Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • LAUSD application opens next month
    Three young boys with medium light skin tone and brown hair hand their backpacks on a chainlink fence. One is yellow and features Pikachu.
    LAUSD's on-time Choices application opens Oct. 1.

    Topline: 

    The application window for hundreds of Los Angeles Unified schools opens next month. Parents can submit a “Choices” application to several of the district’s specialized academic programs, including magnets, dual language, and some charter schools, starting Oct. 1.

    The backstory: If you want to attend your local school, the process is fairly straightforward, but to send your child to another school or a specialized program within the district, it gets more complicated. LAUSD has worked to streamline what some have called a “confusing maze” of school choices in recent years, but the process still perplexes many families.

    What's next: Later this month, expect to see a schedule of “Choices" fairs where multiple schools gather to share information at in-person and virtual events. The on-time Choices application opens Oct. 1 and is due Nov. 14.

    LAist is here to help: We’ve created guides for:

    The application window for hundreds of Los Angeles Unified schools opens next month.

    Listen 0:48
    LAUSD’s school choice application opens in one month

    Parents can submit a “Choices” application to several of the district’s specialized academic programs, including magnets, dual language, and some charter schools, starting Oct. 1.

    How does it work?

    If you want to attend your local school, the process is fairly straightforward, but to send your child to another school or a specialized program within the district, it gets more complicated.

    LAUSD has worked to streamline its “confusing maze” of school choices in recent years, but the process still perplexes many families.

    There are two windows to apply — on time and late. The latter consists of all the spaces left after families who applied on time accept their offers.

    For the 2026-27 school year, here’s the Choices timeline announced so far:

    • September/October: Multiple schools gather to share information at in-person and virtual “Choices fairs.”
    • Oct. 1: On-time Choices application opens.
    • Nov. 14:  Deadline to apply online or by mail.
    • Feb. 2, 2026:  Late applications begin.
    • March 2026: On-time application results sent.
    • Early April 2026: Deadline to accept or decline school offers for on-time applicants.
    • April 2026: Late selection process begins.

    Independent charter schools have a separate application process that is unique to each school; check those schools' websites for more information.

    How to prepare

    The default option is to attend the assigned school nearest your home, but there are many reasons families may consider another school. Some of these schools are so popular there isn’t room for every student who wants to enroll.

    No one type of school is inherently better than another, and no one metric defines a great school — there are many factors beyond test scores to consider. Here are some of the factors that can contribute to a “good school”:

    You can also check data about student attendance, discipline, and parent surveys on school safety. Here's our guide to doing your own research.

    By far, the most frequent piece of advice we’ve heard is to go on an in-person school tour if possible.

    “The very best thing that people can do is go to the school and try to watch the way that educators interact with students, the way that students interact with each other, and the way that families are included or not in the life of a school,” says Jack Schneider, a University of Massachusetts, Amherst, education researcher and parent. “Once you do that, you really get a sense of what kind of place kids are going to school.”

    Some schools post information about tours online, but you may have to call for details.

    LAUSD also has convened a series of school choice fairs in recent years. Those typically occur, both virtually and in person, in late September and October.

    Meet LAist and learn more

    Over the next few months, the LAist education team will be out in the community talking about our School Game Plan series and distributing a brand new workbook to help guide families through their journey.

    Wed. Sept. 10

    Where: Westchester - Loyola Village Branch Library, 7114 W. Manchester Ave., Los Angeles

    What: Storytime, plus a meet-and-greet with LAist

    When: 10:15-11 a.m.

    Parking: Free, parking lot onsite


    Past events:

    Wed. Sept. 3

    Where: Los Feliz Branch Library, 1874 Hillhurst Ave., Los Angeles

    What: Toddler and baby storytime, plus a meet-and-greet with LAist

    When: 10:30-11:30 a.m.

    Parking: Free, parking lot onsite


    Sun. Sept. 7

    Where: West Hollywood Park, 647 N San Vicente Blvd., West Hollywood

    What: Los Angeles Kids Book Festival, Booth 72

    When: 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Tickets: Free, sign up here

    Parking: 

    All day:

     After 1 p.m.:

  • Detention center pays $100k fine
    A detention center with barb wire fence surrounding it.
    The Golden State Annex, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility run by The GEO Group, in McFarland on July 8, 2024.

