By Diane Lambert, EdSource.org
California’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing approved long-awaited revised Standards for the Teaching Profession on Thursday that emphasize culturally responsive teaching, social-emotional learning and family engagement.
The standards, which guide teachers’ professional development and evaluation statewide, broadly describe the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of effective experienced teachers. State law requires that they are updated regularly.
During the meeting (Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024), the overwhelming sentiment — from commissioners members, speakers from the public, and the letters received — supported the new standards; however, some asked the commission to push back the 2025-26 rollout of the new standards to allow university teacher preparation programs, school districts and commission staff more time to implement changes.
“The revised CSTP aims to rehumanize our system by focusing on the whole student, their identities and what’s meaningful in this world to them, not us,” said Leigh Dela Victoria, an instructional coach in the Fontana Unified School District in San Bernardino County.
“They have the potential to transform all of our classrooms into culturally and linguistically responsive and sustaining communities,” she said. “As a coach, I can tell you firsthand the impact this type of teaching has on students when their identities, assets and agency are valued.”
She told commission members that the current standards, approved in 2009, are out of touch with what needs to be taught in classrooms.
The six overarching domains of teaching in the new document are similar to the previous standards, and are parallel to other state standards, according to the commission. The elements within the domains include definitions and examples. The six domains are also used in the Teaching Performance Expectations, which outline what beginning teachers should know.
“The revised CSTP features several key shifts from the 2009 version, chief among them a more holistic approach to teaching and learning,” said Sarah Lillis, executive director for Teach Plus California, in a letter. “For example, the move from goal setting to designing learning experiences shifts the focus from results to students’ learning. Another notable shift is recognizing that all teachers, regardless of subject-specific credential areas, are teachers of literacy skills.”
Family engagement is a key element of new standards
The new standards also focus on family and community engagement, requiring teachers to find effective strategies for communicating and creating relationships with families.
“These standards provide an invaluable road map that will undoubtedly strengthen how teachers, schools and communities partner with families,” said Bryan Becker, of the Parent Organization Network.
Also new to the standards are two sections, one asking teachers to examine their personal attitudes and biases, and how these impact student learning, and the other asking them to reflect on their personal code of ethics.
After speakers expressed concern about the few references to English learners and students with disabilities in the document, Chair Marquita Grenot-Scheyer made a motion to approve the standards with amendments that would “shine a brighter spotlight” on those students.
She also asked that the amendment include direction to ensure teachers attend individualized education plan meetings. School staff and parents attend these meetings to review the education plan of students with special needs.
Revision put on hold for two years
According to the commission, the revision was a long time in coming. Originally adopted in the 1990s, the standards were most recently updated in 2009. An expert group of educators, administrators, researchers and state education staff came together in 2020 to update the standards. The group met online five times between June 2020 and May 2021, but work was paused a few months later “as Covid and other critical world events demanded pause and reflection.”
Over the past two years, the commission has been focused on other state initiatives that would impact the new standards, including the new PK-3 Early Childhood Specialist Instruction Credential and the implementation of revised literacy standards and literacy-related teaching performance expectations mandated by legislation. Members of the expert group returned in 2023 to review and finalize the document.
Board denies pleas for delay
The commission voted for the newly revised standards to go into effect in the 2025-26 school year, despite numerous requests by speakers to extend the rollout to give teacher preparation and induction programs and the commission staff more time to prepare for them.
Grenot-Scheyer also directed commission staff to develop an implementation plan that will support school districts and teacher preparation programs during the transition.
Audry Wiens, induction coordinator for Fontana Unified, was among those who asked the commission to delay the implementation of the standards for a year. She said programs would need to come to a common understanding of the shifts that need to take place, revise relevant documents, train mentors in induction programs and update accreditation websites.
Some wanted the standards implemented as soon as possible.
“I am not an induction program provider, but it really causes me pause to extend any sort of timelines, because we have got things to do here,” said Commissioner Megan Gross. “… I want us to capitalize on this sense of urgency that we have to do better for our kids.”
GOING DEEPER
Domain 1: Engaging and supporting all students in learning – Teachers apply knowledge about each student to activate an approach to learning that strengthens and reinforces each student’s participation, engagement, connection and sense of belonging.
Domain 2: Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning – Teachers create and uphold a safe, caring and intellectually stimulating learning environment that affirms student agency, voice, identity and development, and promotes equity and inclusivity.
Domain 3: Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning – Teachers integrate content, processes, materials and resources into a coherent, culturally relevant and equitable curriculum that engages and challenges learners to develop the academic and social–emotional knowledge and skills required to become competent and resourceful learners.
Domain 4: Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students – Teachers set a purposeful direction for instruction and learning activities, intentionally planning and enacting challenging and relevant learning experiences that foster each student’s academic and social–emotional development.
Domain 5: Assessing students for learning – Teachers employ equitable assessment practices to help identify students’ interests and abilities, to reveal what students know and can do and to determine what they need to learn. Teachers use that information to advance and monitor student progress as well as to guide teachers’ and students’ actions to improve learning experiences and outcomes.
Domain 6: Developing as a professional educator – Teachers develop as effective and caring professional educators by engaging in relevant and high-quality professional learning experiences that increase their teaching capacity, leadership development and personal well-being. Doing so enables teachers to support each student to learn and thrive.
