In This Moment (11/12): 2021-22 Perkins V Application and Election Results
The California Department of Education (CDE) recently shared updates regarding the Perkins V 2021-22 school year application process, including the process for new applicants, and how a current Perkins Consortium can use the Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) Amendment form to make changes to the previous year’s application.
In addition, the November election results are mostly in. California voters did not approve multiple education-related propositions, including Proposition 15, which would have likely generated around $3-4 billion each year for schools.
If you have additional policy updates that would be valuable for the Linked Learning field, please share them with Iish@LinkedLearning.org.
The CDE recently emailed an update to California Technical Education (CTE) and Perkins Coordinators regarding the Intent to Apply forms for first time Perkins Applicants (or applicants returning after an absence) that want to participate in Perkins V for the 2021-22 school year. Before submitting the Intent to Apply forms by the January 31st due date, LEAs will need to talk with their CDE Perkins Consultant to ensure they meet all necessary requirements.
Contact information for these consultants is as follows:
- Bryan Baker (Regions 8-11): 916-319-9224 and email@example.com
- Char Cowan (Regions 1, 2, 3, and 6): 916-323-4747 and firstname.lastname@example.org
- Robert Wilson (Regions 4, 5, and 7): 916-319-0675 and email@example.com
Changes to a current Perkins Consortium must be filed with the Perkins Office via the LEA Amendment form, which can be found here. This is the responsibility of the LEAD member to submit.
Additionally, all Perkins V data will now be reported in CALPADS, using the CDE’s deadlines for reporting. Reporting forms can be found here.
California voters narrowly rejected Proposition 15, which would have split commercial and industrial property from residential tax rolls, reassessed them more frequently, and dedicated those tax revenues to local governments and schools. The measure would have likely generated around $3-4 billion each year for schools in a time of increasing need.
Education groups will likely begin discussing an effort to generate additional school funding in 2022. The effort may resemble the “Full and Fair Funding” initiative championed by the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) and California School Boards Association (CSBA) last year. That approach would tax high-income earners and corporations, an approach which polled well with voters prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Proposition 16 was also rejected by voters. It would have repealed Proposition 209 from 1996, reversing the ban on affirmative action and permitting the use of race, gender, and ethnic diversity as factors in college admissions, government hiring, and government contracting. While it is unclear what lies ahead, proponents of Proposition 16 in the state remain committed to change regardless of the defeat of the measure. UC President Michael Drake said, “We will continue our unwavering efforts to expand underrepresented groups’ access to a UC education.” UC Regents Chair John Perez added, “The failure of Proposition 16 means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity.”
California voters also defeated Proposition 18, which would have allowed 17 year-olds to vote in Primary and Special Elections if they turned 18 before the following General Election. Supporters claim early voting would encourage young people to be more engaged in the democratic process at an earlier age. Opponents argue 17 year-olds simply don’t have adequate life experience to vote.