Voices Against Privatizing Public Education
Our main goal is to ensure equal access to a quality public education for all. Access to a quality public education is a right and not a privilege.
www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article317185315.html
San Juan Unified School District faces unfair labor practice charge over layoffs
www.sacbee.com
The complaint alleges the school district refused to negotiate over the layoffs and withheld information about affected employees.What happens when a school’s governing board fails to provide meaningful oversight? My latest article examines the continuing turmoil at El Camino Real Charter High School, including the resignation of its longtime board chair and a Notice of Concern from LAUSD. The issues raised include board governance, potential conflicts of interest, the school’s nepotism policy, financial oversight, and LAUSD's role as the charter’s authorizer. This isn’t simply about one administrator or one controversy. It raises a larger question: Who is watching the people entrusted with running a public charter school? Read the full article: medium.com/educreation/the-chaos-continues-at-el-camino-real-charter-high-school-b34ffcf41a5a?sk=…
All the more reason to vote for Deborah Ortiz to Los Rios Board Area 6 and not San Juan Trustee Zima Creason.
www.facebook.com/collegeinhighschool1/posts/pfbid02HmGLAiumTfTxHJ2Kskog7igYv8rWEpZz1MY2hy8Sjwt2qL…
This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02uRGTXCw1ED7Fb6bpYf5A3fHd5hFytFHiK6uQTEBrx8qAc4Qz…
This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.www.postnewsgroup.com/misnamed-parent-pac-seeks-to-influence-oakland-school-board-elections/?fbcl…
Misnamed ‘Parent’ PAC Seeks to Influence Oakland School Board Elections | Post News Group
www.postnewsgroup.com
By Ken Epstein and Post Staff Earlier this year, two Oakland parents formed a new Political Action Committee (PAC), which they describe as an “Oakland parent-led effort working towards better public…
A Paramount-Warner merger will hurt Hollywood and people of color
www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2026-09-21/paramount-warner-merger-settlement-latino-black-represen…
The Paramount logo on the water tower at Paramount Studios
If Paramount is allowed to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery, cuts will affect the people with the least leverage first. In Los Angeles County, where nearly half of the population is Latino, that means the grips, electricians, drivers, set builders and caterers, and the small vendors who supply them. (Mario Tama / Getty Images)
By Juan Proaño
Guest contributor
Sept. 21, 2026 1:59 PM PT
Two of the five biggest studios in America want to become one. If Paramount is allowed to absorb Warner Bros. Discovery, a single company will control roughly a third of the movies that reach theaters and roughly a third of basic cable programming, along with two of the largest streaming services and two national news organizations, CBS News and CNN, under the same roof.
That outcome moved closer on Monday, as reports emerged that Paramount had reached a settlement deal with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who leads the 12 states suing to block the deal. The Ellisons, the family that controls Paramount, had been pressing for a settlement without serious structural reforms — one that would allow the merger to progress based mostly on empty, unenforceable promises.
Before that happens, someone should account for who has been paying for all of it. Latinos are 19% of the U.S. population and bought 29% of all movie tickets sold in 2020. We attend theaters more often than any other group, and Latino households command more than $4 trillion in purchasing power.
Black Americans are about 14% of the population and delivered 21% of the opening weekend box office revenue for major theatrical releases in 2024. They accounted for 22% of all minutes viewed across major streaming platforms. They consumed an average of 84 hours of media a week that year, against roughly 72 hours for the country as a whole, and their buying power is on pace to pass $2 trillion.
Those are not diversity statistics. They are customer statistics, and they describe the two audiences that carry this industry’s margins.
Now look at what those customers receive in return. In 2025, Black actors held 6.5% of lead roles in top theatrical films. Latino actors held less than 3%. White actors took 76.9%. Across 1,300 top-grossing films, Latino characters filled 5% of speaking roles, and nearly 44% of those films contained no Latino speaking character at all. People of color are 45.2% of this country and 23.1% of its film leaders, and in 2025 they lost ground in streaming in every single employment category the industry measures.
Here is the part that should interest anyone who cares about how markets are supposed to work. In that same year, films with casts between 41% and 50% people of color earned the highest median box office of any group.