Read More
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board and East Bay Times political editor join Planned Parenthood of Northern CA, CA Labor Federation, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, State Building and Construction Trades Council of CA and CA Federation of Teachers in endorsing Assemblyman’s campaign
CONCORD, CA – Assemblymember Tim Grayson announced new key endorsements from the San Francisco Chronicle and the East Bay Times in support of his campaign for State Senate District 9. The local newspaper Editorial Boards join a growing list of endorsers including Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund, California Labor Federation, State Treasurer, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and California Federation of Teachers.
The San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board cited Assemblymember Grayson’s experience noting, “Grayson, by contrast, has nearly a decade of state legislative experience under his belt. In his interview with us, he ticked off a few key accomplishments, including authoring laws to make it easier to build housing near BART stations, accelerate green-energy development in Contra Costa County, prioritize in-state students for admission to the University of California and crack down on predatory lending by capping interest rates for consumer loans.” Read the complete endorsement here.
Dan Borenstein, Political Editor of the East Bay Times also lauded Grayson’s legislative record and experience in their endorsement stating, “Experience and knowledge count. That’s why suburban East Bay voters should elect Assemblymember Tim Grayson to fill the state Senate seat that Steve Glazer is vacating because of term limits. The complete endorsement is accessible here.
Grayson currently represents more than half a million Contra Costa County residents in the California State Assembly. A small business owner and the former Mayor of Concord, Tim is focused on fighting for quality jobs and economic security for working families, addressing California’s housing crisis, and taking on predatory lenders and financial fraudsters across our state. Tim was the first in his family to earn a college degree. His father was a Teamster and his mother was a public transit worker. Tim has been a licensed general building contractor for nearly 30 years and operates his own small business. He is the Chair of the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee. Tim and his wife Tammy have been married for 35 years and have raised two adult children in Concord, CA.
Complete Endorsement List: A complete endorsement list is available at www.graysonforca.com/endorsements
East Bay Times
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board
Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund
California Labor Federation
California Professional Firefighters
Equality California
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
State Controller Malia Cohen
State Treasurer Fiona Ma
California Federation of Teachers
CAL FIRE Local 2881
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County
Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 104
Plasterers and Cement Masons Local 300
Housing Action Coalition
The Honorable Bob Hertzberg (former Speaker, Majority Leader and State Senator)
State Senator Bill Dodd
State Senator Melissa Hurtado
Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas
Assemblymember Evan Low
Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris
Assemblymember Sharon Quirk Silva
Assemblymember Blanca Rubio
Assemblymember Carlos Villapudua
Assemblymember Jim Wood
Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes
Assemblymember Matt Haney
Assemblymember Chris Holden
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin
Assemblymember Laura Friedman
Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Women’s Caucus Vice Chair
Assemblymember Mia Bonta
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Assemblymember Diane Papan
Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco
Contra Costa Supervisor Ken Carlson, District 4
Contra Costa Supervisor Diane Burgis, District 3
Contra Costa Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District 5
Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia, District 1
Contra Costa Supervisor Candace Andersen, District 2
Pleasant Hill Vice Mayor Matt Rin
Pleasant Hill Councilmember Sue Noack
El Cerrito Councilmember Gabe Quinto
Sheet Metal Workers Local 104
For more information about Grayson and his campaign click, here.
The primary election is March 5 and he faces only one opponent in the race. So, both will face off in the November general election.
Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.
Read More
Using federal land, not cash
By Allen D. Payton, Publisher
During this Black History Month, as I’ve been arguing for several years, I believe it’s time for all Americans to agree the promised reparations to freed slave families following the Civil War in 1865 should finally be fulfilled – but to their descendants.
First, let me point out the fact – especially to my fellow Republicans who might oppose them – that reparations were first, a Republican idea, ordered by Union Army Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and supported by President Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president. As a reminder, the Republican Party was formed to abolish slavery, and Lincoln and the Union Army successfully fought the Civil War to accomplish that goal.
40 Acres & A Mule
You may have heard the phrase “40 acres and a mule”, which was made more popularly known by movie actor and director Spike Lee who labeled his production company “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks”. But you may not know that the phrase originated with reparations. That’s because Special Field Orders No. 15 were issued by Sherman on January 16, 1865, before the Civil War ended that May, granting “a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground” to families, “made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States He also later ordered the army to lend mules to the freed slaves for their farming efforts.
The orders included the confiscation of 400,000 acres of plantation land along “a strip of (Atlantic) coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland 30 miles in from the coast.” The land was to be divided into parcels on which approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Black people then living in the area would be settled.
The purpose was to provide for the freed slaves both a means to earn a living and support themselves, and the result would have been giving them an asset that could be passed on to future generations.
According to History.com, “The freedmen set out to begin working their new land immediately, with a group of 1,000 settling on Georgia’s Skidaway Island. In subsequent months as many as 40,000 freedmen settled on the redistributed land.”
Order Rescinded
Unfortunately, after Lincoln’s assassination just three months after the order was issued, his running mate on the National Union Party ticket in 1864, Democrat Vice President Andrew Johnson, following his ascension to the presidency, rescinded Sherman’s order. He returned to Confederate owners the 400,000 acres of land. Thus, the freed slaves were denied the land they had been granted and reparations were never offered to them by the federal government, again.
Why Reparations Now?
Some people argue that it’s been over 150 years, so why do Black Americans need reparations, today? My initial response is that they’re long past due. But my main answer is two-fold. One is the fact that a major issue among most Blacks in the U.S., today is a lack of asset ownership, including homes, real estate, investments and businesses. For example, the average Black family has one-tenth the assets of the average white family in the U.S.
