Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
Opponents of the bill include some low-wealth districts and advocacy groups that say the proposal does not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.
A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.
“We’re sending a message and a wrong message that some kids matter more than others,” said Lynwood Unified School District superintendent Gudiel R. Crosthwaite.
Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, had proposed a different sliding scale that would have given the lowest-wealth districts, such as Lynwood, a 95% match from the state with a 5% local contribution, while the richest districts would have received just a 5% match for a 95% local contribution.
The firm has now threatened to sue the state based on the current proposal language, which they say violates students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education.