A company operating in a competitive market cannot neglect its highest-earning market for long. Leaving money on the table is how you lose to the competitor who picks it up. But a company that controls a third of theatrical distribution and a third of cable programming does not face that discipline. It can misread its own customers indefinitely, because those customers have few alternatives for their entertainment dollars.
That is the economic case against this merger, and it is the same case the attorneys general should have made in court. Every studio absorbed by a rival is one fewer buyer for a script, one fewer employer for a crew, one fewer distributor willing to bet on a story that does not fit in somebody’s franchise plan. Fewer buyers means lower pay, fewer projects and less leverage for everyone selling into that market.
That economic mechanism does not check anyone’s background before it operates. It simply affects the people with the least leverage first, and they are the last to recover. In Los Angeles County, where nearly half of the population is Latino, that means the grips, electricians, drivers, set builders and caterers, and the small vendors who supply them.
This is not a forecast. Warner Bros. Discovery already ran the experiment after its 2022 merger, shelving a finished $90 million film with an Afro-Latino lead, canceling a comedy about a Dominican immigrant family five weeks into its run despite strong viewership, and clearing out Black-led series across the following two years. Paramount won federal approval for its own merger partly by dismantling its diversity programs, then laid off roughly 2,000 people within months of closing the deal.
Approval first, erasure second. Every time.
So when Paramount offers commitments to attorneys general and the public, weigh them against the record. Comcast made commitments to win NBCUniversal and negotiated in good faith with national civil rights organizations, and independent channels launched as a result. The investment that real ownership requires did not follow. Paper outlasts everyone who signed the agreement.
A dozen state attorneys general sued to stop the Paramount deal, and they were right to do so. In July a federal judge froze the merger, writing that on market share alone she could presume it likely violates antitrust law. The companies then agreed to stand still until the court rules or until June 1, 2027. With a trial set to begin on March 2, Paramount demanded a settlement by Oct. 1 and threatened to move its operations out of California if it did not get one, a move California’s attorney general accurately called blackmail.
If the reports are accurate, the Ellisons used that pressure to push for a settlement built on behavioral concessions that are not worth the paper on which they are written — and now there may be a consent decree as a result that includes no protections for Black and Latino constituents of Hollywood.
Concessions that depend on the future goodwill of the merged company will not protect the workers and audiences the attorneys general sought to protect. Bonta has said publicly that pledges like releasing a set number of films each year are precisely the type of behavioral remedies that are “typically not enforceable in the way that we like.” He was correct.
I am not asking these companies for a seat at the table. I am asking that the table not be cut in half.
Fewer buyers means fewer stories, fewer jobs and fewer of us in the rooms where both get decided. The law already provides the remedy. The merger should not proceed.
Juan Proaño is the chief executive of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation’s oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization.
Contributor: A Paramount-Warner merger will hurt Hollywood and people of color
www.latimes.com
Latino and Black spending represents the profit margin for the industry, and yet those voices will be the first silenced.
Newsom Supports Trump's Attacks On Immigrant Students
Campus jobs for undocumented students blocked by Newsom veto
www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-20/california-campus-jobs-undocumented-students-newsom-veto
Demonstrators wearing matching blue shirts hold protest signs
Students and supporters of undocumented students rally and chant outside a meeting of the UC Board of Regents in 2023. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)
Jaweed Kaleem staff headshot at LA Times Photo Studio in El Segundo, CA on Thursday, July 24, 2025.
By Jaweed Kaleem
Staff Writer
Sept. 20, 2026 5:05 PM PT
Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 713, blocking paid campus jobs for undocumented college students.
Advocates and student leaders had pushed for the bill, saying that campus jobs and internships are crucial for undocumented students’ futures.
UC and CSU remained neutral on the bill.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed a bill that would have opened paid campus jobs to undocumented students at California’s public colleges and universities.
Assembly Bill 713 would have barred the University of California, California State University and state community colleges from disqualifying students from campus employment because they could not show federal work authorization.
It was the second time in two years that Newsom struck down such a bill. In his veto message, Newsom said he was concerned about “potential criminal and civil liability for state employees” if the bill became law.
Newsom rejected a similar bill in 2024, after UC regents reversed their support for the policy and as fears grew that the state could face federal repercussions by justifying the hiring under a theory developed by UCLA legal scholars.
