source link

  • Why one California university leader thinks year-round operations will aid enrollment

    Why one California university leader thinks year-round operations will aid enrollment


    Students in a science class at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.

    Credit: Arabel Meyer / EdSource

    Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo recently announced that it will become the first public university in the state to shift to year-round operations starting summer 2025. The change would give students the option of starting in the summer and taking their academic break during a different term, and it would allow the university to admit more students per year.

    Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong said other universities have had success with this model. 

    “Secondary to growth (in enrollment), I think we’re going to see student success,” Armstrong said. 

    Taking inspiration from schools that have had year-round operations for years, like Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and the University of Waterloo in Canada, Armstrong said he hopes to put a “Cal Poly twist” on the idea to benefit all students. 

    Beginning next year, students will be able to choose to start either in summer or fall during the application process. Faculty and staff will also be able to choose which terms they will work.

    Armstrong said students and faculty will have enough information to make an informed decision about what their schedule will look like and “they will know what they’re getting into.”

    If a student opts to start in summer, they might have a greater chance of being admitted to Cal Poly, which currently has an admit rate of 28% and is highly impacted with more applications than available spaces, Armstrong said.

    “We’re not changing our standards,” Armstrong said. “What we’re doing is using year-round to open up more spaces so more students can get in.”

    Starting the year in the summer would be different from simply taking summer classes or taking a couple of classes in the last few weeks of summer through summer start programs to help students adjust to college.

    Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo President Jeffrey D. Armstrong
    Credit: Cal Poly SLO

    Students who start their year in the summer would have full course offerings equivalent to what is offered during the other terms, and classes would be for a full term, according to Armstrong.

    When asked about the expected cost of the change to year-round operations, Armstrong said, “Overall, we believe the investments required will not be significantly out of line as what would be required for enrollment growth through traditional non-year-round operations means.”

    Following the year-round model, students, including freshmen, would have more opportunities to participate in “high-impact practices” such as internships, study abroad and undergraduate research, according to Armstrong. 

    “We know when students participate in high-impact practices, it enhances their retention, it enhances their chance to graduate,” he said. 

    A student who chooses to start in summer could then study abroad or do an internship during the fall term and come back for spring term, for example. 

    Armstrong said students could also decide to take classes every term and graduate earlier, though this would not be required.

    It’s about “flexibility for all students, really,” he said. “I think it’ll be very positive, and it’ll expand access to high-impact activities. We want it to be more equitable.”

    Financial aid would still cover a full academic year (three quarters or two semesters) no matter when a student starts, Armstrong added. 

    In an ideal world, Armstrong said about a third of students would start in summer, though starting out, the numbers might be more like 15-20%. 

    “It’s allowing us to grow, [and] it’s taking the number of students in the regular academic year down, so it’s relieving some of the pressure,” Armstrong said.

    Cal Poly began discussing this shift in 2019, but it was delayed because of the to the pandemic. The change was then set to begin summer 2024 but delayed again after Cal Poly met its enrollment goals for the year by increasing course availability, allowing more students to enroll full time. 

    As college enrollment rates increase, universities have been trying to find ways to do so without increasing costs too much. In 1999, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report recommending universities switch to year-round operations. 

    Cal Poly is the only public university in California to make this switch, though other schools are making different efforts to increase their enrollment and expand summer instruction.

    According to Hazel Kelly, CSU spokesperson, other CSU campuses are also considering ways to offer more flexible academic calendars.

    “The Chancellor’s Office is working with those universities as they consider a range of implications of alternative calendars including student enrollment, campus budgets, financial aid, accreditation, labor agreements and facilities, among others,” Kelly said.

    California State University, Long Beach is working on expanding enrollment during the fall and spring semesters, focusing on “underserved majors with available space,” according to CSULB spokesperson Gregory Woods. 

    “To bolster enrollment, our strategy is to enhance retention rates and average-units load for current students, and to expand the class size of the incoming first-time, first-year student level,” Woods said. 

    San Diego State University, which has the second-lowest acceptance rate of all the CSUs and is also highly impacted, does not have a plan to move to year-round operations like Cal Poly but is exploring other ways of increasing enrollment, SDSU spokesperson La Monica Everett-Haynes said.

    “We have, however, implemented efforts toward summer enrollment and, overall, continue to see high levels of enrollment growth during both the academic and summer session periods,” Everett-Haynes said.

    The University of California has similarly been working to expand summer enrollment without moving to the year-round model. 

    “Every UC campus is committed to expanding capacity and enhancing educational equity for California students through overall enrollment growth as well as more nontraditional approaches, including efforts to improve timely graduation and to expand online, summer and off-campus opportunities,” said Ryan King, UC spokesperson. 

    According to the “Building 2030 Capacity Report” issued in 2022, UC has turned to increasing online course offerings and financial aid for summer to help meet their enrollment goals. King noted that the report shows a spike in summer enrollment in 2020, and “UC campuses recognized this surge as an opportunity to increase summer enrollment and capacity over the long term by growing the number and mix of online and impacted fall-winter-spring course offerings.”

    Cal Poly decided that switching to the year-round model, and not just expanding their regular summer offerings, would be the most beneficial. 

    Armstrong said this shift to year-round operations will benefit all students, not just the ones who choose to start in the summer, because classes will be offered more often throughout the year, there will be more opportunities to participate in high-impact activities and the campus community will grow.

    As part of the effort to increase enrollment, Cal Poly is working on building more on-campus housing so that all first- and second-year students can live on campus, a project that “will result in several thousand beds added between now and 2030,” Armstrong said. 

    Armstrong also expects the switch to year-round operations, along with increased financial aid, to help Cal Poly’s efforts to increase diversity. 

    As Cal Poly begins this shift, students will only be able to choose between summer or fall starts, and only incoming students will get this option. Armstrong said he hopes everyone will have this option in the future, and that a spring start will also be available.

