برچسب: wont

  • University of California won’t allow hiring of undocumented students

    University of California won’t allow hiring of undocumented students


    Immigrant students at UC and their allies rallied last spring in support of a proposal to allow the university to hire immigrant students who lack permission to be in the U.S.

    Michael Burke/EdSource

    This story has been updated with additional quotes.

    The University of California will not allow the hiring of undocumented students for jobs on its campuses, disappointing students who pushed for the right to be employed without legal status. 

    Allowing those students to work campus jobs would have been “the right thing to do” but presented too many legal risks and thus was “not viable,” said Michael Drake, the system’s president, while addressing UC’s board of regents Thursday.

    Drake cited several possible legal ramifications. He said the university could be “subject to civil fines, criminal penalties, or debarment from federal contracting,” while human resources staff could face prosecution if they “knowingly participate in hiring practices deemed impermissible under federal law.” He also suggested that undocumented students and their families could face prosecution or even deportation. 

    “I know that many in our community will be disappointed that we are unable to take immediate action. As an individual, I would like nothing more than to do so right here, right now, because it is the right thing to do,” he added. “However, we have a fiduciary responsibility to consider all possible ramifications of our actions.”

    The regents voted to suspend consideration of the policy for one year. Some regents against the motion said it could be even more difficult to implement the policy a year from now, alluding to the possibility that former President Donald Trump could be back in office.

    In not moving forward with the proposal, the regents “let us down today,” said Jeffry Umaña Muñoz, a UCLA undergraduate student and one of the undocumented students who organized the movement advocating for the proposal. There are more than 4,000 undocumented students across UC’s 10 campuses.

    “Our classmates can apply for any job on campus, helping them not only get by financially on a daily basis but also advancing their careers, while we remain forced to rely on incredibly limited resources,” he added in a statement. “I’m deeply disappointed that the UC Regents and President Drake shirked their duties to the students they are supposed to protect and support. We as UC students deserve so much more from our university leadership.”

    Several regents voted against the measure to suspend considering the policy: Keith Ellis, Jose Hernandez, John Pérez, Gregory Sarris, student regent Merhawi Tesfai and Tony Thurmond. Thurmond is an ex-officio member of the regents in his role as the state’s superintendent of public instruction. Ellis, an alumni regent, is also an ex-officio member.

    A coalition of undocumented students and legal scholars started urging UC more than a year ago to allow the hiring of undocumented students. They argued that UC is permitted to do so, saying the university as a state entity is exempt from a 1986 federal statute banning the hiring of immigrants without legal status.

    UC officials formally started studying the issue last spring. At that time, Pérez said it was the board’s intention to ultimately allow the hiring of undocumented students.

    Pérez said Thursday that he couldn’t “think of a moment where I’ve been more disappointed sitting around this board.” Pérez was appointed as a regent in 2014 and served a one-year term as chair of the board beginning in 2019.

    “We have gotten so focused on the question of what the law clearly says today, that we’re losing sight of the moral imperative of what the law should be interpreted as being,” he said. “Some of us may discount the analysis by some of our greatest legal scholars and suggest that it is just an academic exercise on what is legally permissible. But if we don’t challenge, if we don’t push, we won’t know.”

    The regents’ decision Thursday comes after Politico reported Wednesday that officials in President Joe Biden’s administration privately opposed the proposal and warned UC of possible legal ramifications, even threatening that the administration could sue. 

    In response to a question from EdSource seeking confirmation of the Politico report, a UC spokesperson said the university “regularly engages with local, state, and federal partners on numerous issues concerning public education and for maintaining compliance with existing federal law.” The spokesperson added, though, that UC “will not characterize the nature of those discussions.”





    Source link

  • Lack of candidates means many Californians won’t vote for school board

    Lack of candidates means many Californians won’t vote for school board


    Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.

    Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed

    Millions of California residents will not have the opportunity to vote for the people representing them on their school boards on Nov. 5 because many of the board races will not appear on the ballot.

    EdSource analyzed data from 1,510 school board races in 49 California counties and found that 851 races, or 56%, will not appear on a ballot because either no one is running for the seat or a single candidate is running unopposed – making that person an instant winner. 

    The problem is most prevalent in more remote areas of the state, where the lack of school board members has been an ongoing issue, said Troy Flint, chief information officer for the California School Boards Association.

