
Is California capable of prying loose Trump's grip on the nation? The fate of this bill will tell us
How's that effort going in California?
In short — not well.
If you pay attention to California politics, you likely heard about the death this week of SB677, a bill to make it easier to split single-family-home lots for duplexes or fourplexes, and the near killing of SB79, which would allow multifamily housing up to seven stories near major transit stops — both from state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco.
The bills' primary assailant was state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, chair of the Senate Housing Committee, who has leaned on the tired refrain that efforts to streamline new housing production are 'giveaways for developers,' partly because they reduce the ability of local governments to weigh in on projects.
Wahab's insistence on fighting for California's failed status quo on housing, even as American democracy sinks around us, rightly drew outrage.
But for an even bleaker example of how state leaders are failing to rise to the urgency of the moment, Californians should consider the response to AB1121 from Assembly Member Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park (Los Angeles County).
The seemingly uncontroversial bill would require California teachers in transitional kindergarten through fifth grade to be trained in the 'science of reading,' which emphasizes the importance of foundational literacy skills, including phonics — or sounding out words. It would also require schools to adopt an evidence-based reading curriculum in transitional kindergarten through eighth grade. Backed by decades of interdisciplinary research, this approach has proven to be particularly effective in teaching young kids how to read — regardless of their mother language.
California schools and teachers currently have a fair amount of leeway in the curriculum they use, and the state doesn't track those materials or how effective they are. But a review of more than 300 of the state's largest school districts conducted by the California Reading Coalition found that fewer than 2% use programs aligned with the science of reading.
The results speak for themselves.
Nearly 60% of our third graders didn't meet state standards for English language arts and literacy in the 2023-24 school year. Meanwhile, poverty-stricken red states such as Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have surged ahead of California in childhood literacy after adopting mandatory foundational literacy teaching and training.
That California childhood literacy rates have fallen significantly beneath those of the poorest state in the nation should be considered a stain on the progressive values this state claims to stand for.
Yet last year, California Democrats silently killed a bipartisan bill to mandate the science of reading, refusing to even discuss the topic publicly. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, and Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, D-Rolling Hills Estates (Los Angeles County), who leads the Assembly Education Committee (and is running for state superintendent of public instruction next year) tabled the bill without a hearing amid fierce opposition from influential interest groups — including the California Teachers Association and Californians Together, which advocates for English language learners.
Yes, you read that correctly — ensuring California kids receive the most effective reading lessons didn't even merit a discussion among Democrats in the face of union opposition.
Rubio's bill faced similar hurdles this year.
Most enraging is that the state's English language arts framework already underscores that foundational reading skills 'should be given high priority' among other strategies in early literacy instruction. State law also requires teacher candidates to demonstrate their fluency in evidence-based foundational reading methods to receive their credential.
Meanwhile, literacy rates at some of California's lowest-performing schools improved significantly after adopting this curriculum.
So what's behind the reluctance to implement this approach more widely?
Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, told the editorial board that Rubio's bill was too narrowly focused on foundational skills and didn't take into account the needs of English language learners. But nothing in Rubio's bill precludes teachers from incorporating other reading strategies and approaches — it merely codifies the state's existing stance, which is that foundational skills should be prioritized.
Meanwhile, Leslie Littman, vice president of the California Teachers Association, argued the bill would weaken local control over education. 'Teacher input, teacher voice, in the decision-making process with the curriculum and the development of that are vitally important,' she said. Littman also said the bill doesn't come with funding — though Rubio told the editorial board there's money for curriculum development and teacher training in Newsom's proposed budget.
In short, the arguments against AB1121 are nonsensical.
'These are children's lives,' Rubio, a longtime elementary school teacher who was herself an English language learner, said. 'If they miss something in their educational career, it does affect them for the rest of their life.'
That lawmakers have been wrangling for years over whether to even consider such a common-sense bill is absurd.
How can California Democrats say with a straight face they're governing responsibly when kids here are being outperformed by students in far poorer school districts in the Deep South? How long will they continue to use abstract ideological concepts like local control to protect policies that clearly aren't working?
On the Thursday legislative deadline for education-related bills to be scheduled for a hearing, Rubio's bill still hadn't been put on the calendar for the Assembly Education Committee. But, at the last minute, a deal was struck with Assembly leadership for a compromise bill — the details of which haven't yet been made public.
It's comical that a compromise was necessary for such a critically important bill to even stand a chance of passing through the California Legislature.
What, exactly, is politically challenging about ensuring that our youngest kids learn to read? Isn't California ranking far below Mississippi for early childhood literacy not enough of a wake-up call?