    “We think it’s going to be very significant,” Armstrong said. “Our evidence from polling and asking questions of prospective parents and students shows that the interest is very high in the year-round concept.”

    Ashley Bolter is a fourth-year journalism major and French and ethnic studies minor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • Arts education: Will misuse of funds undermine the Proposition 28 rollout?

    Arts education: Will misuse of funds undermine the Proposition 28 rollout?


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    At first, Caitlin Rubini, a veteran dance teacher at a school north of Sacramento, was thrilled when Proposition 28 passed with its promise of bringing arts education to all California students. Participation in the arts can help students recover from trauma, make social connections and increase engagement in school, research has long shown, all critical issues in the post-pandemic era. This kind of boost may have the greatest impact on children from low-income families, experts say, the very cohort Rubini teaches.

    Her excitement turned to devastation when she heard that the dance classes she teaches at El Dorado county’s Union Mine High School are slated to be axed next year due to budget cuts, despite all the extra state funding, roughly $1 billion, now earmarked for arts education every year. 

    “It’s devastating. I cry most days. This is my life; I have dedicated so much energy to it,” said Rubini, who has taught dance at Union Mine for nine years. “There’s been no transparency as to where these funds have been disbursed. It’s just been crickets. … We feel like we’re being thrown under the bus.”

    Rubini, who had just finished choreographing the school’s production of “Peter Pan,” says she was informed she would no longer be teaching dance next year. She has gathered 100 signatures from students who support the program and roughly a dozen students protested the cuts at a El Dorado Union High School District board meeting.  They chanted “Music, dance and drama too. Save the arts for me and you.” 

    Union Mine principal Paul Neville has countered that the school is doing its best to meet student needs given declining enrollment and a shrinking budget.  

    “Enrollment in the dance program has decreased, while interest in drama has increased. In response to our students’ changing preferences, and the needs for other classes, we are adding theater sections,” he said. “We are exploring different ways to support this change and provide dance instruction within the theater program.”

    Rubini is among a growing group of arts teachers concerned that some districts may be misspending their Proposition 28 money, using the new funds to pay for existing classes or activities outside the scope of arts education. In a letter to the governor, a coalition of arts education advocacy groups argue that school districts facing a budget crunch may be misapplying the funds.

    “We are concerned that some school districts are making decisions without input from their communities and not complying with Prop 28,” the letter reads. “Some school districts are encouraging arts education teachers to resign, promising to rehire these teachers using Prop 28 funds.”

    Teachers, students and parents throughout the state are asking where the money, which landed at schools in February, has gone, and why some arts programs are being cut. 

    “My biggest issue is that they are not only misusing the Prop. 28 funds, but at the same time cutting our performing arts programs dramatically,” said an arts teacher in Lake County, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We have serious budget issues, but this is too much for me to take without a fight.”

    While Proposition 28 was designed to prioritize hiring new arts teachers — most schools are required to use 80% of funds on staff  — this teacher alleges the school is using the money to pay for electives it has long offered. Similarly, teachers unions have alleged that LAUSD, the state’s largest school district, has spent arts education money on other activities. Some parent advocates are also pushing for more transparency on how the funds are spent.

    “When you look at the hours of arts instruction and they haven’t changed, how can you say arts instruction has increased?” said Rachel Wagner, the mother of a fourth grader at Encino Charter Elementary School and a leader of Parents Supporting Teachers, an advocacy group with roughly 40,000 members. “It’s very black and white in my mind.” 

    LAUSD officials maintain that overall arts education is up in the district. This year, the district budgeted $129.5 million toward the arts, in addition to $76.7 million from Proposition 28, for a total of more than $206 million. That’s roughly three times the $74.4 million that LAUSD spent on arts education in the previous academic year, according to a district news release. 

    At the core of Proposition 28 is the notion that funds are specifically designed to supplement, and not supplant, existing funding, which means that you can’t use the new money to pay for old programs. Former LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner, who authored the legislation, has characterized the law’s implementation so far as a C-minus. 

    “Some school districts either don’t wish to recognize the plain language of the law or are willfully violating the law,” Beutner said. “And they’re using money to backfill existing programs.” 

    Abe Flores, deputy director of policy and programs at Create CA, one of the advocacy groups that sent the letter, says that some school leaders may be unintentionally out of compliance with the law.

    “Right now, we are in this phase of raising awareness,” he said. “We know principals are super busy. They have a lot of things on their plate. Proposition 28 may not be on their radar.” 

    The bottom line, Flores said, is if a school district is spending Proposition 28 funds but has not increased its arts staff, then by definition, it is violating the law. The coalition wants the state to make school districts prove they’ve hired more arts teachers, explain their plans for the future and get community input.

    That’s precisely what Rubini and her department chair, Heather Freer, are calling for: greater accountability on how the money is spent going forward. 

    “Transparency isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s the law,” said Freer, visual and performing arts department chair at Union Mine. “We should be able to look at the budget and see where money is spent and see what’s going on.”

    Budget cuts looming in the wake of the state’s deficit may be making matters worse for school administrators looking for stopgaps amid myriad troubles, including falling test scores, staffing shortages, chronic absenteeism and rampant misbehavior in the wake of the pandemic.

    “Schools are looking for ways to save money,” said Jessica Mele, the interim executive director of Create CA, which advocates for high quality arts education. “In the absence of guidance from the CDE (California Department of Education), they will use the funds how they want.”

    Another wrinkle may be that schools were intended to decide how to use the money, in response to the needs of their individual communities, but since the money gets funneled through the district, that hasn’t always happened. 

    To make matters worse, some say the CDE, which is administering the funds, has not provided enough guidance on how the rules work, leaving many in the dark about exactly what’s allowed and what’s not. For his part, Beutner has called for the state auditor to hold feet to the fire.

