Category Archives: Education

Politics Matter– even if you hate it

Posted on by
Reply

Lisa Romero is an Professor of Education Policy and Leadership at California State University Sacramento

I often hear educators say that they hate politics and tune-out news from Capitol Hill.  I always find that puzzling coming from the same people who say they care passionately about education. Soooo… here’s an example of why it matters.

There is an important policy showdown in Washington DC right now that educational leaders, aspiring leaders, or anyone who cares about education and particularly higher education, should be tuned in to. The $3.5 trillion Build-Back-Better legislation, sometimes referred to as the reconciliation bill, promises a lot of money, and a historic reshaping of the federal role in funding higher education. The current rendition of the bill includes the American College Promise plan which includes tuition-free community college, expanded Pell grants, and funding incentives (with strings attached) for college completion and retention.  But these are only part of a wide-ranging bill that also includes funding for other important issues—for example, lowering health care and prescription drug costs, money for clean energy and climate change, and support for childcare, among others.

Without getting too far down in the federal policy and politics weeds, there is far from any guarantee that the bill will pass, at least without a substantial haircut. Republicans in the Senate are promising to block it, conservative Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Simena (AZ) have made clear that they won’t vote for a bill with a dollar sign this big. This lays open the question, if the bill is cut, what is cut with it?

To understand more about the higher ed components of the bill and their potential implications to reshape the federal role in high education, listen to Inside Higher Education’s The Key Podcast: Reshaping the Federal Role in Higher Ed

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/09/20/reshaping-federal-state-partnership-higher-ed-key-podcast#.YUyI6QdbG1o.link

Counting and Kids

Posted on by
Reply

Lisa S. Romero is an Associate Professor at the California State University Sacramento.

Amid all the excitement about the 2020 election, you might have missed a bit of news that has very broad consequences for our nation’s schools and students. In October, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to halt the 2020 Census count.  Its ruling effectively ended the count of what is supposed to be every person in the nation. This is not trivial because it means that some people, in some states, were less likely to be counted than others.  Undercounting has very real implications for funding for schools and students, and for reapportionment and the electoral college.

Undercounting: Who’s Likely to be Undercounted and Why?

Some states, like California, are more likely to have its population undercounted. Why? The state has a more mobile population which is harder to find, and therefore harder to count. This includes people who don’t own homes and move from one apartment to another, and migrant and seasonal workers who move around the state following jobs. We can add to this a higher rate of homelessness in some states. If you drive down the road and see folks living in tents along the right-of-way, there is some good reason to think they may not have been counted.

And, in states with higher immigrant populations, an undercount is also more likely. In this case, people may be afraid to answer official requests for information because of their visa status. Compare California with an immigrant population of about 27% with that of Idaho, at about 6%, and it becomes clear why this is more of an issue for a state like California. Overall, people who are most likely to be missing from Census counts are renters, Natives Americans, Latinos, Blacks, young children, and limited English speakers.

The Census and Funding for Students and Schools

The Census has broad ramifications for schools and especially for students from low income families. Census data determines the distribution of:

  • More than $14 billion in Title I grants that help schools that serve 24 million plus students from low-income families
  • Nearly $30 billion in Pell grant funding for low income college students
  • $11.3 billion in special education grants to the states
  • About $19 billion for the National School Lunch Program
  • $8.5 billion for Head Start preschool programs
  • Plus, funding to support Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities, grants to improve teacher quality, funding for career and technical education, and the list goes on.

Reapportionment and The Electoral College

Census counts are also the basis for reapportionment, a fancy word for determining how many Members of Congress each state is allocated.  By law, the U.S House of Representatives has 435 members.  Every ten years, Census data is used to determine of how many Members of Congress will be allocated to each state, and thus which states will gain representation, and which states will lose representation. Undercounting in any state therefore leads to a disproportionate loss of representation in Congress. It also determines how many Electoral College votes each state has, which as we all know well by now, is how the outcome of Presidential elections are determined. After this Census, California and New York are expected to lose Electoral College votes, while States like Texas and Florida are expected to gain.

This is the reason that states work to boost Census participation and the reason that many states fought the action of the Trump administration to stop the count. Sadly, this Census was mired in political division.  But even more sadly, it will be students who suffer from a Census made political, and a Census ended prematurely.  We can and should do better for America’s youth.

What should we look for in a new Secretary of Education?

Posted on by
2
What should we look for in a Secretary of Education?

Author: Lisa S. Romero is an Associate Professor at California State University Sacramento.

Many educators have been critical of the U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ performance. During her tenure, DeVos has pushed to privatize public schools, eliminated student protections against predatory, for-profit colleges and fraudulent lending, failed to enforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that requires schools provide much needed support for students with special needs, reversed policies on sexual assault on campus, and incredibly, advocated for more guns in schools. Add to that the pandemic, and her threats to defund public schools that don’t fully open…regardless of local circumstances. And, the list goes on.

I’ve written before about the ways Betsy DeVos is uniquely unqualified to lead the U.S. Department of Education. If President Trump is re-elected, we can expect more from Betsy DeVos. If Joe Biden is elected, a new Secretary of Education will be nominated. Betsy DeVos has shown us the qualities we don’t want in a Secretary of Education, so what are the qualities we should we be looking for?

I thought it would be interesting to hear what policy makers had to say about this, especially policy makers who have themselves been educators, sit on committees that play a role in important legislative decisions about education, or are the product of public education. 

To find out, I interviewed Congressman Mark Takano, California Assembly Member Jose Medina, Congresswoman Susan Davis, and former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer.  Listen to their answers in the video.

Another Symptom of COVID-19: Cash-Strapped Colleges

Posted on by
Reply

For those of us who care about higher education and our nation, this is a sobering article. Many university programs, will simply not survive. Others will be changed forever. And even more sobering is impact that our nation will feel in the years and decades to come.