    Districts in rural counties have smaller populations, limiting the pool of candidates for school board, and offer fewer incentives — such as monthly stipends or health insurance — than larger districts, said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Small School Districts’ Association. 

    In Siskiyou County, 14 school districts do not have candidates running for their open board seats, and in San Benito County, there are 20 candidates for 31 open school board seats, leaving 13 seats without candidates. Only one race, for Trustee Area 4 in the Hollister School District, is on the ballot. It has three candidates.

    In Nevada County, four of the nine districts have no candidates for their open board seats. In Plumas County, there are no school board races on the Nov. 5 ballot, although there are a total of six open seats in two districts, according to the county elections department.

    School board members are responsible for setting the vision for the district, hiring its superintendent, adopting policies and curriculum, passing a balanced district budget, overseeing facilities, providing direction for and accepting collective bargaining agreements, monitoring student achievement and making program changes as needed, according to the California School Boards Association.

    Calderon recalls having to convince community members to run for school board when he was the chief business officer at Cold Spring School District, which serves 193 K-6 students in Santa Barbara County.

    There is less incentive for rural residents to run for school board because they are usually more satisfied with their schools and less likely to think of a school board seat as a springboard to higher political office, like candidates in more populated areas of the state might, Calderon said. 

    The absence of school board candidates on the ballot suggests an erosion of what many regard as a pillar of American democracy in places where there is reluctance or unwillingness to run for board positions.

    Cities, suburbs also have a shortage of candidates

    “One of the dynamics that’s been playing out has been people reluctant to hold onto their seats, and then people are reluctant to run for office because there’s a lot of hostility out there, and sometimes threatening behavior that are prompting either existing school board members or potential school board members to rethink whether or not they want to hold this office,” said John Rogers, director of the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at UCLA.

    The shortage of willing school board candidates is also impacting urban and suburban areas, according to the EdSource analysis. In Los Angeles County, for example, 252 candidates are running for 174 seats, meaning 90 seats have only one candidate and will not be on the ballot. The same goes for Sacramento County, where there are only 54 candidates running for 31 seats and San Diego County where 169 candidates are vying for 100 seats. 

    Calderon and Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools Allan Carver agree that potential candidates are sometimes wary about running for a board seat because of the political divisiveness that has been playing out at school board meetings.

    “It’s kind of one of those thankless jobs,” Calderon said. “And there has been a lot in the media about controversial issues and people becoming very, more so than just polarized, kind of aggressive with their positions. And I think that people shy away from wanting to get involved in that.” 

    Some rural district seldom hold elections

    The lack of candidates is so common in some rural districts, school boards routinely fill empty seats by appointing people – often the incumbents – after the filing deadline ends. Some districts rarely have elections.

    “It’s very typical,” said Krystal Lomanto, San Benito County superintendent of schools. “We have seven rural districts and many of those districts do not have board members that actually run for seats – they end up appointing them. So, it is a consistent practice, at least in our community. We don’t often have – in our rural school districts – board members that run against each other, so it happens quite often.” 

    San Benito County, a rural county in the Central Coast region, has some of the smallest school districts in the state – 15 districts with a total enrollment of 11,969 students. 

    In Siskiyou County, the northernmost county in the state, there are 30 candidates running for 67 school board seats in 25 districts. Fourteen school districts have no candidates for any of their open board seats and six districts have 11 seats with candidates running unopposed. 

    Carver expects the number of vacancies to dwindle by January when many of the open seats will be claimed by incumbents who did not file candidacy paperwork, but will continue to hold their seats by appointment.

    “A lot of these vacancies, they’d hardly even consider them vacant because I bet more than half of those — probably 20 of the 37 — the (incumbent) board members are like, ‘No, I’m happy to serve. I just didn’t get my paperwork in, so just appoint me,’” Carver said.

    Finding candidates for board seats in extremely small districts can be difficult. The result is often multiple family members sitting on one board. Delphic Elementary School District in Siskiyou County is governed by a board made up of a mother, father and their adult daughter, Carver said. The single school serves 65 students, many from outside the district — limiting the number of parents eligible to run for school board, he said. 

    “This family happens to own property that borders the school and their driveway goes right by the school,” Carver said. “Their kids went to school there, and they’ve had a long history of supporting it. So, talk about local control.”