    “Let’s be real; the only reason districts are cutting any arts positions now is because they think they can replace it with Prop 28 funds and get away with it,” said Beutner. 

    Thus far, the CDE has been offering guidance largely through webinars and FAQs designed to help districts best use the funding.

    “CDE is aware of localized concerns about the use of funds,” said Elizabeth Sanders, a spokesperson for the department. “CDE takes such concerns very seriously and is working directly with district leaders to ensure that all statutory requirements are understood and followed. We are offering this support proactively and in partnership, to ensure that all of our students receive rich arts education opportunities.”

    Sanders also said the department did not wish to interfere with the auditing process built into Proposition 28 accountability measures. The auditor will review all spending, and if the auditor finds that schools are misusing the money, they risk losing the funds.

    Many have long argued that more oversight may be needed on how schools spend money, particularly during times of shrinking budgets. 

    “California school districts have been taking money for years that was provided for specific purposes and using it for other initiatives and the state Department of Education ignores it,” said Jack Jarvis, former adjunct faculty at Cal State Fresno and a veteran administrator. “There used to be a lot more oversight. Back when I became an administrator, there was much more scrutiny over school categorical funds.” 

    Some also argue that a lack of clarity on the complicated Proposition 28 rules might be partly to blame. For example, if a school is forced to cut its music program because of budget cuts, can it be revived the next year with Proposition 28 money? Would this run afoul of the supplant rule? Or could a waiver suffice? Many say the rules remain blurry.

    “The Prop 28 rules seem clear enough on paper, but when you get into the weeds of budget development and the myriad of situations and circumstances that schools face in implementing an instructional program, they get far more fuzzy,” said Phil Rydeen, visual and performing arts director at Oakland Unified, which has long had a robust arts curriculum. “With little specific help from the CDE on the minutiae of Prop 28, it may indeed mean that districts will need to get through an audit to figure out what is actually permissible or not. In OUSD, we are being as conservative as we can be until we understand the impact of the Prop 28 rules.”

    This lingering uncertainty over the rules is leading some schools to delay using the money.

    “There are FAQs that sort of contradict one another,” said Letty Kraus, director of the California County Superintendents Arts Initiative. “If you look at FAQ 19, it says schools can pool resources and share staff, and FAQ 20 says you can’t reallocate funds to sites. So I can see how it would be confusing.”

    Others believe that it may be more a matter of convenience than confusion. They say some administrators are playing fast and loose with the rules.

    “They say that it is confusing legislation,” said Freer, who says the number of arts classes this year has remained the same despite the new money being spent. Next year, she says, there are even fewer arts classes planned. That adds up to less arts, she says, not more. “It is not confusing legislation. There is no lack of clarity.”

    Flores, however, points out that ambiguities in the rules may exist. 

    “I wouldn’t go that far to say that they’re cheating,” said Flores. “I would say that there’s definitely some confusion and there’s definitely some wishful thinking in terms of the flexibility of the funds. There’s been a lot of confusion around some of the key points.” 

    Coupled with the fear of running afoul of state auditors, this cloud of uncertainty may have a chilling effect on the rollout at large, leading some schools to delay their pursuit of arts education just when children, still reeling from the aftershocks of the pandemic, need it most.  Some arts educators are proceeding with caution, waiting to see how the rules are enforced before they proceed.

    “Prop 28 is fraught with these kinds of problems,” Rydeen said. “It places well-meaning districts trying to maximize the impact of this resource with fidelity in a very difficult circumstance, hoping that they don’t guess incorrectly about applying the regulations.”

    Many are calling for clearer and more explicit instructions before local education agencies (LEAs) are held accountable by audits.

    “I suspect that lack of decisive guidance and being told to ‘consult legal counsel’ may be having a chilling effect for some LEAs who are understandably risk-averse,” said Kraus. “It would be helpful to have an accountability mechanism before the audit.”

    For his part, Flores says his organization is not looking to play “gotcha” with schools, which are already overstressed and understaffed in the post-pandemic era, but instead to work with administrators to boost their arts education offerings.

    “We want to be helpful,” he said. “We know most people want to do the right thing, and we want to create the situation, the resources, the awareness, the sharing of promising practices, so folks can do the right thing and and folks can plan and share their knowledge.” 

    For her part, Freer hopes she can raise awareness of just how vital dance is to many students. The class is crucial to keeping students engaged in school in the post-pandemic era, she says, when chronic absenteeism and apathy are running high. 

    “Especially at our school, the arts is a haven for our students who don’t have other reasons for coming to school,” said Freer. “We have a lot of kids who are at risk of disengaging from school. We hear it every day as arts teachers, (kids saying): ‘I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for you. I wouldn’t care if it wasn’t for you.’”

    Some are also arguing that private philanthropy, such as parent donations, should not be counted as part of the baseline that can’t be supplanted because it is not funded by the state, not to mention variable.

    Parents have labored long to raise enough donations to pay for a part-time art teacher in San Diego Unified, where Kimberly Cooper’s daughter attends a cash-strapped school. She and other parents were hoping that Proposition 28 would mean that hard-earned, parent-fundraised money could now go to raise the pay of the Spanish teacher, for instance.

    “I am frustrated as a parent who has fundraised and donated for arts in our school,” Cooper said. “The issue of not supplanting parent fundraising isn’t just unfair, it’s impractical. It’s a struggle every year to meet our fundraising goals, because our limited sources are tapped out. We aren’t a school where parents can fundraise for a new donor-named auditorium.”

    Some see this as an equity issue because richer communities will not have to fight as hard to raise funds year after year to meet the baseline. They are also far more likely to already have some expertise in how to develop arts education programs, which may exacerbate existing inequities in who has access to the arts. 