Disparity in Household Wealth
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Wealth and Asset Ownership Detailed Tables: 2020, Table 1. Median Value of Assets for Households, from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Survey Year 2021, the median net worth for all households was $140,800. However, when broken down by ethnicity, the median “Black alone” household had one-tenth the assets of the median “White alone” household, or $18,430 compared to $178,500. The disparity is even greater when compared to the median “White alone, non-Hispanic” household which had assets of $217,500.
My argument for the disparity and second one in favor of why reparations, now is the fact that for nearly 250 years, almost all Blacks in the U.S. couldn’t own property because they were property, nor did they get paid. They also couldn’t get an education. So, the rest of us, whose ancestors were never subjected to the horrors and evil of chattel slavery, in effect had a 250-year head start!
Yes, I’ve heard the arguments about the Irish, which is my ancestry, and how they were mistreated, or others who were indentured servants. But those were not the same as being a slave sold, bought and owned by someone else, as well as their future generations to follow.
A Federal Responsibility, Not State or Local
Second, reparations are not a state or local issue, but a federal responsibility. Long before the day the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, and in spite of the fact it enshrined the statement that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and then from the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1789, to Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, our federal government allowed slavey. It continued for another 65 years after the Constitution was ratified on May 29, 1790, for a total of 246 years since the first African slaves were brought to our country in 1619. So, again, reparations are a federal responsibility.
(A side, historical note on the Three-Fifths Compromise and clauses in the Constitution. It was not intended by the framers to further devalue the lives of slaves, but to reduce the influence in Congress by the slave states, by preventing them from having additional members in the House of Representatives and a greater number of electors in presidential elections. The slave states wanted to include the slaves in the census count, while the free states didn’t want them included at all. The compromise determined that three out of every five slaves were counted when establishing a state’s total population. A benefit to the slave states was it reduced the amount of taxes they had to pay to the federal government.
In Article I, Section II, Clause III of the Constitution, the Three-Fifths Compromise is stated as:
“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”
See also James Madison’s writings in Federalist Paper No. 54 in which he argues that slaves were both property and people, and thus required some degree of representation).
But I digress. Back to the issue at hand.
Reparations Are About Land, An Asset
Third, to my Democrat friends I remind them, reparations were initially land and that’s what they still should be, today, not cash. They should be about helping Black Americans own an asset for their use, from which to generate income and to pass on to future generations.
The federal government owns over one-fourth of the land in the U.S. According to a 2020 report and 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service, it amounts to “roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States”.
Looking at a map you’ll see the federal land is “heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), 3 where the federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area.” That includes 45.4% of California, 60.9% of Alaska, 38.6% of Arizona, 36.2% of Colorado, 20.2% of Hawaii, 61.9% of Idaho, 29.0% of Montana, 80.1% of Nevada, 52.5% of Oregon, 63.1% of Utah, 28.6% of Washington and 46.7% of Wyoming. The federal government also owns 12.9% of Florida.
Much of that land is either in national parks (79.9 million acres), in national forests (192.9 million acres) or is farm and ranch land leased to farmers and ranchers. Five federal agencies administer most of it, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. with the Department of Defense controlling 8.8 million acres, and 4% administered by multiple other agencies.
So, my proposal is to give to all Black Americans, who can prove they are a descendant of a slave in America, some of that federal land. It can either be given out on an individual or family basis.
While not all Black Americans are descendants of a slave in the U.S. – for example, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose father descended from a Jamaican slave, would not qualify – for simple calculation purposes let’s say all of them are. Blacks currently make up about 13% of the U.S. population of about 330 million people for a total of 40 million people.
If we gave every Black American one, two or even five acres, that would be 40, 80 or as much as 200 million acres which would still leave 440 million acres remaining for ownership and use by the federal government. (Frankly, I don’t understand why the federal government needs to own so much land, especially ranch land for grazing, anyway.)
The new owners could do what they want with the land: farm it, drill it for oil, gas or water, mine it, lease it, swap it with other reparation land recipients, build a home on it, borrow against it, or perhaps form joint ventures with neighboring property owners and develop new communities, even cities. But I believe the one stipulation should be the land could only be sold to another descendant of an American slave. Then, it could be passed on to future generations.
Another argument I’ve heard or read about reparations is, why should people today have to pay anything when neither they nor their family ever owned slaves. This approach addresses that concern. By giving out federal land, there would be no cost to current taxpayers. While it might reduce revenue to the federal government from a reduction in leased lands, that’s a small price to pay for addressing this 160-year-old matter once and for all time.
No One Has to Participate
Some Black people have stated publicly they don’t need or want the help and find it offensive that they be offered reparations. Let’s be clear, no one who is qualified has to participate in a federal reparations program. But I believe most would. Who wouldn’t want free land?
Those who chose to participate would, of course, have to prove their status, and some form of reparations commission or government agency would have to be formed to verify their status and manage the distribution of the land grants. Once verified, program participants would be entered into a lottery and the property could be distributed in periodic drawings. It could even be televised nationally as the participants’ numbers are drawn, and advertising could be sold, and the revenue shared with the federal government to make up for the loss of land lease revenue.
One Time Program May Take Several Years
To sum up, I say it’s time, once and for all, to fulfill the commitment of reparations ordered in 1865 and give portions of federally owned land to the descendants of slaves in the U.S. It might take several years to accomplish, but I believe we should and could start right away. Once the land has been distributed and all who want it received their share, then that would be it. We’d be done. Everyone would be happy, and there could be no more complaining. The agency would be disbanded, the issue would be put to rest, and it would be up to the new landowners to make do with theirs what they can.