    Topline:

    The private immigration detention company GEO Group has settled a landmark case over conditions in one of its Central Valley detention facilities.

    Details: It has agreed to pay more than $100,000 over allegations the company failed to keep detained immigrants safe when they worked inside the facility.

    Why it matters: The settlement, signed in May and announced Tuesday, is a victory for immigrants’ rights groups that have pushed California lawmakers to attempt to regulate conditions inside the federal government’s privately-operated detention facilities.

    The private immigration detention company GEO Group has settled a landmark case over conditions in one of its Central Valley detention facilities. It has agreed to pay more than $100,000 over allegations the company failed to keep detained immigrants safe when they worked inside the facility.

    The settlement, signed in May and announced Tuesday, is a victory for immigrants’ rights groups that have pushed California lawmakers to attempt to regulate conditions inside the federal government’s privately-operated detention facilities.

    Eight such facilities now operate across the state and the number of detained immigrants has spiked during the second Trump presidency.

    During the pandemic, lawmakers passed a measure allowing state inspectors into the facilities. In 2022, after receiving complaints from advocates and detained immigrants at the Golden State Annex facility in McFarland, state workplace safety inspectors from Cal/OSHA opened a case at the center and cited the GEO Group with workplace violations, alleging the company failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among detainees who work there, and ensure other safety measures.

    It was the first known time the state has treated immigrant detainees as workers and their detention facility operators as employers subject to state labor laws.

    Immigrants held in ICE custody are detained on civil violations, not imprisoned for crimes. But in detention, where they can participate in a “voluntary work program” cleaning the facility, preparing food or cutting other detainees’ hair, they are only paid $1 a day. Detainees often participate in order to afford food at the centers’ commissaries or calls to their families.

    As part of the settlement between GEO Group and Cal/OSHA, the company has agreed to improve its disease control plans for detainees and stopped fighting a ruling by state regulators last year that said the company was subject to state labor laws. GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment.

    “Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” agency spokesperson Denisse Gomez wrote in a statement.

    Detention facility operators and federal immigration officials have continued to clash with state and local regulators over conditions. Last month, a federal judge sided with San Diego County health officials and ordered the Department of Homeland Security and its contractor CoreCivic to allow a county inspector into the 1,400-bed Otay Mesa Detention Center near the Mexico border. That company last week sold the facility and another one in Kern County to the federal government, CalMatters reported.

    And amid several federal lawsuits challenging the practice of paying just $1 a day for detainee work, GEO Group succeeded last month in getting ICE to update its standards for detention contractors, the Washington Post reported. The new standards state detainees “are not entitled to wages or benefits under applicable wage laws or labor regulations.”

  • Sponsored message
  • UC, Cal State win big in new spending plan
    Various students walk thru an outdoor brick and concrete walkway surrounded by grassy fields and trees.
    Students walk on campus at Cal State Long Beach.

    Topline:

    California’s public colleges and universities emerged as winners in the latest state budget after lawmakers sent them hundreds of millions of dollars in new public spending. However, that largesse was tempered by decisions by Democrats in Sacramento to reject bond measures that could have awarded campuses billions more.

    Why now? The changes were enshrined in the state budget for 2026-27 that the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom approved last week.

    Other budget windfalls: Students were also major beneficiaries, as lawmakers continued to support one of the nation’s most generous state financial aid programs. The Cal Grant, which generally covers tuition at the University of California and California State University and partial tuition at private colleges, remains fully funded as part of an ongoing commitment by lawmakers and Newsom to keep student costs down.

    Read on... for a breakdown of higher education’s wins and losses in California.

    California’s public colleges and universities emerged as winners in the latest state budget after lawmakers sent them hundreds of millions of dollars in new public spending. However, that largesse was tempered by decisions by Democrats in Sacramento to reject bond measures that could have awarded campuses billions more.

    The changes were enshrined in the state budget for 2026-27 that the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom approved last week.

    Students were also major beneficiaries, as lawmakers continued to support one of the nation’s most generous state financial aid programs. The Cal Grant, which generally covers tuition at the University of California and California State University and partial tuition at private colleges, remains fully funded as part of an ongoing commitment by lawmakers and Newsom to keep student costs down.

    UC and Cal State students receiving the Cal Grants will have their tuition charges waived, even as schools continue to raise tuition. And more affordable student housing may be built soon if voters approve a bond that lawmakers and Newsom put on the ballot for November.