    Schools that have “disinvested in the arts over the years don’t have that expertise in-house, and they need help,” said Mele, the interim executive director of Create CA. “They’re struggling to know what kind of decisions to make… That’s where we see some inequities.”

    Best practices for building an arts ed program from scratch is just one of many tricky issues that advocates are calling for more guidance on from the California Department of Education, which some say has been hard to pin down on many specifics, such as what constitutes good cause for a waiver and whether parent donations are counted against the baseline.

    “Where the CDE could clarify but has not clarified is what constitutes baseline arts education funding at a school for the purposes of determining what is ‘supplanting’ versus ‘supporting’ existing arts education funds,” Mele said. “For example, do grant funds or PTA funds count? Or is it just state education dollars that count as the baseline? If PTA funds don’t count, then a school could use Prop 28 funds for arts programming that were formerly paid for with PTA funds and re-allocate PTA funds elsewhere.”

    Proposition 28 author Beutner has long maintained that all funding should be counted as part of the baseline, but many are still waiting for the CDE to weigh in on the issue. 

    The “CDE has stayed silent on which funds ‘count’ as existing arts education funds,” said Mele, “leaving it up to schools and districts to figure this out by consulting their own legal counsel.”





    Source link

  • Wall Street Journal: Trump Tax Plan Will Not Cut the Deficit

    Wall Street Journal: Trump Tax Plan Will Not Cut the Deficit


    Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal politely explains the lie behind Trump’s “big beautiful budget plan”: it will not cut the deficit. It will increase it.

    WASHINGTON—House Republicans pushed President Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax-and-spending bill past a key hurdle late Sunday night, but the last-minute grappling has them colliding with a stark reality: The plan won’t reduce federal budget deficits and would make America’s fiscal hole deeper.

    The bill could reach the House floor this week, and it is a tenuous balance between the party’s tax-cut wing and factions seeking larger, quicker spending cuts. To get a bill through the House with their 220-213 majority, GOP tax cutters trimmed their ambitions and scheduled some breaks to expire. Many spending hawks, meanwhile, backed the plan while groaning that it doesn’t go far enough fast enough. Others are holding out for more…

    Moody’s Ratings, in downgrading the U.S.’s AAA rating on Friday, said it didn’t expect Congress to produce material multiyear spending or deficit reductions. Publicly held federal debt stands at about $29 trillion, nearly double the level when Trump and Republicans passed the 2017 tax law. Nearly $1 in every $7 the U.S. spends goes toward paying interest, more than the country spends on defense.



    Source link

  • Now Will They Leave Joe Biden Alone?

    Now Will They Leave Joe Biden Alone?


    As I was scrolling through Twitter on Sunday, I read a bunch of anti-Biden tweets, so I added my two cents.

    I tweeted:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I would rather have Joe Biden (surrounded by highly competent people) asleep than Donald Trump at his best (surrounded by Fascists, haters, and law-breakers) on his best day. @jaketapper @AlexThomp

    I once wrote on this blog that I would never criticize Joe Biden because he was running against a man who was totally unfit for the job. Several Trumpers has since written to complain about that statement, saying that it demonstrated my bias, but time has confirmed my view.

    Regardless of his mental state, Biden would never have appointed a crackpot to run the National Institutes of Health. He would never have defunded USAID, NPR, PBS, FEMA, the Voice of America, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Department of Education. Nor would he have let loose Elon Musk’s DOGS to ransack federal agencies, fire thousands of expert career officers, mess with the Social Security Administration, and hoover up all our personal data, for whatever nefarious purposes he chooses. Unlike Trump, Biden would not have terrorized institutions of higher education and threatened academic freedom and freedom of speech. Unlike Trump, Biden respected the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI and did not put political lackeys in charge of them or treat them as his personal attack dogs.

    Frankly, I can’t keep track of the many federal programs and agencies that Trump has recklessly destroyed. If anyone knows of such a compilation, please share it. Trump and Musk have vandalized our government, and despite the thousands of injudicious, capricious firings, have not saved any money at all.

    Then I came across this post by Julie Roginsky, which appeared shortly after the nation learned that former President Biden has prostate cancer, which has metasticized to his bones. She is writing about the new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that aims to prove that President Biden was experiencing severe mental and physical decline while he was in office and that his family and staff collaborated to conceal that decline from the public.

    She wrote:

    Maybe now they’ll leave Joe Biden alone — or, better yet, spend some time assessing his actual presidency, both in isolation and in comparison with what has followed.

    Stick it to legacy media, which has consistently beaten up on a decent man.

    Was Biden operating at half-capacity throughout his term? Was he operating at 10%? Here are some facts, regardless of the opinions rendered by amateur neurologists all over media these days.

    “Biden inherited an economy that was flat on its back because of the pandemic, and he’s bequeathing an economy that’s flying high,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s, which just lowered the credit rating of the United States for the first time in history under Donald Trump. 

    Biden’s economic tenure was marred by the inflation that was a hangover of the Covid pandemic. But the numbers don’t lie about the rest of it. On his watch, the Dow Jones rose by over 40%, while the Nasdaq rose by almost 50%. The economy expanded by 11% during his four years in office (compared with under 9% during Donald Trump’s first term). Despite inflation, retail sales grew by more than 20%. Household net worth was 28% higher when Biden left office than when he took over from Trump. Unemployment was 2% lower at the end of Biden’s tenure than when he entered the White House. 

    Most importantly, no one was predicting the demise of our 250 year American experiment while Biden was in charge.

    Now, Biden is diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. You don’t need to be an oncologist to know that the prognosis is not great.

    So maybe now is a good time to reflect not just on Biden’s tenure but on what this obsession with his mental health means for the future of this country. Reporters who have spent the past several weeks on the fainting couch about “the cover up” of his mental condition in the Oval Office have consistently failed to acknowledge the successes of his tenure. They have failed to compare that tenure, both in economic and in governance terms, to what has followed. They have never stopped beating up a man who is no longer in the White House to take stock of the mental health of the current occupant of the White House.

