اینترنت

برچسب: wrong

  • Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Immigration Policy Is Wrong

    Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Immigration Policy Is Wrong


    The conservative, Murdoch–owned Wall Street Journal editorialized that Trump’s immigration plan is in deep trouble, and rightly so. His goal (Stephen Miller’s) is to deport 11 million immigrants (one of every 20 people in the country. That’s led to raids at workplaces. Even his supporters are shocked. They voted to deport criminals, “the worst of the worst,” not the hard-working people who contribute to the economy.

    Vincent Scardina is a Trump voter in Key West, Fla., who owns a roofing company. Six of his workers, originally from Nicaragua, were en route to a job late last month when they were detained, according to a report by a local NBC affiliate. Their attorney says five of those men have valid work permits, pending asylum cases, and no criminal records. We haven’t been able to verify that, but if it’s correct, jailing them is a strange enforcement priority.

    “It’s going to be really hard to replace those guys,” Mr. Scardina said. “We’re not able, in Key West, to just replace people as easily as, say, a big city.” He also got emotional. “You get to know these guys. You become their friends,” he said. “You see what happens to their family.” Mr. Scardina’s message to the President that he helped to elect: “What happened here? This situation is just totally, just blatantly, not at all what they said it was.”

    Four hours after that post about farms and hotels, Mr. Trump was back on Truth Social. President Biden let in “21 Million Unvetted, Illegal Aliens,” who have “stolen American Jobs,” he said. “I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History.” For the record, the Census Bureau says the U.S. population is about 342 million, so he’s talking about maybe deporting 1 person in every 20.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s deportation maestro, Stephen Miller, wants the immigration cops to arrest 3,000 migrants a day. That means raiding businesses across the country. Mr. Trump prefers to talk about “CRIMINALS” because he knows that’s where he has broad public support.

    But his federal agents are out raiding job sites full of non-criminal, hard-working people who are contributing to the American economy. The real policy isn’t what Mr. Trump says, but what his agents do on the ground.

    How can immigration czar Miller meet his goal without deporting farm workers, construction laborers, restaurant staff, and hotel workers?



    Source link

  • More time with subs is the wrong response to teacher shortages

    More time with subs is the wrong response to teacher shortages


    Middle school history teachers discuss their lesson plans for teaching about the Great Depression.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / American Education

    Twenty-five years ago, when pastor Sweetie Williams asked his 12-year-old son, Eli, why he never had homework, the answer exposed scandalous conditions that would reshape California education forever. Eli’s San Francisco middle school — like many of the 20% of California public schools then serving the greatest number of Black, Latino and low-income students — lacked books, operating bathrooms, proper heating and enough qualified teachers to permanently staff classrooms. The historic litigation that followed in May 2000, Williams v. California, established new laws guaranteeing every student three fundamental rights: permanent, qualified teachers; sufficient instructional materials; and clean, safe facilities.

    Today, as Assembly Bill 1224 (Valencia) races toward a Senate hearing, we’re witnessing some of the same staffing chaos that prompted the Williams lawsuit. In the West Contra Costa Unified School District, parent Darrell Washington watched his rising fifth grader endure what he called “a chaotic game of musical chairs” with two or three different teachers in a single year. At Stege Elementary, third grade teacher Sam Cleare saw students arrive in her classroom, where she was often “their first credentialed teacher for the entire year.”

    In response to teacher shortages, are legislators rising to meet the challenge? Are they grappling with how to raise teacher compensation and improve working conditions to attract and retain educators? Are they seeking to compel those districts stuck on autopilot to do more to recruit new teachers or to place in the classroom their fully certified staff who aren’t currently teaching before turning to short-term substitutes? No.

    The principal response of legislators has been AB 1224, which would double the time untrained substitute teachers can remain in any one classroom — from 30 to 60 days, a full third of the school year. The bill thereby lowers teacher standards for the state’s most disadvantaged students, essentially abandoning our children’s rights to equal educational opportunity to accommodate district requests for administrative convenience.

    When a teacher vacancy exists, districts are supposed to prioritize assigning the most qualified candidates: fully credentialed teachers first, then interns who have the subject matter training but are still learning how to teach it, followed by emergency-style permits that allow those with partial subject matter competence and teacher training to teach for the year under close supervision, and finally waivers, which permit individuals to teach for a year by waiving unmet certification requirements with state approval if the district can demonstrate the candidate is the best person available.

    Williams requires all classrooms to be staffed by a single, designated permanent teacher who is at least minimally certified to teach the whole year, according to one of these bases. That puts the onus on districts to figure out well before the school year begins how they will staff each classroom with a state-qualified teacher.