“Unfortunately, my concerns about its unintended consequences have only grown,” Newsom said in Sunday’s veto message. “The current federal government has shown it is quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle — attacking California’s public higher education institutions and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for consequences and a desire for chaos.”
“California remains committed to economic opportunity and tuition affordability for all students, including leading efforts to support undocumented students who face growing barriers and threats under this cruel federal administration,” Newsom said.
The UCLA professors argued that a 1986 federal law banning employers from hiring undocumented workers does not apply to state governments. That theory underpinned the bill, but Newsom warned that proceeding before federal courts established its legality was a risk.
“The federal courts must resolve the legality of the novel legal theory behind this legislation before we proceed,” Newsom said.
Days after Newsom’s 2024 veto, an undocumented UCLA alumnus sued the university. A state appeals court ruled last year that UC’s no-hire policy “facially discriminates based on immigration status” and ordered the university to reconsider it. The state Supreme Court in October declined to hear a UC appeal.
UC has not changed its policy.
Responding to the veto, UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham — who developed the legal theory along with law professor Hiroshi Motomura — said Newsom’s decision was “misguided.” Arulanantham and Motomura are co-directors of the Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA law school.
“Rather than stand with undocumented students, the governor asks for another suit,” said Arulanantham, who also represented plaintiffs in the lawsuit against UC. “Ironically, the governor’s failure to do what is right will not protect the university, but instead leave it even more vulnerable without the backing of the explicit state law that the Legislature overwhelmingly favors.”
Newsom’s latest veto comes as the Trump administration presses California and its public universities over immigration. The Justice Department has sued California and 20 other states over in-state tuition for undocumented students. Courts have blocked the in-state tuition laws in five states.
UC and Cal State did not take positions on this year’s bill. Both raised concerns about the 2024 version, telling state lawmakers that the universities could face criminal penalties, civil fines or the loss of federal contracts.
In a statement released before the veto, UC said it was a “leader in supporting undocumented students, who are vital members of the UC community and make significant contributions to our economy and society as scholars, researchers, and future leaders.”
The Cal State Student Assn. and UC Student Assn. voiced support. The Faculty Assn. of California Community Colleges and the Student Senate for California Community Colleges also said they were in favor.
Between 2,000 and 4,000 undocumented students attend UC, which enrolls nearly 301,000 students. About 9,500 attend Cal State, out of 471,000. Roughly 70,000 undocumented students attend community colleges.
Advocates for AB 713, dubbed Opportunity for All, gathered Sept. 4 at the UCLA Labor Center’s James Lawson Jr. Worker Justice Center near MacArthur Park to push for its passage. Speakers included Assemblymember José Luis Solache Jr. (D-Lynwood), who wrote the bill.
“The safest place for our undocumented students to be at work is on campus,” Solache said.
Candice Phan, president of the UC Student Assn. and a UC Davis student, said the ban reaches far beyond what is typically viewed as work.
Trump cut grants for Hispanic-serving colleges. Now California campuses are losing programs
Phan said it blocks students from paid internships, research and teaching assistant jobs and student government posts that include stipends — positions she called “vital to advancing their future careers.”
UC Regent José Hernández, who backed the bill, also spoke at the recent rally.
“Talent does not have an immigration status. Ambition does not have an immigration status, and a student’s ability to contribute to California should not be determined simply by the circumstances under which the student arrived in this country,” he said.
“As regents, we have a responsibility to protect the university, to respect the law, and to carefully evaluate the legal consequences of the decisions we make,” Hernández said. “I take that responsibility seriously, but caution should never become an excuse for complacency.”
Campus jobs for undocumented students blocked by Newsom veto
www.latimes.com
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 713, the Opportunity for All Act, blocking a measure that would have opened paid campus employment to undocumented students at UC, CSU and community colleges.
UFT Teachers unions urge Labor Supported NY Gov. Hochul to reconsider participation in 'school choice' program
gothamist.com/news/teachers-unions-urge-ny-gov-to-reconsider-participation-in-school-choice-program
By Jessica Gould
Published Sep 16, 2026 at 5:24 p.m. ET
UTF President Michael Mulgrew speech at United Federation of Teachers (UTF) Teacher Union Day in October 2019. The UFT is among the largest unions currently without a contract.
Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock
Teachers unions are calling on Gov. Kathy Hochul to reverse plans to join the Trump administration's “school choice” program, warning the program will siphon students and money away from New York’s public schools.