    Trump’s mental decline (which is apparent to anyone who has lived in the New York media market for the past four decades) is not happening, you see — because he does not stutter, because he shouts with vigor, because he “truths” at all hours of the night, unlike a septuagenarian who might require more rest. 

    In short, all this is just “Trump being Trump.” It cannot be that he is stark raving mad. 

    And Trump’s economic record, the one that is driving inflation ever higher, the one that is destroying consumer sentiment, the one that has driven both the stock and bond markets crazy? Never mind all that. Have you listened to Biden’s conversation with Robert Hur? Now that’s a scandal. 

    Look, I really don’t care if Biden was confined to a gurney for four years. The facts speak for themselves. The country was more prosperous, the democracy was more stable, the nation was more respected, the people were less terrified, when he was in charge. 

    Yes, Biden’s staff may have covered up his medical condition while he was in the Oval Office. But the real scandal is the cover up happening now. The media so obsessed with kicking Biden now that’s gone that it is ignoring the very real danger that his successor poses to us all. 

    I am not a religious person but I hope that whatever higher power exists will look out for Joe Biden. He is a good man, who did well on behalf of the people who entrusted him with the presidency. That is a hell of a lot more than could be said about his successor.

    I repeat:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I would rather have Joe Biden (surrounded by highly competent people) asleep than Donald Trump at his best (surrounded by Fascists, haters, and law-breakers) on his best day. @jaketapper @AlexThomp



    Source link

  • Netanyahu Is a War Criminal. Will Trump Stop Him?

    Netanyahu Is a War Criminal. Will Trump Stop Him?


    Gideon Levy, a writer for the Israeli progressive publication Ha’aretz, excoriates the ongoing military campaign in Gaza. It’s about to get worse. Netanyahu is perpetuating the war for no reason. He has utterly destroyed Gaza. He has ordered the bombing of hospitals and schools, claiming that they sheltered terrorists while knowing that he was committing war crimes. For the last three months, Israel has prevented food, medicine and humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.

    Nothing the Israeli Defense Forces do can eliminate Hamas. Their soldiers live in an elaborate city of well-supplied tunnels, protected from the bombing. When hostages were released, members of Hamas appeared in their uniforms, faces hidden, brandishing their weapons, letting the Israelis know that they are still a force, still in charge. This served to goad the extremists who surround Netanyahu. More killing lies ahead. The only one who could end it is Trump. He’s in the region. He’s not stopping in Israel. He’s not using his relationship with Netanyahu to stop the killing. He should.

    He could intervene instead of musing idly about turning Gaza into “the Riviera of the .Middle East” and expelling its people elsewhere.

    Gideon Levy wrote:

    About 70 people from dawn to noon on Wednesday. Almost twice the number of those killed in the massacre at Kibbutz Nir Oz. 22 of them were children, and 15 were women. The previous evening, 23 were killed in a hospital. 

    Operation Gideon’s Chariots has yet to begin, and the chariots of genocide are already warming their engines.

    How will we call this massacre, so indiscriminate and pointless, even before the big operation has begun? 23 killed in the bombing of a hospital – one of the most serious war crimes – just to try and kill Mohammed Sinwar, the latest devil, with nine bunker buster bombs – everything to provide Yedioth Ahronoth in their lust for the main headline: “In his brother’s footsteps.” 

    The readers loved it, Israelis loved it, no one came out against it on Wednesday.

    They made peace in Riyadh, and in Gaza they massacred. It’s hard to think of a more grating contrast than this, between the scenes in Riyadh and those in Jabalya on Wednesday.

    Children’s bodies being carried by their parents, the bulldozer trying to clear a way for the ambulance and being blown up from the air, the people burrowing in the ruins of the hospital searching for their loved ones – all this in the face of lifting sanctions from Syria and the hope for a new future.

    Nothing, not even the elimination of another Sinwar, can justify the indiscriminate bombing of a hospital. This unwavering truth has been totally forgotten here by now. Everything is normal, everything is justified and approved, even the attack on the intensive care ward in the European Hospital in Khan Yunis is a mitzvah. 

    No choice exists but to cry out again: You cannot attack hospitals – and not schools that have been turned into shelters, either – even if the strategic air command of Hamas is hiding underneath them. Even if Sinwar is there, whose kill is so pointless.

    Is there anything left we can do in Gaza that will be seen in Israel as morally and legally unacceptable? 100 dead children? A thousand women for Sinwar the brother? It was necessary to eliminate him, they explained, because he was an “obstacle to a hostage deal.” 

    We’ve even lost our shame. The sole obstacle to a hostage deal sits in Jerusalem, his name is Benjamin Netanyahu, along with his fascist partners, and no one can even conceive that it’s legitimate to harm them to remove the obstacle.

    What happened on Wednesday in Gaza is just a promo for what will occur in the coming months, if no one stops Israel. The further Donald Trump’s colossal campaign in the Gulf advances, the pistol that will stop Israel has yet to be seen.

    When supposedly there was still a purpose, when the goals were seemingly clear, when the human need to punish and take revenge for October 7 was still understandable, when it still seemed that Israel knew what it wanted at all; it was still possible somehow to accept the mass killing and destruction. 

    But no longer. Now, when it’s clear Israel has no goal and no plan, there is no longer any way to justify what happened in Gaza on Tuesday night.

    No Israeli leader opened their mouth, not a single one. The left’s hope, Yair Golan, on a good day calls to end the war, and like him, tens of thousands of determined protesters. 

    They want to end the war to bring the hostages home. They are also worried about the lives of the soldiers who will fall in vain. 

    But what about Gaza? What about its sacrifice? How have we reached a situation in which no Zionist politician can come out in its defense? Not one righteous man in Sodom, not a single one. 