    Stipends, insurance could attract candidates

    Carver is doing what he can to make being a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Education more attractive. He recently convinced the board to raise the monthly stipend from $40 to $100 so that he could attract more candidates. He said the board, like many other rural school boards, was reluctant to increase their own pay.  The board also receives health insurance. 

    Most school districts in Siskiyou County can’t afford to pay their board a stipend to cover expenses or to offer them insurance, Carver said. 

    What happens if no one runs for a seat?

    If no one runs for a board seat, school boards can either appoint a trustee or hold a special election. Most boards opt to appoint a trustee to avoid costly special elections.

    Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent Kris Munro sent a letter to families last month asking parents to consider applying for a seat on the board that does not have a candidate in the upcoming election. District officials also sent news releases about the available seat, advertised it in video updates and on the district’s social media accounts, and placed a legal notice in a local newspaper, said Sam Rolens, district spokesperson. 

    The district, which serves 4,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, along the state’s Central Coast, has three open seats. The two other seats that are available have one only candidate each, meaning they also will not be on the ballot.

    Applicants for the open Santa Cruz seat without a candidate had until Oct. 18 to file their applications. Three days before the deadline, two people had applied, Rolens said. The district offers its trustees a $50 monthly stipend, according to Santa Cruz Local. 

    Santa Cruz County has even fewer residents interested in running for school boards this year than in the previous election, according to Santa Cruz Local. Three-quarters of the open board seats in Santa Cruz County, including those in Santa Cruz City Schools, will not be on the ballot on Nov. 5, according to the news site. 

    Boards must have quorum to conduct business

    Having a full board is imperative for conducting the school district’s business. In order to vote on agenda items, a school board must have the majority of its board in attendance. Five-member boards, for example, must have at least three, and seven-member boards must have at least four members present to take action on an agenda item. 

    If the school district cannot fill enough board seats to have a quorum, the county Office of Education can send one of its board members to act as a substitute until the district can make an appointment. 

    Having a member of the Board of Education sit on school boards isn’t common, but it has happened a few times in Siskiyou County, Carver said. In one case, a county Board of Education member became a temporary board member at a tiny district serving 25 students after it lost two members of its three-person board. In another case, a board member sat on a district board for three months until they found a willing appointee, Carver said.

    Despite the dire shortage of school board candidates, Carver says he tries to encourage people who will be willing to learn and consider all sides of an issue to run for office.

    “You know, we always want to encourage people who have the right faculties and demeanor, and seek to truly govern for all and don’t have just one specific issue they’re concerned about,” Carver said.





    Source link

  • Parents of truant students won’t face jail, sanctions under new bill

    Parents of truant students won’t face jail, sanctions under new bill


    California showed progress in some areas, such as health insurance, school discipline and absenteeism.

    Allison Yin/EdSource

    • Bill seeks to repeal criminal misdemeanor offense of state’s truancy law
    • CalWORKs sanctions over student truancy would be replaced by screenings for resources and access to work program
    • Districts in recent years appear less likely to lean on punitive measure to address unexcused student absences

    In 2011, when criminal penalties were first tied to truancy, five parents in Orange County were arrested for their children’s truancy. Other counties similarly chose the punitive approach over the years, with Merced County initiating an anti-truancy push in 2017 that included the arrest of 10 parents. Those parents were charged with misdemeanors, contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

    If a proposed bill is passed this legislative session, jail time and fines of up to $2,000 for parents of truant students could soon be eliminated in California.

    Assembly Bill 461, introduced by Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, D-Silicon Valley, would repeal the criminal misdemeanor offense of the existing truancy law, meaning that parents of truant students, 6 years of age or older, in grades 1-8, would no longer be punished by fines or up to a year in county jail.

    The bill proposes an additional change: families receiving cash assistance via the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program, known as CalWORKs, would no longer be penalized if a student aged 16 years or older is chronically truant. The current penalty requires that a truant child is removed from the calculation of the family’s monthly cash assistance.

    “Criminalizing parents for their children’s truancy ignores the root causes of absenteeism and only deepens family hardships,” said Ahrens in his author’s statement.

    Under the state’s truancy law, parents of habitually absent students were previously arrested, but it remains unclear how many cases resulted in criminal charges in the nearly 15 years since it went into effect.

    State law dictates that a district can declare a student truant and refer them to the district attorney after three unexcused absences of more than 30 minutes during one school year.