    Thirty-day substitutes — those affected by AB 1224 — are nowhere in this hierarchy precisely because they are not qualified to serve as the teacher of record for any classroom. They receive zero subject matter training and zero instruction on how to teach a subject, so they have no understanding of lesson planning, classroom management, assessing learning, or differentiating learning for special ed students or English learners. They’re educational placeholders, not teachers. 

    Teachers represent the single most important school-based factor in learning outcomes. When we park unqualified staff in classrooms for months, we’re not solving teacher shortages; we’re creating educational voids that harm student progress for years to come. Our students need qualified educators who provide continuity, expertise and genuine care, not “continuity” with unqualified caretakers.

    Statewide teacher assignment data reveals exactly how this policy will worsen existing inequities. While 84% of California’s teachers are fully trained, this drops to just 76% in districts serving working-class communities like West Contra Costa, but rises to 89% in affluent areas.

    Schools serving larger populations of low-income students, English learners and foster children are already twice as likely to rely on emergency-style permits. AB 1224 will systematically widen these gaps, exacerbating a two-tiered system where privileged students get qualified teachers while vulnerable students get warm bodies. 

    Meanwhile, AB 1224’s “accountability” measures provide legislative lip service. The bill relies on existing legal requirements that districts make “reasonable efforts” to recruit more qualified personnel before turning to long-term substitutes. Yet we know from our experiences with West Contra Costa Unified and elsewhere that districts typically make no particular efforts if an obvious candidate is not already in front of them and there is no outside enforcement of the hiring hierarchy. AB 1224 does nothing to change this. The bill does not define “reasonable,” has no documentation requirements, and has no oversight or accountability measures. 

    And while this same expanded access to substitutes was temporarily allowed during the pandemic, frankly, the whole system was in chaos then, and many virtual classrooms were providing little more than day care, even with qualified teachers. Yet, AB 1224 provides no sunset date like that exception did. To the contrary, the pending proposal is for a permanent change in law, a permanent authorized dilution of instructional quality, a permanent permission for districts to avoid the hard work of recruiting and retaining qualified educators — all to be disproportionately visited upon the most disadvantaged students in the state. 

    The response to teacher shortages must not be to lower standards, but the opposite. As if our collective hair were on fire, the state and districts need to be doubling down on bringing back the fully certified teachers who have left the classroom (more than enough to cover the shortages). Likewise, the state and districts need to work harder to develop the next generation of diverse and fully prepared educators. Since the pandemic, California has invested over $2 billion in evidence-based solutions: the National Board Certification Incentive Program, Golden State Teacher Grant Program, teacher residencies, a grow-your-own program, and Educator Effectiveness grants — all designed to increase supply and retention in high-need schools. The latest annual Teacher Supply Report from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing suggests the state is starting to turn a corner as a result of these efforts. New teaching credentials issued in 2023-24 were up over 18% — the first surge in new credentials since the pandemic in 2020-21. 

    In the meantime, districts have existing tools: emergency permits for at least provisionally qualified candidates, intern teachers and residents, teachers with permits to cover those on statutory leave, and experienced “career substitutes” who already are allowed to teach in a single classroom for 60 days. And before even turning to these substandard options, districts’ “reasonable efforts” must include returning fully credentialed teachers to a district’s highest priority: classroom instruction. When Superintendent Alberto Carvalho took the helm of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in late 2021, one of his first actions was to fill some 700 vacancies with certified educators who had been serving in the district office and various non-teaching roles. 

    That’s 700 classrooms and several thousand students’ educational lives that were not sacrificed for administrative convenience. Today’s Eli Williamses deserve no less.

    •••

    John Affeldt, who was one of the lead counsels on Williams v. California, is a managing attorney at Public Advocates, a public interest law firm in San Francisco, where he focuses on educational equity issues.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Stephen Miller Wants to Abolish Habeas Corpus. This Is Why He Is Wrong.

    Stephen Miller Wants to Abolish Habeas Corpus. This Is Why He Is Wrong.


    Stephen Miller is the evil genius of the Trump administration. He has built his reputation as the person with the least heart or soul. He has been the loudest advocate for kicking out immigrants, as many and as quickly as possible. Miller recently proposed that the Trump administration might need to suspend habeas corpus so as to speed up the expulsion of millions of undocumented immigrants.

    Habeas corpus means literally “you should have the body.” It means that a prisoner must be brought before a court so a judge can decide if the detention is lawful.

    The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to habeas corpus in Article I, Section 9,states that the right to habeas corpus, which is a legal procedure to ensure a person isn’t unjustly imprisoned, “shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it“

    Miller said: “The writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at.”

    Legal scholar Steve Vladeck wrote that “Miller made some of the most remarkable (and remarkably scary) comments about federal courts that I think we’ve ever heard from a senior White House official.” In this post, he explains why Miller is wrong.