    The sights from there once again scorched the soul on Wednesday, once again body carts, once again children in a long line of body bags on the floor, here lie their bodies, and once again the heartbreaking weeping of parents for their daughters and sons. 

    About 100 people were killed in Gaza on Wednesday. Almost all of them innocent, except for their being Palestinians who live in the Gaza Strip. They were killed by Israeli soldiers. This is their appetizer for the campaign their military aspires to – and we remain silent.



    Source link

  • What will it take to implement the English Learner Roadmap in all California schools?

    What will it take to implement the English Learner Roadmap in all California schools?


    Children complete a grammar worksheet in Spanish at a dual-language immersion program in a Glendale elementary school.

    Credit: Lillian Mongeau/EdSource

    California published a guide for how districts should serve English learners seven years ago. It’s called the English Learner Roadmap Policy, and it’s largely seen as groundbreaking.

    But many districts still haven’t used that road map to change their practices, advocates say.

    “It’s not systemic across the state,” said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser to Californians Together, a coalition of organizations that advocates for English learners. “You can go to school districts and ask teachers, ‘Have you ever heard of the road map?’ And they look at you like you’re from Mars. They’ve never heard of it.”

    Lawmakers are now pushing to fully implement the road map, by passing Assembly Bill 2074, introduced by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, and David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista. If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bill will require the California Department of Education to create a state implementation plan for the English Learner Roadmap with goals and a system to monitor whether those goals are met. 

    The department will have to first convene an advisory committee, made up of district and county offices of education, teachers, parents of English learners and nonprofit organizations with experience implementing the English Learner Roadmap Policy. The department will have to submit the final implementation plan to the Legislature by Nov. 1, 2026, and begin reporting on which districts, county offices of education and charter schools are implementing the plan by Jan. 1, 2027.

    A lack of funding changed the scope of the bill. An earlier version would have also created three positions in the state Department of Education to develop, plan and then support districts to implement the English Learner Roadmap Policy. However, those positions were cut from the bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee due to costs. A separate bill that would have created a grant program to implement the road map, Assembly Bill 2071, failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee, because there was no money allocated in the budget.

    You can go to school districts and ask teachers, ‘Have you ever heard of the road map?’ And they look at you like you’re from Mars. They’ve never heard of it.

    Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, strategic adviser, Californians Together

    The California English Learner Roadmap Policy was first approved by the California State Board of Education in 2017 as a guide for school districts, county offices of education and charter schools to better support English learners. 

    For many, the road map represented a pivotal change in the state’s approach to teaching English learners. It was adopted just months after voters passed Proposition 58 in 2016, which eliminated restrictions on bilingual education put in place by Proposition 227 in 1998. In stark contrast to the English-only policies in place under Proposition 227, the road map emphasizes the importance of bilingual education and bilingualism and of recognizing the assets of students who speak other languages, in addition to emphasizing teaching that “fosters high levels of English proficiency.”

    Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL, a nonprofit organization that trains teachers and district leaders and promotes bilingual education, called the English Learner Roadmap a “comprehensive, visionary, research-based policy.”

    “It’s aspirational. It’s very much written for a future state, when California can center the student population that is so much at the core of who we are as a state and yet has this history of being treated as an afterthought or a box at the end of a curriculum,” said Hurwitz. “And nonetheless the state needs an implementation plan. Things don’t get done unless we have methodical plans.”

    The Legislature has twice created grant programs for districts to get help implementing the English Learner Roadmap Policy. In 2020, the California Department of Education (CDE) awarded $10 million to two grantees, Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education, each of which worked with other organizations, county offices of education and school districts. In 2023, the department awarded another $10 million to four county offices of education, in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

    These programs, however, were optional, and not all districts participated in the training or assistance.

    “We feel it’s really necessary for CDE to be very vocal and in the center of stating how important the English Learner Roadmap is, and how important it is to implement,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. “When CDE says the road map is a priority, it begins to filter down to the districts. But we’re not really hearing that it’s that important from CDE.”

    Graciela García-Torres, director of multilingual education for the Sacramento County Office of Education, said the English Learner Roadmap brings her hope, as a former English learner herself and as a parent.

    “As a parent, I also see that it supports me in my endeavor to have children that grow up bilingually, knowing their culture and language is just as beautiful and important as English,” García-Torres said.

    García-Torres said the Sacramento County Office of Education has worked hard to help districts implement the road map, but a state implementation plan and more funding are needed.

    “I’m afraid that without another grant or an implementation plan, it may go back to being pretty words on the page,” García-Torres said. 

    Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County superintendent of schools, said the English Learner Roadmap has made a big difference in some districts.

    “Some of the things I’ve seen changing is the philosophy around English language learners and really moving from this deficit mentality, of ‘these are children who can’t speak English,’ to really celebrating the fact that they’re speaking multiple languages,” said Duardo.

    She said having clear goals and requiring districts to report how they’re implementing the plan will be crucial, so that the state can see where districts are struggling and how CDE can help them.

    “There are always going to people who feel like this is one more thing that you’re placing on us and it doesn’t come with funding attached to it,” said Duardo. “Districts are struggling. They don’t have their extra pandemic dollars, they didn’t have a very big COLA, and just finding the resources to implement anything can be a challenge.”

    Megan Hopkins, professor and chair of UC San Diego’s department of education studies, said many states struggle with implementation of guidance around English learners. She said a statewide plan for implementing the road map is needed, in part because many teachers and administrators don’t think English learner education applies to them.

    “English learners are often sort of viewed as separate from, or an add-on, to core instructional programs. I think what happens is people are like, ‘Oh, that’s nice, but it’s not related to what I do over here in math education,’ when in fact it is,” said Hopkins.