Now, all we need is for Members of Congress and U.S. Senators to introduce the idea and move it forward.
Read MoreBy Suzanne Hale, Communications Specialist, America’s Best Restaurants
SAN RAMON: – Local restaurant Shish Grill will be hosting a visit from America’s Best Restaurants (ABR) in early March 2024.
America’s Best Restaurants, a national media and marketing company focusing on bringing attention to local, independently-owned restaurants, will bring its ABR Roadshow to Shish Grill in Samon restaurant on March 7th. Popular dishes will be highlighted, along with an extensive on-camera interview with owners Guss and Nancy Annan about the restaurant’s special place in the community. The episode will be aired extensively on social media channels at a later date.
Providing authentic Mediterranean food in the San Ramon area, Shish Grill offers an extensive menu of Greek, Lebanese and Mediterranean food served in a casual setting. The space is also home to an international market where produce, ready-made foods and pantry staples can also be purchased.
Shish Grill has a commitment to reduce use of disposable products to save money and help the environment. By using reusable dishware, the restaurant reduces their use of plasticware by tens of thousands of pieces a year.
The healthy cuisine, which includes many vegetarian and vegan options, is popular with the community; Shish Grill offers catering for all sizes of group gatherings. Popular items include the Shish Plate, a mix of beef, chicken, and kafta kabobs with rice and vegetables; chicken shawarma; and Spicy Chicken, noted on the menu as chef Nancy’s favorite, which is chicken breast stir-fried with onions, bell peppers, roasted garlic and housemade shish grill hot sauce.
Shish Grill has won East Bay Times’ “Best in East Bay 2023” for several categories several years in a row, including 2023 Best Neighborhood Grocery and Best Barbecue.
America’s Best Restaurants will be filming on location on Thursday March 7th from 2 pm to 5 pm PST. The press is invited to attend. The restaurant’s finished episode premiere date will be announced on their Facebook page and will be featured on America’s Best Restaurants’ website at https://americasbestrestaurants.com/rests/california/shish-grill.
Restaurants featured on the ABR Roadshow are found through customer nominations or by a restaurant applying to be featured at www.americasbestrestaurants.com.
About Shish Grill: Open Monday through Saturday, Shish Grill is located at 1061 Market Place in San Ramon, CA. Telephone is (925) 415-3270. For more information visit www.theshishgrill.com.
About ABR: America’s Best Restaurants, a national media and restaurant marketing company based in Florence, KY, travels the country telling the stories and highlighting the unique food of locally owned independent restaurants as part of their ABR Roadshow. Restaurants are featured not only on ABR’s Restaurant Network of social media channels and website, but also each individual establishment’s Facebook page. With over 1000 episodes filmed, America’s Best Restaurants is the premier marketing agency for restaurant owners and operators to have their story broadcast coast-to-coast. Visit AmericasBestRestaurants.com to learn more and to view the episodes and profiles of hundreds of America’s Best Restaurants!
Read More
SACRAMENTO, Calif.— California State Parks’ Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) today announced plans to control aquatic invasive plants in the west coast’s largest estuary, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its southern tributaries. Starting March 6 through Nov. 30, 2024, DBW crews will begin herbicide treatments on water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, Alligator weed, Brazilian waterweed, curly leaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort in the Delta. Depending on weather conditions and plant growth/movement, treatment dates may change. Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth will be controlled using mechanical harvesting efforts through December 2024.
DBW works with local, state, and federal entities to better understand the plants and implement new integrated control strategies to increase efficacy. These aquatic invasive plants have no known natural controls and negatively affect the Delta’s ecosystem as they displace native plants. Continued warm temperatures help the plants proliferate at high rates. Plants are also known to form dense mats of vegetation creating safety hazards for boaters, obstructing navigation channels, marinas, and irrigation systems. Due to their ability to rapidly spread to new areas, it is likely that the plants will never be eradicated from Delta waters. Therefore, DBW operates a “control” program as opposed to an “eradication” program.
“Thank you to the public and partners for working with us on combating these aquatic invasive plants,” said DBW’s Deputy Director Ramona Fernandez. “Together we are mitigating their impacts on the lives of all who live, work, and recreate in the Delta.”
All herbicides used in DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program are registered for aquatic use with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Treated areas will be monitored to ensure herbicide levels do not exceed allowable limits and follow EPA-registered label guidelines. The public may view the public notices and sign up to receive weekly updates on this year’s treatment season on DBW’s website.
Below is a list of proposed control actions for the 2024 treatment season:
Floating Aquatic Vegetation (Public Notice)
Water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, and alligator weed.
Herbicide Control
- Proposed Treatment Period
All Sites: March 6, 2024 – Nov. 30, 2024 - Type of Herbicides: Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Imazamox, or Diquat
- Potential Treatment Areas: Initially in and/or around, but not limited to the following areas: San Joaquin River, Old River, Middle River, Fourteen Mile Slough, and Snodgrass Slough.
Mechanical Harvesting (If necessary)
- Harvesting Dates: March 2024 – April 2024 and July 2024 – December 2024
- Mechanical Harvesting Sites: Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth. See the Public Notice for potential mechanical harvesting control areas.
Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (Public Notice)
Brazilian waterweed, curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort.