    He begins with Miller’s words:

    Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So … that’s an option we’re actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts, that’s the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases. So Congress actually passed what’s called jurisdiction stripping legislation. It passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren’t even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.

    Vladeck writes that Miller’s view is just plain wrong:

    I know there’s a lot going on, and that Miller says lots of incendiary (and blatantly false) stuff. But this strikes me as raising the temperature to a whole new level—and thus meriting a brief explanation of all of the ways in which this statement is both (1) wrong; and (2) profoundly dangerous. Specifically, it seems worth making five basic points:

    First, the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 is meant to limit the circumstances in which habeas can be foreclosed (Article I, Section 9 includes limits on Congress’s powers)—thereby ensuring that judicial review of detentions are otherwise available. (Note that it’s in the original Constitution—adopted before even the Bill of Rights.) I spent a good chunk of the first half of my career writing about habeas and its history, but the short version is that the Founders were hell-bent on limiting, to the most egregious emergencies, the circumstances in which courts could be cut out of the loop. To casually suggest that habeas might be suspended because courts have ruled against the executive branch in a handful of immigration cases is to turn the Suspension Clause entirely on its head.

    Second, Miller is being slippery about the actual text of the Constitution (notwithstanding his claim that it is “clear”). The Suspension Clause does not say habeas can be suspended during any invasion; it says “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This last part, with my emphasis, is not just window-dressing; again, the whole point is that the default is for judicial review except when there is a specific national security emergency in which judicial review could itself exacerbate the emergency. The emergency itself isn’t enough. Releasing someone like Rümeysa Öztürk from immigration detention poses no threat to public safety—all the more so when the release is predicated on a judicial determination that Öztürk … poses no threat to public safety.

    Third, even if the textual triggers for suspending habeas corpus were satisfied, Miller also doesn’t deign to mention that the near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus—and that unilateral suspensions by the President are per se unconstitutional. I’ve written before about the Merryman case at the outset of the Civil War, which provides perhaps the strongest possible counterexample: that the President might be able to claim a unilateral suspension power if Congress is out of session (as it was from the outset of the Civil War in 1861 until July 4). Whatever the merits of that argument, it clearly has no applicability at this moment.

    Fourth, Miller is wrong, as a matter of fact,about the relationship between Article III courts (our usual federal courts) and immigration cases. It’s true that the Immigration and Nationality Act (especially as amended in 1996 and 2005) includes a series of “jurisdiction-stripping” provisions. But most of those provisions simply channel judicial review in immigration cases into immigration courts (which are part of the executive branch) in the first instance, with appeals to Article III courts. And as the district courts (and Second Circuit) have explained in cases like Khalil and Öztürk, even those provisions don’t categorically preclude any review by Article III courts prior to those appeals.

    Toward the end of the video, Miller tries to make a specific point about whether revocations of “TPS” (temporary protected status) are subject to judicial review. Here, he appears to be talking about a California district court ruling in the TPS Alliance case, in which the Trump administration is currently asking the Supreme Court for a stay of the district court’s injunction (the appropriate remedy in case the district court erred). And as the plaintiffs’ response brief in the Supreme Court explains in detail, the district court had very good reasons for holding that it had the power to hear their case.

    I don’t mean to overstate things; some of the questions raised by the INA’s (notoriously unclear) jurisdiction-stripping provisions can get very messy. But there’s a big difference, in my view, between reasonable disagreements over the language of complex jurisdictional statutes and Miller’s insinuation that Congress has categorically precluded judicial review in these cases. It just hasn’t.

    Fifth, and finally, Miller gives away the game when he says “a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.” It’s not just the mafia-esque threat implicit in this statement (“I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse”); it’s that he’s telling on himself: He’s suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases. In other words, it’s not the judicial review itself that’s imperiling national security; it’s the possibility that the government might lose. That’s not, and has never been, a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus. Were it otherwise, there’d be no point to having the writ in the first place—let alone to enshrining it in the Constitution.

    If the goal is just to try to bully and intimidate federal judges into acquiescing in more unlawful activity by the Trump administration, that’s shameful enough. But suggesting that the President can unilaterally cut courts out of the loop solely because they’re disagreeing with him is suggesting that judicial review—indeed, that the Constitution itself—is just a convenience. Something tells me that even federal judges and justices who might otherwise be sympathetic to the government’s arguments on the merits in some of these cases will be troubled by the implication that their authority depends entirely upon the President’s beneficence.

    ***

    It’s certainly possible that this doesn’t go anywhere. Indeed, I hope that turns out to be true. But Miller’s comments strike me as a rather serious ratcheting up of the anti-court rhetoric coming out of this administration—and an ill-conceived one at that.



    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