Mississippi, incidentally, also had the lowest rate of homelessness in the United States in 2023. It's a sad day when struggling families who want to stay housed and ensure their kids learn to read have a better shot in the dark-red Deep South than they do in California.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom praised for new online posting style: All Caps and mimicking Trump
California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is earning plaudits for his recent trolling of President Donald Trump by mimicking his social media habits, including all-caps posts. Newsom, a frequent foil for the president's social media outbursts, took to X Tuesday night to blast 'DONALD 'TACO' Trump,' -- a reference to 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' coined by a financial columnist over the president's back-and-forth tariff policies. Trump has been pushing several red states to gerrymander their congressional maps to give Republicans an upper hand, amid growing fears that the GOP could lose the House in next year's midterms. The maps are typically redrawn every ten years following the census, and not in the middle of the decade. Newsom sent Trump a letter Monday calling on him to end the 'unprecedented, mid-decade, hyper-partisan gerrymander to rig the upcoming midterm elections.' 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' he wrote. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.' Newsom subsequently posted on X that Trump had 24 hours to respond to the letter. On Tuesday, as the deadline passed, he wrote: 'DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!).' 'BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA,'' he added. 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!' Sports reporter Emily Bicks wrote on Threads: 'Gavin Christopher Newsom keepin the no f***s energy comin.' Liberal social media commentator, Harry Sisson, wrote: 'I absolutely love how Gavin Newsom is treating Donald Trump with the disdain and disrespect that he absolutely deserves.' Journalist Karly Kingsley added: 'I don't think we're giving Gavin Newsom enough credit for what he's doing to defend democracy and to stop a wannabe dictator from consolidating power.' Attorney and Never Trump-er George Conway joined the presidential mockery, writing in response to Newsom: 'Many people, big strong men with tears in their eyes, will soon be saying, 'Sir, you have the most Amazing State, with the Most Beautiful Maps. No one has ever seen anything like this. Your Excellency, Sir, we are in awe of your Incomparable Gubernatorialicityness'.' But not all were on board with Newsom's style change. The Chief Strategy and Public Affairs Officer at Future Caucus, an organization for young lawmakers, Reed Howard, wrote: 'Race-to-the-bottom politics is a darn shame. America deserves better than this. I want real leadership.' Reporter Alex Gault added: 'If this becomes a lasting approach to political communications, I will be committing myself to whatever mental hospital still does lobotomies.' Last month, Trump asked Texas to redraw its maps to hand Republicans another five House seats in the state. Texas Democrats left the state to deny Republicans the ability to move forward with their proposal. Democrats then said they would look to redraw maps in blue states such as Illinois, California, and New York, prompting Republicans to consider taking action in Ohio and Indiana. California has an independent commission that draws political maps, and if Newsom moves ahead with his threat, he would need passage of a special ballot in November.


Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded 'public benefit' programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate 'chilling effect' on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader 'ripple effects' — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as 'a critical safety net' for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. 'Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,' Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the 'chilling effect' from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to 'seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.' Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. 'Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,' she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's 'safety-net' care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. 'But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,' Chawla wrote. 'This will exacerbate their health conditions.' Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. 'The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,' Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies 'merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,' and 'restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.' The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.


Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Harvard and the Trump administration are nearing a settlement including a $500 million payment
WASHINGTON — Harvard University and the Trump administration are getting close to an agreement that would require the Ivy League university to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end investigations, according to a person familiar with the matter. The framework is still being sorted out with significant gaps to close, but both sides have agreed on the financial figure and a settlement could be finalized in coming weeks, according to the person who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard declined to comment. The agreement would end a monthslong battle that has tested the boundaries of the government's authority over America's universities. What began as an investigation into campus antisemitism escalated into an all-out feud as the Trump administration slashed more than $2.6 billion in research funding, ended federal contracts and attempted to block Harvard from hosting international students. The university responded with a pair of lawsuits alleging illegal retaliation by the administration after Harvard rejected a set of demands that campus leaders viewed as a threat to academic freedom. Details of the proposed framework were first reported by The New York Times. A $500 million payment would be the largest sum yet as the administration pushes for financial penalties in its settlements with elite universities. Columbia University agreed to pay the government $200 million as part of an agreement restoring access to federal funding, while Brown University separately agreed to pay $50 million to Rhode Island workforce development organizations. Details have not been finalized on where Harvard's potential payment would go, the person said. The Republican president has been pushing to reform prestigious universities that he decries as bastions of liberal ideology. His administration has cut funding to several Ivy League schools while pressing demands in line with his political campaign. None has been targeted as frequently or as heavily as Harvard, the richest U.S. university with an endowment valued at $53 billion. More than a dozen Democrats in Congress who attended Harvard cautioned against a settlement on Aug. 1, warning the university it may warrant 'rigorous Congressional oversight and inquiry.' Capitulating to political demands, they said, would set a dangerous precedent across all of higher education.