Herbicide Control
- Treatment Period: Starting March 6, 2024, through Nov. 30, 2024, treatment period is based upon DBW field survey data, water temperatures and fish surveys.
- Type of Herbicide: Fluridone, Endothall or Diquat.
- Potential Treatment Areas: In and/or around the following areas (individual areas will be noticed prior to treatment application):
Anchorages, boat ramps and marinas: B & W Resort, Delta Marina Yacht Harbor, Grindstone Joes, Hidden Harbor Resort, Korth’s Pirates Lair, Oxbow Marina, Owl Harbor, River Point Landing, Rivers End, St. Francis Yacht Club, Tiki Lagoon, Tracy Oasis Marina, Turner Cut Resort, Vieira’s Resort, Village West Marina, and Willow Berm.
Near Old River: Berkeley Ski Club, Bullfrog Ski Club, Cruiser Haven, Delta Coves, Diablo Ski Club, Discovery Bay, Golden Gate Ski Club, Hammer Island, Italian Slough, Kings Island, Orwood Marina, Piper Slough, Sandmound Slough, Stockton Ski Club, and Taylor Slough.
Sacramento Area: French Island, Hogback, Long Island Slough, Prospect Island, Sacramento Marina, Snug Harbor, and Washington Lake.
Stockton Area: Atherton Cove, Buckley Cove, Calaveras River, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough, and Windmill Cove.
Mechanical Harvesting
This type of control method is not used for submersed aquatic vegetation. These plants are spread by fragmentation. Cutting the plants back exacerbates the problem, as shreds of the plants float away and re-propagate.
To report sightings, subscribe for program updates or more information regarding the control program, connect with us online at our website, via email at AIS@parks.ca.gov, or by phone at (888) 326-2822.
Last year, DBW treated 2,377 acres of floating aquatic vegetation and 1,405 acres of submersed aquatic vegetation. No mechanical harvesting was conducted. A combination of herbicide, biological, and mechanical control methods were used to help control invasive plants at high-priority sites in the Delta.
In 1982, California state legislation designated DBW as the lead state agency to cooperate with other state, local, and federal agencies in controlling water hyacinth in the Delta, its tributaries, and the SuisunMarsh. The Egeria Densa Control Program was authorized by law in 1997 and treatment began in 2001. In 2012, spongeplant was authorized for control upon completion of the biological assessment. In 2013, DBW was able to expand its jurisdiction to include other invasive aquatic plants, and since then other aquatic invasive plants such as Uruguay water primrose, Eurasian watermilfoil, Carolina fanwort, coontail, Alligator weed, and Ribbon weed have been added to the AIPCP program.
Revenues from boaters’ registration fees and gasoline taxes (Harbors and Watercraft RevolvingFund), provide funding for DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program.
Read More
The 2024‑25 Budget
Deficit Update
Under LAO Revenue Update, Budget Problem Grows by $15 Billion
February 20, 2024
From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, The California Legislature’s Non-Partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor
The state already faces a significant deficit this year—we estimate it totaled $58 billion under the administration’s revenue forecast at the time the Governor’s budget was proposed in January. However, recent revenue collections data reflect even further weakness relative to those estimates. Specifically, our forecast is about $24 billion below the Governor’s budget across 2022‑23 to 2024‑25. All else equal, this means the budget problem is likely to be higher at the time of the May Revision. The actual increase in the state’s budget problem will depend on a number of factors, including formula-driven spending changes, most notably Proposition 98 spending requirements for schools and community colleges. (Due to specific circumstances this year, changes in revenues are unlikely to have a significant effect on the state’s other major formula-driven spending requirements, specifically related to Proposition 2.) Roughly, a $24 billion erosion in revenues corresponds to a $15 billion increase in the budget problem. This would expand the $58 billion estimated deficit to $73 billion under our updated revenue forecast.
Options to Address $15 Billion in Additional Budget Problem
If the budget problem increases by $15 billion, the Legislature will need to find a like amount of new budget solutions to ensure the budget is balanced for 2024‑25. Budget solutions include, for example: revenue increases and spending reductions (on both a one-time and ongoing basis), as well as other tools, like reserves and cost shifts. As the Legislature considers how to address this increased budget problem, we have put together a set of tables identifying one-time and temporary spending that could be pulled back or reduced in order to achieve budgetary savings. Below, we explain why we set forth these amounts as a possible first option to addressing a larger budget problem and then walk through our method for estimating the amounts potentially available in more detail.
Why Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending?
The Legislature will weigh the implications of each possible solution—including increasing revenues and spending reductions—against others and, ultimately, choose a mix of solutions based on its priorities. We recommend the Legislature start by reviewing whether recent augmentations for one-time and temporary spending could be pulled back or reduced. We recommend this approach for two key reasons. First, when this one-time and temporary spending was adopted, it was understood that doing so would provide a cushion for future budget problems. For example, the administration frequently displayed “operating surpluses” in its multiyear forecasts excluding this type of spending—implying that the administration understood that the state could not afford all of the commitments under its own projections, but the state could afford the ongoing budget.
