When in-person instruction resumed statewide, much of the conversation centered on a “return to normalcy.” It was a huge relief to welcome students back to campus and see the type of engagement that best facilitates high-quality teaching and learning. Yet, as refreshing as this year has been in some respects, it’s a far cry from normal.

The pandemic has required departures from the regular school routine and left students, staff, parents and governance boards scrambling to contain its impact. The results have been decidedly mixed. There have been demonstrations of great resolve as trustees and school staff have worked to keep schools open and operational despite mounting challenges. Those efforts have resulted in increased opportunities for students to learn, to develop and to simply experience joy at school.

Yet, many students have struggled both during the period of school closure and in the early stages of our return to on-campus instruction. Sadly — and perhaps predictably — the children who have suffered the most are overwhelmingly members of traditionally underserved student groups. The trials of the last two years have exacerbated longstanding disparities in California’s schools as well as those across the country.

Student close contacts who have completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines or were previously infected with (laboratory confirmed) SARS-CoV-2 within the last 90 days should NOT quarantine if they do not have symptoms.

Student close contacts who have not completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines nor were previously infected with (laboratory confirmed) SARS-CoV-2 within the last 90 days may undergo a modified quarantine when both parties were wearing a mask, as required in K-12 indoor settings, and may continue to attend school if they:

• are asymptomatic;
• continue to appropriately mask, as required;

Among the many education provisions in the proposed budget plan, one of the most significant is protections for LEAs experiencing declining enrollment. The plan would change how the LCFF apportionment is calculated to consider the greater of a school district’s current year, prior year or the average of three prior years’ average daily attendance, for an ongoing cost of $1.2 billion Proposition 98 General Funds.

“In 2018, the Bakersfield City School District took direct action to develop an Educational Equity Board Policy to identify and address all disparities in educational outcomes for the purpose of targeting areas for action, intervention and investment for disadvantaged students,” said BCSD Superintendent Mark Luque. “The PROUD Academy reflects the purpose and intent of the policy through intentional and direct access to programs and services for African American students. These intentional and direct actions provide students a launching point to engage and succeed in educational opportunities that were not previously available to them. Through these supports, students are engaged, motivated and supported to reach academic success.”

The meeting was also the last for long-time members Ting Sun, Patricia Rucker, Sue Burr and Vice President Ilene W. Straus. Their departure was met with heartfelt messages from former Gov. Jerry Brown, who had appointed all four, Board President Linda Darling-Hammond and others.

The implications of the California Department of Education’s release of 2020–21 assessment data, which included student outcomes on the CAASPP and various other tests, were discussed. Just 25 percent of students took the 2020–21 state assessments, as many districts remained in distance learning until late spring 2020. However, the results of their locally administered tests that met specific criteria approved by the board generally show similar findings, according to a WestEd analysis.

The California Department of Education released a highly anticipated student data set for the 2020 –21 school year that includes achievement scores from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), graduation rates, suspension rates and chronic absentee data. This data is an early look at some of the impacts the pandemic has had on students. While graduation and absentee data raise concerns for many of California’s historically underserved student groups, CAASPP scores are considerably constrained compared to typical years and important nuances must be considered.

Due to the educational challenges exacerbated by the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Education waived student testing requirements in 2019–20. However, federal testing requirements were reinstated in 2020–21, and the department granted states flexibility to accommodate local needs. This flexibility allowed districts to administer shortened versions of statewide assessments, offer remote administration of tests (when possible) and extend standard testing windows. School districts that could not administer CAASPP tests were required to administer local assessments that met specific criteria approved by the State Board of Education. If districts gave those local assessments, student scores were not included in the CAASPP data, but instead, are to be included in districts’ School Accountability Report Cards.

At the start of the 2021–22 school year amid the COVID-19 pandemic, California’s schools eagerly welcomed students back to the classroom, utilizing various mitigation measures to support in-person instruction. Many students in California spent significant portions of the 2020–21 academic year attending school remotely, and local educational agencies and the state government pushed for more in-person learning in the current school year. To promote on-campus learning in the 2021–22 school year, the state restricted the use of distance learning in the 2021 Education Trailer Bill, Assembly Bill 130. The new law did away with distance learning as it existed during the 2020– 21 school year and instead required LEAs to offer students the option of independent study.

While the use of teleconferencing for board meetings has historically been authorized by the Brown Act when specified requirements are met, more flexibility was initially given to districts and county offices of education through the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 in March 2020.

“Public agencies struggled to conduct their meetings in compliance with the public accessibility and transparency requirements of the Brown Act and Bagley-Keene Acts while still abiding by stay-at-home orders,” according to an Assembly Floor Analysis. “Given the temporary nature of the executive order, the pandemic’s lasting impact, and the threat of other emergencies that may make in-person gatherings unsafe, a longer lasting solution seemed necessary.”

During the webinar, “Examining the Evidence: What We’re Learning From the Field About Implementing High-Dosage Tutoring Programs,” hosted by Education Week on Jan. 13, experts and district leaders discussed the elements of high-dosage tutoring, shared evidence-based characteristics of high-quality programs and gave a glimpse at ways local educational agencies from across the U.S. are implementing them.

As originally presented, AB 824 mirrored the language in AB 709 (2019), which applies to the appointment of student board members to local district boards. Early in the legislative process, county board members on the CSBA Legislative Committee engaged in the analysis of the bill and worked with CSBA Senior Legislative Advocate Carlos Machado to bring attention to the distinct responsibilities of county boards and the distinct needs of the students directly served by them.