Lisa S. Romero is an Associate Professor at the California State University Sacramento.

Don’t Be Fooled By False Narratives: Prop 15 will Help California Schools and Community Colleges, It won’t Raise Home Owner Property Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

For the past 42 years, two words have had the ability to almost always start an argument in California.  Those two words are, “Prop 13.”  Passed by voters in 1978, Proposition 13 requires that residential, commercial and industrial properties be taxed based on purchase price rather than current market value. Simple, right?  No, not really.

For many people in California, Prop 13 is something close to sacred.  These people will tell you that it is the only reason they can own a home, the only reason they can afford to live in California.  And any attempt to change Prop 13 is universally rejected by these folks — universally seen as a means to raise taxes and undermine home ownership.

On the flip side of the coin, others look at the history of Prop 13 as a primary reason that California schools and students have suffered.  Quite simply, by blocking the ability to tax   based on real property values, schools have been underfunded for decades. In 1978 California’s per pupil expenditures was above the national average; today it is far below. While calculations differ, California’s poor standing is clear. States like New York spend over $10,000 more per student than California. This from a state that prides itself in being a leader in science and technology. 

Proposition 15 on the November 2020 ballot offers a solution to both homeowner and education advocate concerns.  In essence, it leaves in place the tax calculation for homeowners, and for properties owned for commercial agriculture.  However, phased in over time, most commercial and industrial properties would be taxed based on market value.  Many argue that this is a fair solution given that homes often change hands, each time resetting their tax base to the current market value, while commercial and industrial properties often are held over time, sometimes for decades, allowing their tax base to stay low.  In fact, advocates of Proposition 15 claim that between $8 and $12.5 billion per year would be generated, with 40 percent distributed to school and community college districts.

You will likely see raging arguments coming in social media and in (appropriately distanced) neighborhood discussions. Expect deliberately misleading posts on social media and ads paid for by big corporate and industry groups claiming the downfall of home ownership in California. With the election still months away, posts on Facebook incorrectly declaring Californians will see soaring home property taxes are already appearing. But like all political discussions, it’s a good idea to know the facts and keep a clear head: Passing Proposition 15 could provide a long needed lift to California schools and community colleges, and it will not raise residential property taxes.

For more about Proposition 15 and 13: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020)

Author: Lisa S. Romero

Publicly Subsidized Religious Instruction: The New Standard

Posted on by
Reply

On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in ESPINOZA ET AL. v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ET AL. The case has important implications for school choice, educational tax credits, and the separation of church and state.

US Supreme Court upholds religious liberty, forbids religious ...

A Brief Synopsis of the Case

In 2015, the Montana Legislature extended up to $150 in tax credits to any tax payer who donated to a student scholarship organization (aka Big Sky Scholarships). Families with financial hardships or children with handicaps could apply for a Big Sky Scholarship and designate a private school of choice to which Big Sky would directly send (publicly subsidized) funding. Thirteen private schools received funding and twelve of those were religious schools. Because the Montana constitution bars any “direct or indirect” aid to schools “controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination” the State Supreme Court invalidated the program.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the State Supreme Court decision, ruling that the Montana Supreme Court discriminated against the parents and schools based on religion, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. According to Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, “a state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Sweeping Implications

This case has sweeping implications; 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provide educational tax credits or vouchers. Going forward, these states and any other state that provides an educational tax credit is compelled to subsidize religious schools— even if the state constitution expressly forbids it.

With this ruling, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have clearly signaled the future for the public funding of religious schools and, we should expect more rulings that further erode the separation of church and state.

Read the full decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf

Dissertating in America 2020

Posted on by
Reply

It is pretty much given that an overwhelming number of us have been touched by COVID-19 and by the recent demands for action on social justice in America.  With masks in place, many have marched in cities and neighborhoods for justice, and worried about our children who are marching. At home, many dining room tables are now home offices, with parents vying for internet time with their kids. In place of face-to-face interactions, learning has moved online, graduation ceremonies postponed or virtual. Millions of workers have lost jobs and businesses have closed.  Countless elders are isolated and alone in senior care homes. We all feel the impacts.

I recently spent a weekend with about 20 people who are all feeling their own set of impacts.  Each of them has passed all the prerequisites for a Doctorate in Educational Leadership and are all starting dissertations. And, they too are feeling the impact. Some planned dissertations based on classroom observations, but now they have no classrooms to observe.  Some had detailed plans for interviews with educational leaders, but now interviews must be rethought.  Others had planned up-close observations of educators, but there is no up-close now.  Some have had to rethink basic assumptions about the role of education in a just society. 

At the same time, many of these students are having to quickly adapt in other parts of their lives, perhaps learning to teach or otherwise work on line. Perhaps they spend most of their days in on-line meetings, with preschoolers in the same room, demanding, needing, and vying for attention.  Some have parents who they worry about and feel the need to care for while unable to actually visit with them. Some face lay-offs or pay-cuts, on top of feeling the sting of racial injustice in America. Their stories are compelling and left me feeling a bit of second-hand trauma. 

By its very nature, a dissertation is demanding. It requires digging deep, original thinking, and innovation.  After all, a dissertation asks the writer to establish both new research and new findings.  It is not regurgitation, but instead original research that adds to our collective knowledge. The challenge is always there, but today’s students need to stretch a bit farther and lift a bit more. In my experience, as in many other aspects of life, being brainy is a great advantage in writing a dissertation; but the real advantage is in being resilient.  Facing problems head on, and not being dissuaded.  Acknowledging adversity and finding a way through it. After spending most of the weekend on line with these students, I know they are up to the task.