Second, the more the Legislature reduces one-time and temporary spending this year, the more other tools it can preserve for future budget problems. Reducing one-time and temporary spending is a “use or lose” tool for addressing the budget problem—once the funds are disbursed to recipients, pulling them back becomes practically impossible. Other tools, like reserve withdrawals and cost shifts, also can be used only once, but at any time. Saving them to deploy in the future can help the Legislature avoid cuts to ongoing services—which involve very difficult decisions. For example, in the Great Recession, the programs with some of the largest expenditure reductions were in health and human services, including to Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to low-income individuals and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which provides income assistance to low-income individuals. Although the federal government has certain requirements for minimum state participation in these programs, California provides services well above these minimums. As a result, reductions tend to be concentrated in these areas because they are the ones where the state has the most flexibility to reduce spending without raising issues related to requirements imposed by courts, the voters, and the federal government. As such, maintaining other tools like reserves and cost shifts now could help mitigate reductions in these areas in the future.
Options Possibly Available to Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending
State Allocated Large Shares of Surpluses to Temporary Purposes, Although Some Has Been Disbursed or Already Proposed for Reduction. Recent budgets allocated tens of billions of dollars in surpluses to one-time and temporary spending, including in 2023‑24, 2024‑25, and 2025‑26. Some spending, most notably for 2023‑24, has already been disbursed or encumbered. This means, for example, that grants have been awarded, funds have been transferred to other entities of government, and contracts or leases have been signed. (In some cases, funds have also been committed for 2024‑25 and 2025‑26, for example, through grant awards.) In addition, the Governor has already proposed pulling back much—but not all—of the undisbursed spending associated with these augmentations.
State Has Nearly $16 Billion in Recent One-Time and Temporary Spending That Could Possibly Still Be Pulled Back or Reduced. After setting aside disbursements and Governor’s budget proposals, we estimate the state possibly could pull back and reduce one-time and temporary augmentations by as much as $6.4 billion in 2023‑24, $4.1 billion in 2024‑25, and $5.1 billion in 2025‑26. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these amounts by program area, while the Appendix includes a complete list of them. These figures represent our current estimates of the amounts for which the Legislature has broad authority to make reductions, which could help the state address a larger budget problem in May. (In some cases, however, further disbursements could occur between now and May, such smaller amounts would be available for reduction at that time.)
Figure 1
Summary of Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending
(In Millions)
2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 | |
Business and Labor | $266 | $284 | $198 |
Criminal Justice | 130 | 40 | — |
Education | 602 | 1,195 | 1,109 |
Health and Human Services | 867 | 301 | 701 |
Housing and Homelessness | 1,599 | — | 260 |
Other | 1,752 | 557 | 432 |
Resources and Environment | 1,049 | 1,005 | 1,377 |
Transportation | 146 | 739 | 1,000 |
Totals | $6,411 | $4,121 | $5,076 |
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
This Information Reflects Our Best Current Understanding. While these estimates reflect the best information we have available, in many cases we do not have perfect information from the administration about the current status of funds. As such, we would view this list as a starting place for the Legislature as it begins crafting the final budget package. For any specific reductions, particularly in 2023‑24, the Legislature could ask the administration for detailed and up-to-date information on disbursements and encumbrances.
More Could Be Pulled Back From Earlier Years. For the purposes of this analysis, we only reviewed disbursements and encumbrances authorized for 2023‑24 and later. There is, however, additional spending attributable to 2022‑23 and earlier that has not yet been disbursed. The Legislature could ask the administration to provide information about the amount of unspent funds from these earlier years.
Appendix Tables
Appendix Figure 1
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Business and Labor
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
EDD | New IT overhaul—EDDNext | $99 | — | — |
GO Biz | California Competes Grants | 10 | — | — |
HCAI | Health and home care workforce package | 85 | $259 | $198 |
HCAI | Behavioral health workforce capacity | 52 | — | — |
HCAI | Various other health care workforce initiatives | 20 | 25 | — |
Totals | $266 | $284 | $198 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
EDD = Employment Development Department; IT = information technology; GO Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information. |
Appendix Figure 2
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Criminal Justice
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
BSCC | Adult Reentry Grant | $20 | — | — |
CDCR | Expansion of community reentry centers | 40 | $40 | — |
CDCR | Various capital projects at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center | 20 | — | — |
OES | Nonprofit Security Grant Program | 40 | — | — |
OES | Family Justice Centers | 10 | — | — |
Totals | $130 | $40 | — | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections; CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and OES = Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. |
Appendix Figure 3
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Education
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CSAC | Golden State Teacher Grants | $91 | $128 | $1 |
CSU | CSU Dominguez Hills Dymally Institute facility | 15 | — | — |
DGS | State share for school construction projects | 472 | 994 | 485 |
DGS | Construction and renovation of transitional kindergarten, State Preschool, and full‑day kindergarten facilities | — | — | 550 |
OPR | California College Corps Program | — | 73 | 73 |
UC | Cancer Research Relating to Firefighters | 7 | — | — |
UC | UC Berkeley School of Journalism Police Records Access Project | 7 | — | — |
UC | UC Los Angeles Ralph J. Bunche Center | 5 | — | — |
UC | UC Davis Equine Performance and Rehabilitation Center | 5 | — | — |
Totals | $602 | $1,195 | 1,109 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
CSAC = Student Aid Commission; DGS = Department of General Services; and OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. |
Appendix Figure 4
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Health and Human Services