    Once a student’s case is referred to the district attorney, prosecutors have wide discretion over how to charge parents for their child’s truancy, from an infraction – akin to a traffic violation, to a misdemeanor – contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

    In California, the percentage of chronically absent students catapulted from the pre-pandemic rate of 12.1% in 2018-19 to 30% in 2021-22, as schools reopened for in-person instruction. The percentage has since dropped to about 20% in 2023-24, according to state data, though rates range widely across student groups.

    State education law lists over a dozen reasons for excusing students from school, but most excused absences are related to illness and mental health. Unexcused absences often mean that students lacked documentation such as a note from a doctor, or that they provided no reason for their absence, or that the reason they provided does not qualify as an excusable absence, school officials say.

    Districts often try to avoid punitive measures

    There is no central repository tracking truancy cases, but EdSource found last year that school districts have increasingly gone to great lengths to avoid referring chronically truant students to the local district attorney. Instead, they opt for alternatives such as sending more notifications to parents after a student’s absence than what’s required by law, or scheduling multiple meetings between parents and school staff to better understand and address the underlying reasons for frequent absences.

    The decision by districts to lean into alternatives rather than available punitive measures is partly why Ahrens and AB 461’s supporters are pushing to change the law.

    “If we’re not prosecuting these cases…then why should we have this in the books? We don’t need the stick if everything else is already working to the benefit of our families,” said Yesenia Jimenez, senior policy associate at End Child Poverty CA, an advocacy organization that co-sponsored the bill.

    Eleven organizations have expressed support for the bill, with three of them co-sponsoring, and there is no listed opposition as of Monday.

    Early conversations about Assembly Bill 461 focused solely on the link between public benefits and chronic truancy, Jimenez said.

    CalWORKS provides cash assistance to families with unmet basic needs, such as housing, food, or medical care. Monthly grants range in amounts dependent on region, income, and the number of eligible family members, with the average monthly grant being about $1,000 during the 2024-25 fiscal year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    Provisions of the proposed law

    AB 461 also proposes changes to the CalWORKS program, including:

    • Entirely eliminating the financial sanction on families if students are deemed truant
    • Making a family with a truant child eligible for family stabilization services and allowing a student 16 years or older to voluntarily participate in CalWORKS’ welfare-to-work program, so long as their participation supports and does not interfere with school attendance
    • Qualifying families for stabilization services if they’re undergoing homelessness, undertreated behavioral needs, and including individual or group therapy, temporary housing assistance and parenting education among the services they receive
    • Granting access to resources such as substance abuse services, vocational education, and mental health services to a truant student aged 16 years or older who opts into the welfare-to-work program

    Jimenez, whose team researched the sharp rise in chronic absenteeism at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, said they knew the rates were steadily decreasing each school year.

    While AB 461 began as a way to reform public benefits programs, the team behind the bill began to more heavily consider the criminal penalties families might face as a result of truancy once the Trump administration ramped up actions targeting immigrants, Jimenez shared.

    “Now we’re just facing a completely other beast in the sense that our families are afraid to go to school because we’re seeing (the Department of Homeland Security) show up at elementary schools attempting to deport families, and families have already been subject to deportation,” she said, referring to a case early this month when immigration officials seeking information about five students in first through sixth grades were denied entry at two Los Angeles Unified elementary schools.

    With the provisions of the proposed bill, supporters are looking to circumvent immigrant families from being penalized for school absences due to fear of immigration officials.

    In Southern California this month, an undocumented father was arrested while leaving home to drive his teenage daughter to school. Some advocates have compared the ordeal to the 2017 arrest of an undocumented father who similarly was detained by ICE during a morning school drop-off.

    “We don’t want (truancy) to be the reason why our families, who we’re trying to protect, could be essentially pipelined not only into the carceral system but certainly into the deportation system at this point in time,” said Jimenez.

    Some families opted to keep their children home from school early this year in Kern County after the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol arrested 78 people. At least 40 have been deported, according to a lawsuit filed in February.

    A bill signed into law last year requires changes to the truancy notifications sent to families by removing threatening language about punitive measures they might be subject to and instead opting for sharing resources about supportive services, including mental health resources.

    Advocates for AB 461 agree with the premise of the bill, said Jimenez, but they wish to go further in removing the potential for arrest.

    AB 461 most recently passed through the Committee on Human Services and on Tuesday will be heard by the Committee on Public Safety.





    Source link