    Prioritizing higher education spending will be “a strong part of Gov. Newsom’s legacy,” said Jessica L. Thompson, a senior vice president at The Institute for College Access & Success. The organization is a think tank that advocates for increased financial aid for low-income students.

    “We’ve never had to work to convince the executive branch that public higher education was incredibly important and central to a lot of the ambitions for the state and for the future, and that’s not something to take for granted,” she told CalMatters.

    Still, the smaller Middle Class Scholarship, which last year awarded recipients an average of $3,000 in aid to cover school expenses, will decrease to an average of $2,000 this year.

    Here’s a breakdown of higher education’s wins and losses in California.

    More money for UC, Cal State

    The UC and Cal State systems each received more than $500 million in ongoing taxpayer support that can be used to hire faculty as they enroll more students and keep up with other expenses, such as rising energy, insurance and staff health costs.

    That public generosity isn’t guaranteed. Public K-12 schools and community colleges are constitutionally guaranteed around 40% of the state’s general fund. But public universities have no such ironclad dibs on state money.

    The Legislature’s top budget and policy adviser, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, recommended smaller increases for the universities in February. The office cited projected multibillion-dollar state deficits. And it argued that both systems can still rely on new revenue from their annual tuition hikes.

    Newsom’s eight-year tenure coincided with dramatic spikes in state spending for each system. The year before he took office, the UC and Cal State each received about $3.7 billion in state support. The latest budget act sends more than $5 billion to each system from the state’s general fund.

    That’s a growth of 50% — but less than the 80% in overall state spending increase Sacramento approved from the general fund during that span.

    The latest university increases are a combination of new ongoing money for the two university systems and the restoration of more than $100 million in funding cuts that lawmakers applied to both the UC and Cal State in last year’s budget.

    That drop in money prompted an ongoing impasse between Cal State and unionized workers. Cal State argued the funding cut prevented the system from honoring full raises for thousands of its staff; some unions disagreed by pointing to the loan the state offered Cal State to make up for last year’s cut. Cal State said that doesn’t count since it has to repay that loan.

    One large union of 36,000 administrative and groundskeeping workers, CSUEU, filed an unfair labor practice charge against Cal State last July. The union contends that last year’s budget triggered a union contract clause to put workers on higher experience levels. Each “step” increase comes with a 2% raise. Cal State advanced workers one step, but the union says some were supposed to climb five or more steps.

    CSUEU expects to come to a deal with Cal State on the grievance in the next month — before the state California Public Employment Relations Board is set to issue a decision in August.

    The union also seeks 11% raises annually for the next three years. It hasn’t sought approval from its members to strike, but the union has threatened work stoppages.

    Students mostly benefit

    The budget deal continues to fully fund the Cal Grant, a politically popular program that has no guaranteed stream of funding like public K-12 schools and community colleges do.

    Since 2015, the number of Cal Grant recipients has grown from around 330,000 to more than 450,000. State spending also leaped from about $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    A major reason for the expansion of students receiving the grant is a set of relaxed rules lawmakers approved in 2021. Those permitted more than 100,000 community college students older than 28 to qualify for the Cal Grant each year. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Cal Grant’s costs grew by $167 million last year just from those rule changes alone.

    The annual tuition hikes at UC, starting in 2022, and Cal State, beginning in 2024, have also pushed the price tag on the Cal Grant higher. About a quarter of the increased costs of Cal Grants for UC and CSU in the last decade is due to tuition increases, the analyst’s office wrote in February.

    A smaller financial aid program is dropping in value, however. The Middle Class Scholarship will receive $680 million, enough for an average of about $2,000 for its roughly 350,000 UC and Cal State student recipients. Last year Sacramento funded the program at nearly $1 billion, and the average award was $3,000. The drop in spending was a way to balance the state budget, which cannot run deficits.
    The decrease may mean students work more hours or take out loans, though most UC and Cal State undergraduates complete their degrees with no debt.

    Bond money is a mixed record

    Still, higher education fell short in legislator-backed bonds.

    One measure that appears to be dead for now is a $12 billion bond that would award science grants to universities and other research organizations. The UC and the union of graduate student workers, whose wages often rely on grant research money, advocated fiercely for it.

    Proposed by Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, the measure was viewed as a backstop against the Trump administration’s aggressive attempts to terminate existing and new research funding for the University of California and other campuses.