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CalHHS | Health innovation accelerator initiative | — | — | $43 |
CDPH | Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years | $268 | — | — |
CDPH | COVID‑19 response | 25 | — | — |
CDPH | Public health IT systems | 9 | — | — |
CDPH | Public education and change campaign | — | $40 | 5 |
Aging | Modernizing the Older Californians Act | — | 37 | 37 |
DHCS | Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program | — | — | 235 |
DHCS | Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program | — | 100 | 381 |
DHCS | Evidence‑based and community‑defined behavioral health programs | — | 109 | — |
DSS | CalFresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot | — | 15 | — |
HCAI | Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years | 565 | — | — |
Totals | $867 | $301 | $701 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
CalHHS = Health and Human Services Agency; CDPH = California Department of Public Health; Aging = Department of Aging; DHCS = Department of Health Care Services; DSS = Department of Social Services; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information. |
Appendix Figure 5
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Housing and Homelessness
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
BCH Agencya | Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP) | $1,100 | — | $260 |
BCH Agency | Encampment Resolution Grants | 299 | — | — |
HCD | Portfolio Reinvestment Program | 100 | — | — |
HCD | Multifamily Housing Program | 75 | — | — |
HCD | Infill Infrastructure Grant Program | 25 | — | — |
Totals | $1,599 | — | $260 | |
aBy the time the HHAPP costs are incurred, the program will have transferred to from BCSH Agency to HCD. | ||||
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
BCH Agency Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and HCD = Department of Housing and Community Development. |
Appendix Figure 6
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Other
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CDT | Broadband infrastructure—increased middle‑mile network costs | $420 | $250 | — |
CPUC | Broadband infrastructure—last‑mile projects | 900 | 100 | $200 |
CPUC | Broadband infrastructure—Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund | 175 | 150 | 175 |
GO‑Biz | Fresno Infrastructure Plan | 50 | — | — |
OPR | Establish new office of public outreach | 60 | 57 | 57 |
SCO | California State Payroll System | 147 | — | — |
Totals | $1,752 | $557 | $432 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages |
||||
CDT = California Department of Technology; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; GO‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; and SCO = State Controller’s Office. |
Appendix Figure 7
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Resources and Environment
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CalEPA | Environmental Justice Initiative (Community Resilience Package) | $5 | — | — |
CalFire | Post‑fire reforestation and regeneration (Wildfire Resilience Package) | 50 | — | — |
CalFire | Emergency surge (helitanker contract component) | 45 | $45 | — |
CalFire | Forest Improvement Program (Wildfire Resilience Package) | 13 | — | — |
CalFire | Tribal engagement (Wildfire Resilience Package) | 10 | — | — |
CARB | FARMER program | 75 | — | — |
CARB | Clean Cars 4 All (ZEV Package) | 50 | — | — |
CARB | AB 617 (Community Resilience Package) | 50 | — | — |
CARB | Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) | 20 | — | — |
CEC | Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan (SB 846) | 100 | 400 | $500 |
CEC | Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (Energy Package) | 100 | 25 | 25 |
CEC | Demand Side Grid Support (Energy Package) | 95 | — | — |
CEC | Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) | — | 53 | 92 |
CNRA | Water resilience projects (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | 171 | — | — |
CNRA | Tribal nature‑based solutions program (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) | 30 | — | — |
CPUC | Residential Solar and Storage (Energy Package) | — | 50 | 100 |
DTSC | Brownfield cleanups | — | 85 | 15 |
DWR | Flood and dam safety (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | 53 | — | — |
DWR | Oroville Pump Storage (Energy Package) | 4 | 10 | 20 |
DWR | American River flood project | — | 27 | — |
DWR | Urban flood risk reduction | — | 35 | — |
DWR | Strategic Reliability Assets (Energy Package) | — | 75 | 75 |
DWR | Water conveyance, water storage (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | — | — | 500 |
Go‑Biz or CNRA | Diablo Canyon land use planning | — | — | 50 |
IBank | Transmission Financing (Energy Package) | 25 | — | — |
OPC | Ocean protection (Coastal Resilience Package) | 13 | — | — |
OPC | Coastal resilience SB 1 implementation (Coastal Resilience Package) | 1 | — | — |
OPR | Community‑Based Public Awareness Campaign (Extreme Heat Package) | 14 | — | — |
SWRCB | Water recycling, groundwater cleanup (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | 17 | — | — |
SWRCB | Drinking water and wastewater projects (Drought‑Water Resilience) | — | 200 | — |
Various | Misc Nature‑Based Solutions Package | 9 | — | — |
Various | Misc Wildfire Resilience Package | 5 | — | — |
WCB | Protect fish and wildlife from changing conditions (Nature‑Based Solutions) | 49 | — | — |
WCB | Various WCB programs (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) | 46 | — | — |
Totals | $1,049 | $1,005 | $1,377 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages |
||||
CalEPA = California Environmental Protection Agency; CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; DTSC = Department of Toxics and Substances Control; DWR = Department of Water Resources; Go‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; IBank =California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; OPC = Ocean Protection Council; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board; and WCB = Wildlife Conservation Board. |
Appendix Figure 8
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Transportation
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
Caltrans | Clean California | $146 | — | — |
CalSTA | Transit and rail funding (Transportation Infrastructure) | — | $739 | $1,000 |
Totals | $146 | $739 | $1,000 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation and CalSTA = California State Transportation Agency. |
Read More
Matthew Buckley charged with 6 felonies for actions while serving search warrant in Antioch; former Officer of the Year will serve 3 years & 8 months in prison
By Ted Asregadoo, Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office
Martinez, California – Today, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office reached a negotiated plea against 42-year-old Matthew Allen Buckley, of Pinole, for offenses that occurred when he was a deputy with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office.