    Aleyda Barrera-Cruz, executive director for multilingual learner services at the San Mateo-Foster City School District, south of San Francisco, said she has attended professional development sessions on the English Learner Roadmap Policy with EL RISE!, the coalition led by Californians Together, and read through every guidance document they’ve written about the road map.

    “Where it gets tricky is sometimes things are written in a way that are not very implementation friendly. They’re written in a very theoretical way like, ‘These are the recommendations,’ so we as districts have to decide what that would look like in our district. There’s a lot of room for interpretation,” Barrera-Cruz said.

    She said principals and teachers sometimes interpret the guidelines in different ways at different schools. She would like to see CDE make it very clear how to do things like teaching English language development (teaching English to children who do not know the language), including examples of lesson plans and videos of best practices in the classroom.

    “I’m working with a very diverse group of educators. Some have learned this in their teaching credential program; some have not,” Barrera-Cruz said.

    Elodia Ortega-Lampkin, superintendent of Woodland Joint Unified School District, near Sacramento, said superintendents and school board members need training to understand why the English Learner Roadmap is needed.

    “People watch what you value and the message you send,” Ortega-Lampkin said. “It’s very hard for a principal to do this on their own without the district support. It’s got to come down from the top, including the board.”

    She said Woodland Joint Unified required all administrators and teachers to attend training about the English Learner Roadmap. They also have to use the road map when writing their mandatory annual school plans for student achievement.

    “It was not an option. It was an expectation. If we have English learners in Woodland and we’re serious about helping them succeed, we need to use a framework that is research-based and provides support for districts. Instead of piecemealing, it’s all in one to help guide those conversations in our schools,” Ortega-Lampkin said.

    Before training with the English Learner Roadmap, Ortega-Lampkin said not everyone understood how to teach English language development, often referred to as ELD. 

     “It was hard to get everyone to buy in and teach ELD. We don’t have that anymore. It’s not a discussion. People just know that ELD needs to happen. I think it’s helped change the mindset and build a better understanding,” Ortega-Lampkin said.





    Source link

  • A policy analyst forecasts how the May state budget revision will impact school funding

    A policy analyst forecasts how the May state budget revision will impact school funding


    Transcript

    Every year, by May 15, the governor has to revise his proposed budget, and this is when the budget season really kicks off.

    So, just as individuals are concerned about personal finances, retirements, the impacts of inflation, and uncertainty about government services, the state is facing those same sorts of uncertainties. And in this case, uncertainty really rolls downhill. There’s national uncertainty, which is causing state revenue uncertainty and budget uncertainty, which then impacts the state’s education budget decisions, that will then impact what school districts are facing as they head into adopting their budgets by the end of June.

    So, we know that the revenue outlook for the current year that ends June 30 looks pretty good, so will that protect us?

    I’d sort of hoped that they would, but the short answer is no, and that’s because of some nuances in how Prop 98 works. A lot of those extra revenues that have come in are actually going to count against last year, the 2023–24 fiscal year. And in that year, the Legislature actually suspended the constitutional guarantee for a year. So even though there are extra revenues, none of those revenues will go to schools.

    As we look to the future, to the 2025–26 school year, the forecasts are looking much more pessimistic. The Legislative Analyst’s Office just came out with a projection of revenues for next year being down around $8 billion. That would trickle down to schools getting about $3.5 billion less compared to what their current programs receive.

    I would expect schools to get the program that’s in place for the current year, plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is currently expected to be about 2.3%. That probably seems pretty low to most folks, especially given some of the costs districts might face—salary increases that have already happened due to inflation, the rising costs teachers are facing, plus pensions and other obligations. So, the costs districts are facing may be going up more than the 2.3% COLA they’re getting.





    Source link

  • ‘Something went wrong’: state reconsiders who will get $470 million for college and career grants

    ‘Something went wrong’: state reconsiders who will get $470 million for college and career grants


    A student in Oakland’s Skyline High School Education and Community Health Pathway sculpts a clay model of the endocrine system.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    UPDATE: The California Department of Education has announced a new timeline for the Golden State Pathways Program. Learn more.

    In June 2022, the California Legislature decided to invest a half billion dollars into the Golden State Pathways Program, a career and college preparation program that Gov. Gavin Newsom called a “game-changer” for high school students. But two years later, frustration is rising among school leaders who have begun another school year without the promised funding.

    Advocates say the vision of the Golden State Pathways Program laid out by the Legislature is both progressive and practical. Career pathways aim to prepare high school students with both college preparatory courses and career education in fields such as STEM, education or health care. But those same advocates are frustrated by the program’s rollout, which they say has been beset by late deadlines, a confusing application process and delayed funding.

    “We are approaching a third budget cycle, and to not have the money out the door is derelict,” said Kevin Gordon, president of the education consultancy Capitol Advisors Group. He lobbies on behalf of clients that include school districts that were promised funding.

    The most recent snafu came to light when the California Department of Education announced in July that it was again reviewing the way it would dole out grant money — two months after Newsom and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced the 302 districts and education entities that would be recipients of $470 million.

    Previously announced Golden State Pathways Program grant recipients include school districts large and small, charters, regional occupational centers and county offices of education. Recipients could receive up to $500,000 to implement one career pathway, and $200,000 to plan a pathway. Districts with many high schools and pathways could expect millions or even tens of millions of dollars in grants.

    Schools plan to use the grant money to expand dual enrollment, increase exposure to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers through programs like job shadowing, and to hire support staff to help students with their college and career plans.

    Administrators counting on that funding said the news that the California Department of Education (CDE) was reviewing grant awards has thrown their plans and budgets for this school year into disarray.

    One administrator at a midsize school district said the prospect of not receiving the expected grants, especially in the wake of sunsetting pandemic funds, is difficult. This administrator asked to speak on background, citing a concern that CDE could hold it against the district during the ongoing grant review process.