The program, and New York's intention to participate in it, represents a major victory for those who have spent years lobbying for tuition vouchers under the banner of “school choice.”
“These credits have the potential to expand academic opportunity for public and private school students across our state without diverting resources from public schools or state and local budgets,” Jonah Allon, a spokesperson for Hochul, said in a statement on Wednesday. “All stakeholders should work together to ensure this program can be implemented to maximize benefits for all New York schools, including our public schools."
Echoing their long-held opposition to such programs, labor leaders said the tax credit would unfairly deprive the neediest students.
“ It is meant to actually take money out of public schools,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said at a press conference Wednesday.
Weingarten said that while private schools can skim off high-performing and wealthy students, students with disabilities, students learning English and students from high poverty backgrounds would be left behind.
“ Vouchers are about allowing private schools to pick and choose who they admit, leaving the most vulnerable children behind,” she said.
Congress passed the new tax credit last year as part of its legislative package that came to be known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It allows taxpayers to claim up to $1,700 in credits on their federal taxes for donations made to scholarship-granting nonprofit organizations. Trump administration officials have said those nonprofits can include private schools, after-school programs and organizations that support public schools.
Hochul, a Democrat who is running for re-election this year, signaled her interest in signing on to the program last spring during a meeting with leaders of Agudath Israel of America, a Jewish organization that supports religious education. She said at the time that she expected it would benefit New York parents, but that she was awaiting more information.
Under the federal legislation, families who earn up to 300% of the local area median income are eligible. In New York City, that works out to a cap of around $500,000.
The federal government is expected to release more details about the program later this month.
Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city’s teachers union, said that he hoped that Hochul would reconsider her support for the program, but said his union would not withdraw its support for her.
Teachers unions urge NY Gov. to reconsider participation in 'school choice' program
gothamist.com
Gov. Kathy Hochul has said she plans to join a federal “school choice” program. Teachers unions hope she will reconsider.
California’s largest teachers union sues state over nearly $6 billion in withheld school funding
www.eastbaytimes.com/2026/09/15/californias-largest-teachers-union-sues-state-over-nearly-6-billi…
It’s the second time a major education group has sued over Newsom’s attempt to defer school funding due to state budget shortfalls
FILE – California Gov. Gavin Newsom attends the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Los Angeles, July 14, 2026. (AP Photo_Jae C. Hong, File)
.jpeg
FILE – California Gov. Gavin Newsom attends the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Los Angeles, July 14, 2026. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
Molly Gibbs is a Bay Area News Group reporter.webp
By MOLLY GIBBS | mgibbs@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: September 15, 2026 at 4:49 PM PDT | UPDATED: September 15, 2026 at 5:38 PM PDT
California’s largest teachers union sued state officials Tuesday over nearly $6 billion in withheld school funding, alleging that budget actions approved by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature violated the state’s constitutional education funding guarantee.
The lawsuit filed by the California Teachers Association, which represents 310,000 educators, seeks intervention from the courts to recover the $1.9 billion in education funds withheld by Gov. Gavin Newsom in the 2024-25 school year, as well as $3.9 billion withheld in the revised state budget the Legislature approved in July.
It’s the second time a major education group has sued over Newsom’s attempt to defer school funding due to state budget shortfalls. The California School Boards Association sued in 2024 over his proposal to withhold $8.8 billion in education funds, which was later reduced to $1.9 billion withheld.
Newsom’s move has repeatedly drawn widespread criticism from educators, districts and school leaders across the state, who argued it would further exacerbate teacher shortages and threaten the quality of education in California, as districts across the state struggle with multimillion-dollar budget deficits and thousands of layoffs.
The California School Boards Association said Tuesday its 2024 lawsuit is ongoing and announced plans to file a new lawsuit next week over the $3.9 billion education funds deferred earlier this year.
“Withheld funds result in reduced classroom supports, increased class sizes, fewer counselors, diminished mental health resources and diminished staffing,” said CSBA’s president Debra Schade in a statement Tuesday. “We trust the judiciary will see the unconstitutional nature of the state’s actions and restore the funds that have been improperly taken from California’s public schools.”