    Trump alleged the affected grants violated his prohibitions on research into diversity issues and climate change; many of the grants sought to better understand diseases, new pharmaceuticals, cancer and dementia. The UC system alone collected $3 billion in federal research grant money in 2024-25 — nearly half of its research funding.

    At one point last year the Trump administration froze or terminated more than 1,000 California science grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. Public tracking site Grant Witness indicates that most of those have been restored through various court orders after professors sued last year. But tens of millions of dollars in grants remain on pause in California from those research agencies, while nearly $900 million is frozen from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a legislative analysis for Wiener’s measure.

    Wiener told CalMatters in January that the bond funding would protect California from an unpredictable Washington, D.C. While Trump sought major cuts to science research agencies in his proposed budget, Congress rebuffed him. Still, experts believe fewer grants will be awarded to researchers under new Trump administration funding rules.

    Wiener’s bond measure sailed through the Senate but stalled in the Assembly, never getting out of a key committee in time to beat the deadline to appear on the November ballot.

    Nick Miller, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat from Salinas, said in an email that “Trump’s full-scale assault on California touches nearly every public service and program.

    “Legislators face real, painful choices,” he added.

    Several legislative and political insiders told CalMatters that another reason the science research bond didn’t advance was because some lawmakers worried it would lower the chances that voters in November approve an $11 billion affordable housing bond. That housing measure was a priority for the Assembly.

    Another proposed bond would have allowed the UC and Cal State to reduce their backlog of aging structures and build new ones. An effort by Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat from Chula Vista, to put a measure on the November ballot fizzled by late June. It had no price tag. His office said that Newsom’s Department of Finance determined that the state lacked the money in future budgets to repay the debt owed on such a bond.

    Cal State reports that more than half of its academic buildings are at least 50 years old. The system’s five-year construction plan includes $24 billion in projects. UC’s campuses and hospitals say they’re short $46 billion in funding for infrastructure projects.

    Students and faculty in recent years complained of broken air conditioners during heat waves and downed heaters when the mercury drops. The temperature swings affect expensive laboratory equipment and campuses have also endured floods.

    The last time voters approved a facilities bond for the public universities was 2006. Both systems can issue bonds for construction, but their borrowing ability is limited because those debt payments come out of their annual budgets. Voters rejected a $15 billion facilities bond for schools in 2020 that would have provided the two systems $2 billion each. A subsequent bond that voters approved excluded UC and Cal State entirely.

    “It’s too soon to plan for 2028 ballot measures but a facilities bond will remain within Alvarez’s priorities for sure,” spokesperson Chris Jonsmyr wrote in an email.

    A silver construction lining is student dormitory money included in the $11 billion affordable housing bond measure on the ballot this November. If voters approve, Cal State and UC would each get $175 million to continue a state program to build housing that campuses would rent to low-income students at below market rates.

    For UC, $175 million may be enough to construct around 1,700 beds for low-income students. Housing plans approved by the UC Board of Regents in the past four years that CalMatters reviewed range from $200,000 to $300,000 per bed — high costs fueled by ever-rising construction expenses and stratospheric land prices where the mostly coastal campuses are located.

    Last fall 9,900 UC students were on waitlists for campus housing, according to data CalMatters requested from the UC Office of the President. The potential addition of affordable beds would complement UC’s ongoing housing construction blitz. It intends to add some 15,000 additional student housing slots by 2030.

    The system needs it: The average occupancy rate is 104% across the system’s student housing network, UC data show. That means rooms designed as doubles become triples to absorb the inflow.

  • Site is LA County's first historic neighborhood
    A dark green house with red window paneling is surrounded by bushes. There is a green front lawn and a cement path leads to the home's front door. A large tree sits out front.
    Altadena’s unincorporated Historic Highlands is now L.A. County’s first historic district.

    Topline:

    As of today, Altadena’s Historic Highlands neighborhood is L.A. County’s first historic district.

    Background: Last year, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors approved the designation following a years-long effort to preserve the area. The Historic Highlands neighborhood is known for its Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor and other period architectural styles that set Altadena apart.

    What does it mean? The historic designation means that the unique architecture of nearly 80 homes will be preserved. The neighborhood is bordered by North Lane, Washington Boulevard, North Lake Avenue and New York Drive.