    “Our district had an implementation plan that we are continuing to move forward with, and we are hopeful that the funding will materialize,” the administrator said. “The unfortunate part is that there are other resources that students will not receive if the funding doesn’t come through.”

    A group of organizations penned a letter asking state leaders to do everything in their power to get the promised funds flowing by November for a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” Signatories included advocacy groups such EdTrust-West, school districts in Los Angeles, Oakland and Sacramento and even businesses such as the port of Long Beach. The letter to Newsom, Thurmond and Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education, referred to delays that have affected the competitive grant program.

    “We are extremely concerned, as this is not the first time processes have been delayed without a stated resolution date,” the letter stated.

    Tulare County Superintendent of Schools Tim Hire said he hopes to work with the state to find a swift resolution for the sake of students. The Tulare County Office of Education was selected as the lead agency for the state in November.

    “When there’s a delay, that means kids aren’t accessing those experiences and resources,” Hire said.

    Schools are in limbo

    There were signs during May’s announcement of grant awards that something went awry, according to school administrators.

    One school district was awarded three times the funding it requested, and others were awarded 1.5 times what they applied for, according to a countywide administrator. This administrator also asked for anonymity over a concern about CDE’s possible reaction to speaking out. 

    These local education agencies (LEAs) “don’t have the capacity to do three times as much work, even if they were awarded three times as much money,” the countrywide administrator said. This problem left school leaders “frustrated and a bit confused.”

    Hire confirmed that “overallocation” of grants was a problem across the state. Some schools received more than they asked, while others received none, but it wasn’t clear why.

    “Why did a district receive more than they requested?” he stated. “That’s a legitimate question to ask.”

    Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the department, said last May’s announcement was “preliminary.” The reconsideration of the recipients resulted from a “substantial” number of appeals, according to a July 16 statement.

    “Upon receiving appeals for Golden State Pathways Grant awards, the CDE determined that it was necessary to review all awards allocations in order to ensure that allocations are distributed consistently and fairly,” Roark wrote in a statement. The review will conclude by the end of September, he added. There will be a window for further appeals before funds are released.

    Many schools believed the announcement was official and included the awards in annual school budgets passed before July 1, according to an administrator who also declined to be identified by name, and who assisted schools with their grant applications.

    Roark said that the department received appeals for a “range of reasons” but declined to say what those reasons were.

    The review of $470 million in funds, now stretching well beyond the beginning of the school year, has put districts in an uneasy position. 

    Some school districts have put their plans on hold amid the uncertainty. By the time the grant funding is actually released, “it will likely be too late to hire,” said the administrator at a mid-sized district. “That puts the program launch another year behind.”

    Long Beach Unified is splitting the difference by moving forward with only a portion of the initiatives the district outlined in its grant application. In the initial announcement, the district was awarded $10.7 million in implementation grants and $335,523 in planning grants.

    Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was initially awarded $37.8 million in implementation grants and $200,000 in planning grants. A district spokesperson said it will be difficult to understand the effect of the revised awards until they’re announced.

    “We will have a better sense of its impact at that time,” said Britt Vaughan, a spokesperson for LAUSD.

    Regional leaders don’t have contracts

    It’s not just schools that have been left in financial limbo by the delayed rollout. 

    Up to 5% of $500 million for the program is set aside for grant administration, mostly through county offices of education. But that funding has yet to go out to the state lead and eight regional agencies for work they have been doing since January.

    Hire said that not having a contractual agreement yet with CDE has put the Tulare County Office of Education in an “uncomfortable position,” especially during a tight budget year.

    “We delayed hiring and just spread the workload among our current staff, which is challenging and probably not the best delivery of service,” Hire said.

    Colby Smart, deputy superintendent for the Humboldt County Office of Education, said this program is vital for California’s workforce, not just a “nice-to- have.” He expects the state will ultimately send funding to the regional lead office for Northern California, but the office has faced many “roadblocks,” including finalizing its contract and nailing down the scope of work.

    The administrator of one regional lead, who declined to use their name, said, “I’ve never in my life seen such dysfunction.”

    Rollout was ‘set up to fail’

    The rollout of the grant funding has faced hiccups along the way.

    The legislation behind the Golden State Pathways Program passed during the 2022-23 legislative session. Requests for proposals didn’t go out that year, but the program survived a massive budget cut in the next legislative session. In January, the department put out its request for proposals.

    Originally, March 19 was the deadline for grant proposals for programs that would begin in April. But due to “overwhelming interest,” the department said it needed extra time to complete the reviews. The awards were announced May 31.

    Administrators who worked on the proposal said that the application process itself was fraught. CDE revised the grant application several times.

    “They created something that was so complex from the get-go that it was set up to fail,” said Kathy Goodacre, the CEO of CTE Foundation, a nonprofit that works with school districts in Sonoma County. “But still, something went wrong.”

    CDE denied that a review of this magnitude was unprecedented.

    “Though we work to avoid significant review when possible, a review is not highly unusual and has occurred in the past,” Roark wrote in a statement.

    Both the federal and state governments have made big investments in preparing high school students for college and career at the K-12 level. The Golden State Pathways Program is a key piece of the governor’s plan for career education — a broad vision to ensure that all the agencies in the state are working together coherently.

    The countywide administrator said the problems with the rollout of the Golden State Pathways Program is an example of what happens when the funding for career and technical education (CTE) is not coherent. Funding for career pathways comes from over a dozen grants, some of which require applications every year. That creates a burden for both local education agencies and CDE, the administrator said.

    “Funding CTE is like buying programs on gift cards,” the countywide administrator stated. “We never know what we will get.”

    Even though the rollout of the Golden State Pathways Program has been frustrating, educators say that the program is critical for the state.

    “Half a billion is important for our students and our future,” the countywide administrator stated. “We want students to have economic mobility and make more than their parents did.”





    Source link