The new California Teachers Association’s lawsuit names the Director of the California Department of Finance, Joe Stephenshaw and the California State Controller, Malia Cohen as defendants, along with four other unnamed parties. Newsom is not explicitly named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The California Teachers Association did not respond to a question about why Newsom was not named in the lawsuit.
The education funds at the center of the dispute are sent to schools under Proposition 98, a 1988 ballot measure approved by voters that sets aside roughly 40% of the state’s general fund for K-12 schools and community colleges.
Each year’s Prop 98 funding guarantee is calculated through a complex formula based on a percentage of the state’s general fund revenues or by using the amount schools received the prior year, with some adjustments for attendance and inflation.
The Governor’s Office deferred a request for comment to the California Department of Finance.
Newsom has said the move to defer the 2025-26 funding was necessary to create a cushion for the state in a time of uncertain revenue projections, since the state does not immediately know the finalized amount owed under Prop 98 when it prepares the budget.
H.D. Palmer, the spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said the Legislature approved this year’s proposal to create $3.9 billion in “settle-up” funds, which was intended to mitigate the risk of potentially appropriating more funds to schools than is ultimately available — exactly what happened in the 2024-25 fiscal year, when the state said income tax revenue collections fell short of projections, so schools received more money than they should have. As a result, Newsom’s administration wanted to lower the baseline funding requirements to account for the lower state revenues.
Palmer also said the Department of Finance disputes educators’ claims that the settle-up funding maneuver is a reason for school layoffs and pointed out that its unwise for school districts to base long-term expenditures, like salary contracts, on a funding source that fluctuates.
But the teachers union argued in its lawsuit Tuesday that the withholding of the funds for both years is unconstitutional, and it is asking the courts to safeguard Prop. 98 funds against future attempts to withhold public school funding.
“We are demanding a return of the funds that have been withheld so that our students and communities can be saved from yet another year of devastating educator layoffs and unnecessary cuts,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, in a statement Tuesday. “At a time when the Trump administration is working to erode our democracy, California’s elected leaders should uphold our constitution and the will of the voters.”
In April, Bay Area school leaders formed a first-of-its-kind coalition, in which leaders from San Jose, Fremont, Oakland, Antioch, West Contra Costa, San Ramon Valley, San Francisco and Napa school districts joined with Los Angeles school officials to sign a formal letter to California’s state elected leaders calling on lawmakers to reject the plan and address major funding issues facing public schools across the state.
A month later, a group of school boards, administrators, teachers, classified employees, county superintendents, parents and school business officials also spoke out against the plan and urged the legislature to reject Newsom’s proposal, which they said would reduce school funding by approximately $643 per student statewide.
“We warned that local school districts would threaten layoffs, school closures and kick off the new school year with cuts when our students deserve investments,” Goldberg said Tuesday, pointing out that nearly 1,000 public school educators were laid off last year. “Even just a threat of withholding Prop. 98 dollars led school districts to justify these devastating layoff notices.”
In the Bay Area, several districts have announced layoffs, budget cuts or school closures over the last year in an attempt to repair gaping budget deficits and address financial challenges associated with declining enrollment.
Earlier this year, Oakland Unified School District voted to lay off more than 400 staff to address a $100 million budget deficit, while the West Contra Costa Unified School District approved nearly 200 staff layoffs and the merger of two schools to address its $87 million budget deficit.
East Side Union High School District in San Jose also moved to cut 85 staff positions earlier this year, as the district faces a $25 million budget deficit.
San Jose Unified closed five elementary school campuses earlier this year to address a 20% decline in enrollment since 2017, leaders said.
Newsom’s 2026-27 California state budget included a record $128 billion investment in K-12 public education, as well as an additional $5 billion block grant for districts struggling with declining enrollment.
The California School Boards Association’s chief spokesperson, Troy Flint, said Tuesday that Newsom has been relatively generous in his funding commitments for California schools and students. But he said that not treating Prop 98 as “sacrosanct” could set a dangerous precedent that allows the funding formula to be violated for years to come.
“Prop 98 is not a credit card to be charged at the state’s convenience,” Vernon Billy, the organization’s CEO and executive director, said in a statement Tuesday.
California’s largest teachers union sues state over nearly $6 billion in withheld school funding
www.eastbaytimes.com
It’s the second time a major education group has sued over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s attempt to defer school funding due to state budget shortfalls.