Buckley was charged in February 2023 with six felonies and one misdemeanor related to offenses that occurred in 2020 and 2022. In a negotiated disposition, Buckley pled no contest to three felonies, including possession of an illegal assault weapon, filing a false police report, and preparing false documentary evidence [PC30605, PC118.1, and PC134]. Buckley will receive a three years and eight months prison sentence, which he can serve on mandatory supervised release if he successfully completes a six-month drug rehab program.
The case began in September 2020 when Buckley, assigned to the Contra Costa County Anti-Violence Support Effort (C.A.S.E), participated in a task force executing a search warrant in Antioch. During the operation, Deputy Buckley seized two illegal AR-15s, phones, laptops, heroin, and drug paraphernalia.
After seizing the AR 15s, Deputy Buckley authored a police report where he falsely claimed to have booked the firearms into evidence. Instead of booking the illegal weapons, Buckley separated the upper sections from the lower sections of the firearm. He returned possession of the upper sections of the firearms to the original owner, but never returned the lower sections of the firearms.
As part of this investigation the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department discovered that Deputy Buckley created false documents and signed for a judge without his consent on multiple search warrant returns for unrelated cases.
In August 2022 as the investigation was concluding, Deputies with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office searched Buckley’s residence and found the lower sections of the AR-15s as well as a small amount of methamphetamine.
According to his Linkedin profile, Buckley worked for the Sheriff’s Office for 15 years, including his final three years and 10 months as a detective. Previously, he had worked as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Field Training Officer and then a Station Supervisor for ProTransport-1 ambulance service in Pleasant Hill. He started his work life as a Network Security Engineer for Bank of American in Concord.
In 2019, he was named the department’s Officer of the Year.
Pursuant to California Government Code, Matthew Buckley will be legally ineligible to serve as a police officer. Moreover, convicted of felony offenses, Buckley is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.
Read MoreOne Business member, two Community members
The Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity (ACEEO) has one vacant Business seat and two vacant Community seats open to applicants. The successful candidate for the Business seat must own a business within the county, and candidate(s) for the Community seats must either work or reside within the county. All candidates must have an interest in equal employment matters. The ACEEO meets on the fourth Friday of each month from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., except for holidays.
The ACEEO assists with the implementation of the County’s Equal Employment Opportunities and Contracting Programs and serves as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. The ACEEO reviews the Equal Employment Opportunities Program and recommends actions to facilitate the attainment of the County’s goals for equal employment opportunities regardless of gender and race/ethnicity.
The Board of Supervisors established the ACEEO on July 9, 1991. The Council has thirteen (13) seats representing the following groups: 4 Community seats; 2 Labor seats; 2 Management seats; 1 Educational seat; 1 Disability seat; 1 Business seat; 1 Veteran seat; and 1 Labor/Trade seat.
Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 655- 2000 or visiting the County webpage at www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar St., 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. Applications can also be emailed to ClerkoftheBoard@cob.cccounty.us.
Applicants should plan to be available for public interviews. For further information about the ACEEO, please contact Antoine Wilson at antoine.wilson@riskm.cccounty.us or (925) 335-1455. You can also visit the web page at www.contracosta.ca.gov/4503/Advisory-Council-on-Equal- Employment-Opp.
Read More
Deadline for submittals is April 5th
Walnut Creek, CA – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-10) announced he will participate in the nationwide 2024 Congressional Art Competition. High school artists living in California’s 10th Congressional District may begin submitting original artwork to his office virtually from now through Friday, April 5th. The winning piece will be selected by a panel of local judges who will view all artwork electronically and announced at a reception to celebrate all participants following the submission deadline.
Participants may submit one photograph or scan of their artwork, taken in the highest possible resolution, to kaylee.deland@mail.house.gov. Submissions must include the Student Release Form. Artwork entered in the contest may be up to 26 inches by 26 inches, may be up to 4 inches in depth, and not weigh more than 15 pounds. If your artwork is selected as the winning piece, it must arrive framed and must still measure no larger than the above maximum dimensions.
- Paintings – including oil, acrylics, and watercolor
- Drawings – including pastels, colored pencil, pencil, charcoal, ink, and markers (It is recommended that charcoal and pastel drawings be fixed.)
- Collages – must be two dimensional
- Prints – including lithographs, silkscreen, and block prints
- Mixed Media – use of more than two mediums such as pencil, ink, watercolor, etc.
- Computer-generated art
- Photography
All entries must be original in concept, design and execution and may not violate any U.S. copyright laws. Any entry that has been copied from an existing photo or image (including a painting, graphic, or advertisement) that was created by someone other than the student is a violation of the competition rules and will not be accepted. Work entered must be in the original medium (that is, not a scanned reproduction of a painting or drawing).
The rules for the 2024 competition are available here or on House.gov.
“Every year I am so impressed by the talent of the students in our district who participate in the Congressional Art Competition,” said DeSaulnier. “I am pleased to again host this event as an opportunity for young artists to showcase and be recognized for their creativity.”
The competition is open to all high school students living in California’s 10th Congressional District. The winning piece will be displayed in the U.S. Capitol and the winner will be invited to Washington D.C. to attend a national reception honoring winners from around the country. All submissions must be emailed to Kaylee.deland@mail.house.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. PT on April 5, 2024.
The Congressional Art Competition is a nationwide high school visual art competition to recognize and encourage artistic talent in the nation and in each congressional district. Since the Competition began in 1982, more than 650,000 high school students have participated. Complete contest guidelines and submissions forms are available on the Congressman’s website here. For more information or help submitting artwork, please contact DeSaulnier’s office at 925-933-2660.
Read More