    A black and white map shows a thick black line separating the city of Pasadena from unicorporated Altadena. Homes highlighted in orange represent the Historic Highlands neighborhood.
    Altadena’s unincorporated Historic Highlands neighborhood is one step closer to becoming L.A. County’s first historic district.
    (
    Courtesy of the Historic Highlands Neighborhood Association
    /
    Historic Highlands Neighborhood Association
    )

    Why it matters: L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger said the designation was important prior to the Easton Fire, but the disaster made the move even more critical. “It preserves the Historic Highlands' unique character and the architectural heritage for future generations,” Barger told LAist. “Knowing that the fire destroyed thousands of structures, preserving neighborhoods like this maintains that sense of place that makes Altadena special.”

    Dig deeperAltadena’s Historic Highlands was spared by the fires. It’s now trying to be LA County’s first historic district

  • Agent faces probation, $20K fine in post-fire case
    A man with dark skin tone and a woman with dark skin tone stand near a property that has burned down.
    Altadena residents inspect their destroyed property after the Eaton Fire.

    Topline:

    A real estate agent who calls himself “Mr La Cañada” has been sentenced after facing one of first criminal price gouging charges filed in the wake of last year’s Los Angeles County fires.

    The sentence: California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Thursday that Mike Kobeissi will face 12 months of probation, 100 days of community service, mandatory ethics training and a requirement to pay $20,000 to a disaster relief fund.

    The agent’s response: Kobeissi’s attorney, Dale Galipo, said his client was not ultimately sentenced for violating the section of California’s penal code related to post-disaster price gouging. He was instead convicted of false advertising in a separate misdemeanor charge.

    Bonta’s office said the case started when a couple who lost their home in the Eaton Fire applied to rent a property listed by Kobeissi. After they submitted their application, they were told the rent had increased 38% from the listed price. At the time the charges were filed, Kobeissi told LAist that prosecutors had it “all wrong.”

    Read on… to learn how this sentencing fits into the broader story of post-fire price gouging enforcement.

    A real estate agent who calls himself “Mr La Cañada” has been sentenced after facing one of first criminal price gouging charges filed in the wake of last year’s Los Angeles County fires.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Thursday that Mike Kobeissi will face 12 months of probation, 100 days of community service, mandatory ethics training and a requirement to pay $20,000 to a disaster relief fund.

    “May this announcement serve as a stern warning to those who would seek to further victimize those who have lost everything,” Bonta said in a statement. “My office is aggressively and relentlessly pursuing those who are trying to make a quick buck off someone else’s pain.”

    Kobeissi’s attorney, Dale Galipo, said his client was not ultimately sentenced for violating the section of California’s penal code related to post-disaster price gouging. He was instead convicted of false advertising in a separate misdemeanor charge.

    “This was an unfortunate situation,” Galipo said. “Mike did not make $1 off of this situation. And it’s unfortunate that it happened, but we were happy to get it resolved.”

    The 38% rent hike that led to the sentencing

    In January 2025, shortly after the fires destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades, Bonta’s office charged Kobeissi with violating the state’s ban on post-disaster price gouging.

    The law prohibited raising rents by more than 10% from their advertised levels before the fire. With thousands of displaced families flooding the rental market all at once, many prospective tenants reported widespread violations of the law.

    Bonta’s office said the case started when a couple who lost their home in the Eaton Fire applied to rent a property listed by Kobeissi. After they submitted their application, they were told the rent had increased 38% from the listed price. They declined to rent the property and notified the Attorney General’s Office.

    LAist asked Bonta’s office why the price gouging charge was dropped, but we did not receive an immediate answer.

    What the agent said at the time

    When LAist first reached Kobeissi for comment on the charges last year, he initially said prosecutors had it “all wrong.”

    “I should be rewarded,” he told LAist at the time. “It's completely opposite, what they are claiming.”

    Kobeissi will be required to submit an apology letter to the couple as part of his sentencing.

    Prosecutors have charged a handful of other real estate agents and landlords for violating the ban on post-fire price gouging. It remains to be seen what sentences they might face.

    Tenant advocates with a group called The Rent Brigade say overall enforcement has been weak, given how few cases were filed in relation to the 18,360 listings they found featuring likely violations.

    L.A. County’s ban on post-fire rent gouging lasted for about 16 months before elected officials decided to end it in May.